Daniel Tutt delivers a searing critique of a growing tendency within progressive circles: the belief that shaming and silencing opponents is the most effective weapon against fascism. In an era where political discourse often feels paralyzed by performative purity, Tutt argues that this approach doesn't just fail to stop the right—it actively corrodes the left by turning it inward, obsessed with policing "vibes" rather than confronting material realities. This is a vital intervention for anyone tired of the endless cycle of internal cancellation and looking for a path back to genuine solidarity.
The Quixote Syndrome
Tutt begins by engaging with philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, who recently argued that engaging with the right in open debate only "plays into the fascist script." While Táíwò suggests that the proper response to figures like Charlie Kirk is to refuse debate and instead shame them, Tutt pushes back hard on this strategy. He warns that a strict policy of no-platforming produces what he calls the "Quixote Syndrome." This is a condition where the left becomes so preoccupied with managing discourse and policing who is allowed to speak that it loses sight of the actual fascist threat.
"The left becomes more preoccupied with policing who is allowed to speak, with managing discourse itself, than with actually confronting the fascist threat."
This framing is powerful because it shifts the focus from the content of the right-wing argument to the behavior of the left. Tutt suggests that by labeling everyone from populist publications to class-first thinkers as enemies, the movement collapses all distinctions between reactionary tendencies and genuine dissent. The result is a regression into an upper-middle-class politics that views working-class people with the same patronizing attitude that liberal centrists often display.
Critics might argue that in the face of genuine authoritarianism, the risk of being too inclusive is far greater than the risk of being too exclusive. However, Tutt's point is that this exclusionary logic is not a bug but a feature of a left that has aligned itself too closely with liberal institutions.
"This is what left-liberal unity produces: a regression into an upper-middle-class, hyper-liberal politics that views working-class people in the same patronizing manner that liberal centrists view someone like Graham Platner today."
The Weaponization of Shame
The core of Tutt's argument rests on a deep dive into the psychology of shame. He draws on the work of Frantz Fanon and Jacques Lacan to argue that a politics built on shaming is inherently flawed. For Fanon, shame was the "monster before revolt," a tool used by colonizers to fix subjects into objects. In the modern context, Tutt argues that liberalism requires the expunging of all antagonism from the interior lives of citizens, creating a system where shame is used to police moral boundaries rather than address material conditions.
"A politics of shaming guided by liberal institutions will bottom out into a campaign to cleanse all antagonisms and contradictions, including of course those antagonisms borne from material oppression and exploitation."
Tutt suggests that this approach misses the messiness of human experience. By treating political ideology as a direct reflection of one's interior life, liberals create a false transitivity that divides people unnecessarily. He points out that while the right may stoke resentment, it is the liberal-left that acts as the authority, creating a dynamic where workers feel alienated from the very movements that claim to represent them.
"The liberal-left stands for the passive aggressive affirmation that workers cannot transcend their in-built racism whereas the right perversely stokes workers resentments by granting them permission to indulge and thereby transgress by being racist without any worry of the liberal censor."
This is a provocative claim. It suggests that the strategy of shaming actually empowers the right by allowing them to frame themselves as the only ones willing to speak "honestly" about uncomfortable truths. While this may seem counterintuitive, Tutt's analysis of the psychological impact of shame offers a compelling explanation for why so many working-class voters have drifted toward the right.
The Liberal Trap
Tutt concludes by situating this dynamic within a broader historical-materialist account of liberalism. He argues that liberalism is defined by a refusal to materially improve the dignity of labor and a moral refusal to incorporate working-class values into the universal fabric of politics. When the left accepts the role of liberalism's moral arbiter, it fundamentally overestimates its power and fails to address the root causes of social unrest.
"The liberal in this relationship plays the director (the bad parent that enforces the rules of the game) and as the director, the material dimension of class and the possibility of organizing the exploited is prevented from taking place."
This section is particularly striking in its diagnosis of the current political moment. Tutt suggests that the shift from "the personal is political" to "the political has become personal" represents a fundamental distortion of the class struggle. Instead of politicizing the personal domain, the class struggle has now intervened in the personal, often in ways that liberalism cannot contain or manage.
"Liberalism requires the reproduction of a particular political subject — one stripped of determinate qualities and emptied of interior antagonism."
Critics might note that this analysis risks downplaying the very real dangers of fascist rhetoric and the need for some form of moral boundary-setting. However, Tutt's argument is not that we should ignore fascism, but that the tools we are using to fight it are ultimately self-defeating.
Bottom Line
Daniel Tutt's argument is a necessary corrective to the current obsession with purity and shaming within the left. His strongest point is the insight that a politics of shame inevitably runs amok, creating a cycle of overreach that alienates the very people the left needs to build a movement. The biggest vulnerability in his argument is the practical question of how to engage with genuine authoritarianism without falling into the trap of endless debate or moral compromise. Readers should watch for how this tension plays out in upcoming electoral cycles and social movements, as the left grapples with the need to balance moral clarity with strategic inclusivity.