Why Is The Left Afraid Of Objectivity?

It's an interesting and important question, and it bears some thought.

   First, the left has a general anti-realist orientation. (Not in the specific sense 'antirealism' has developed in philosophy.) The left tends toward a rejection of realism. For whatever reason, it does not like the traditional, standard, more-or-less commonsense view of the world as composed of facts that are almost entirely out of our control, that aren't created by our thought and language, and that are knowable via perception and reason. The left tends to favor...well, a stew of outre views that stand opposed to realism--many of which contradict each other. They tend to favor relativism, various types of contructivism, relativism, subjectivism and so on. I expect that it's because they want to tear down the system and rebuild it to their own specs. These anti- or counter-realist views give them some sort of philosophical story to tell about the ordinary worldview having no special epistemic status--therefore being eliminable basically without loss. Their sloppy relativism/constructivism allows them to avoid the problem of their preferred moral and political views being inconsistent with the facts--the facts, you see, are creations of politics. So objections to the effect that their worldview and their vision of utopia are inconsistent with the facts can be dismissed with a wave of the hand--new facts will be created by the new social order. Truth is a creation of society. New societies will produce new truths. objections that their utopian vision is at odds with the facts are retrograde--typical Western thinking.

   Furthermore, they are, of course, opposed to objective evaluation of their positions. Those positions are more religious than rational. Commitment to the dogma comes first. A cornerstone of the view is that questioning is sinful (aka: politically incorrect, "problematic," etc.). The very last thing the cult wants to happen is for its acolytes to step outside the dogma and look at it objectively. It's such a load of horseshit that anyone of even ordinary intelligence who does so will be led to doubt it. The crazier the view, the more tactically effective it is to prevent debates rather than trying to win them. Questioning the dogma of the cult makes you racist, racist! REASON IS WHITE PRIVILEGE!!!! Also misogyny...or something phobia or whatever! IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE, BIGOT! We're approaching a tipping point! If we don't implement all leftist programs immediately, we're all dead! In ten years! Or whatever! Questioning the cult is sinful! And sinners must be punished...

   The rejection of objectivity is a common part of the rejection of realism and "epistemism" generally. The commonsense worldview, in which morality and politics are constrained by facts and evidence is not what radicals dream of. What they want is free reign to say and think anything they want independently of the burdensome boundaries formed by facts. True radicals don't want their flights of political fancy constrained by limits they cannot talk away by making up new terms and redefining old ones, by insistence, by fervent belief, or by re-education. 

   They insist that objectivity is impossible because they themselves are so dedicated to avoiding it--their view can't survive otherwise. So, like the greedy man who argues that all human actions are ultimately self-interested, the radical argues that all beliefs are subjective. Thus, by ought implies can, neither can be criticized for his moral and intellectual failings. Don't blame me for failing to view my position objectively! Objectivity is impossible! And don't blame me for being greedy! Even saints do what they do because it benefits them!

   This gambit's a complete failure...but you've heard all that before.