Do you know of the podcast Origin Story? In their episode exploring the origin of the phrase "culture war" they talk about how that omnicause idea is a very American tendency, at least wrt what you see playing out in electoral trends... from memory the episode is a few years old and I wonder if it's less true now.
The concept of the “omnicause” captures a real dynamic in contemporary politics—coalitions of issues treated as a single ideological bundle. You clearly situate this within current tribalism and polarization.
Clear, personal voice
The essay is written in an accessible, conversational way—“they can have sex and travel” is irreverent but memorable. Your willingness to disclose your own centrist/ambivalent stances makes it more authentic.
Use of analogy (smallpox vs flu)
This is the strongest intellectual device in the piece. It gives readers a concrete way to think about whether “The Bad Stuff” can be eradicated or merely managed. It shows nuance without cynicism.
Acknowledgment of solidarity motives
You don’t dismiss the “to end X, we must end Y” claims as pure bad faith—you recognize they’re often attempts at coalition-building. That makes your critique more balanced.
Weaknesses / Areas for Improvement
Overgeneralization of “the left” and “the right”
You describe the omnicause mainly as a left-wing phenomenon. You acknowledge similar patterns on the right but don’t explore them. That risks giving the piece a partisan slant, even though your argument is essentially about tribalism across the spectrum.
Evidence base is thin
The piece would benefit from at least a couple of concrete examples where “to end X, we must end Y” claims were made and how they played out.
You mention surveys on racial equality in capitalist democracies—cite one or two for credibility.
Ambiguity about your own stance
You say you find omnicause thinking “stultifying,” but it’s not clear if you see it as merely impractical, intellectually incoherent, or actively harmful. Pinning this down would give the essay more force.
The pragmatic alternative is underdeveloped
You end by suggesting that common cause can be built without collapsing issues into one lump—but you don’t give much detail on how that would work. Without that, the essay risks sounding like pure critique without constructive direction.
Tone risks dismissal
The casual humor works, but phrases like “they can have sex and travel” could come across as flippant rather than incisive. Depending on audience, this may alienate readers who otherwise might agree with you.
Suggestions for Refinement
Broaden the critique: Show how “omnicause” thinking also appears on the right (e.g. linking opposition to immigration with anti-climate action and “anti-woke” stances). That makes the piece about tribal identity politics generally, not just “the left.”
Bring in concrete cases: For example: climate protests where Palestine solidarity banners appear, or conservative groups linking anti-vax activism with opposition to gender diversity education.
Sharpen the thesis: Is your claim that omnicause politics is:
a) Ineffective for building mass movements?
b) Intellectually sloppy and misleading?
c) A natural but counterproductive feature of polarized identity politics?
Offer a constructive alternative: E.g., suggest a “federalist” model of activism—different groups keeping distinct causes but forming alliances on overlapping concerns, without requiring ideological conformity.
Tighten the close: The current ending is witty but a bit throwaway. You could land harder by contrasting the metacrisis discourse (everything lumped together, overwhelming) with a call for focused, achievable campaigns.
✅ Bottom line:
This is already an engaging essay—funny, readable, and intellectually alive. Its main weaknesses are overgeneralization and lack of concrete examples. With a sharper thesis and some evidence, it could be both more persuasive and harder to dismiss as just “centrism disguised as snark.”
PS - this is depressing
https://www.patreon.com/posts/substack-sent-135263203
Do you know of the podcast Origin Story? In their episode exploring the origin of the phrase "culture war" they talk about how that omnicause idea is a very American tendency, at least wrt what you see playing out in electoral trends... from memory the episode is a few years old and I wonder if it's less true now.
Love origin story! And I agree with everything you just said.
Critique from ChatGPT:
Strengths
Timely and relevant
The concept of the “omnicause” captures a real dynamic in contemporary politics—coalitions of issues treated as a single ideological bundle. You clearly situate this within current tribalism and polarization.
Clear, personal voice
The essay is written in an accessible, conversational way—“they can have sex and travel” is irreverent but memorable. Your willingness to disclose your own centrist/ambivalent stances makes it more authentic.
Use of analogy (smallpox vs flu)
This is the strongest intellectual device in the piece. It gives readers a concrete way to think about whether “The Bad Stuff” can be eradicated or merely managed. It shows nuance without cynicism.
Acknowledgment of solidarity motives
You don’t dismiss the “to end X, we must end Y” claims as pure bad faith—you recognize they’re often attempts at coalition-building. That makes your critique more balanced.
Weaknesses / Areas for Improvement
Overgeneralization of “the left” and “the right”
You describe the omnicause mainly as a left-wing phenomenon. You acknowledge similar patterns on the right but don’t explore them. That risks giving the piece a partisan slant, even though your argument is essentially about tribalism across the spectrum.
Evidence base is thin
The piece would benefit from at least a couple of concrete examples where “to end X, we must end Y” claims were made and how they played out.
You mention surveys on racial equality in capitalist democracies—cite one or two for credibility.
Ambiguity about your own stance
You say you find omnicause thinking “stultifying,” but it’s not clear if you see it as merely impractical, intellectually incoherent, or actively harmful. Pinning this down would give the essay more force.
The pragmatic alternative is underdeveloped
You end by suggesting that common cause can be built without collapsing issues into one lump—but you don’t give much detail on how that would work. Without that, the essay risks sounding like pure critique without constructive direction.
Tone risks dismissal
The casual humor works, but phrases like “they can have sex and travel” could come across as flippant rather than incisive. Depending on audience, this may alienate readers who otherwise might agree with you.
Suggestions for Refinement
Broaden the critique: Show how “omnicause” thinking also appears on the right (e.g. linking opposition to immigration with anti-climate action and “anti-woke” stances). That makes the piece about tribal identity politics generally, not just “the left.”
Bring in concrete cases: For example: climate protests where Palestine solidarity banners appear, or conservative groups linking anti-vax activism with opposition to gender diversity education.
Sharpen the thesis: Is your claim that omnicause politics is:
a) Ineffective for building mass movements?
b) Intellectually sloppy and misleading?
c) A natural but counterproductive feature of polarized identity politics?
Offer a constructive alternative: E.g., suggest a “federalist” model of activism—different groups keeping distinct causes but forming alliances on overlapping concerns, without requiring ideological conformity.
Tighten the close: The current ending is witty but a bit throwaway. You could land harder by contrasting the metacrisis discourse (everything lumped together, overwhelming) with a call for focused, achievable campaigns.
✅ Bottom line:
This is already an engaging essay—funny, readable, and intellectually alive. Its main weaknesses are overgeneralization and lack of concrete examples. With a sharper thesis and some evidence, it could be both more persuasive and harder to dismiss as just “centrism disguised as snark.”