If we are depending on the current top heavy system of financialized politicized monopoly "capitalism" run by eccentric multi-billionaire hedge fund managers and "entrepreneurs" whose only real skill is buying up networked monopolies, hyping IPOs and doing other stock (or crypto) manipulations, the only guarantee is that our energy will not be clean, housing won't be affordable, AI based surveillance will be the only growth industry and the rich will continue to get richer while we continue to get poorer. Your vision is compelling and inspiring. Sorry I can't be more optimistic.
Thank you. And there are plenty of good reasons for pessimism.
Nonetheless, I feel like there's also a role for imagining what more positive scenarios might be. What that role is may be nothing more than personal interest and enjoyment. But even so, I think that's OK.
I'm hoping Americans will be able to make changes to the underlying system to allow something like the positive vision you describe become real. With much of our political landscape in flux now, that's perhaps more possible than we might imagine.
Bravo! I like the term Ecohumanist Liberalism, although I try to avoid terms that end in “ist,” “ism,” etc. Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, and even Liberalism all tend to segregate and separate in ways that work against the integration of humans with each other and undermine our universal affinity (identity) with nature. Capitalism and communism are incorrigibly materialistic, so whatever path we choose to avoid and counter those pernicious views of reality requires a spiritual aspect that unites rather than divides. Politics, ethics, aesthetics, and even religion easily fall into the trap of seeking a materialistic solution for spiritual problems. Thanks for this thought-provoking blog.
Interesting point about the "-isms." I debated with myself for a long time about whether I was still on board with "liberalism" in any sense (given that its contemporary manifestations of liberalism I don't like much at all. Abundance in on the better end, and I'm not even enthused about much of that. So.)
Ultimately, what made me decide to stick with "liberalism" (even though I believe that any liberalism worth defending today has yet to be developed, I think it needs a radical overhaul) is that: 1) it's the core American political tradition and therefore the deepest cultural resource that we have to work with; 2) I value pluralism and think America requires it; liberalism is the tradition we have that upholds that value the best; and 3) with qualifications, I still like the basic individual rights and freedoms paradigm that's at the core of liberalism. I don't agree with the post-liberal right and left that the entire liberal tradition is irredeemable; I just think it needs a lot of rethinking.
On the whole, that doesn't seem to be happening, of course. And I do honestly feel like liberalism is for now is in well deserved disrepute and unlikely to be revived. However, I'd still like it to be revived in new forms if possible, and believe many other people would, too. So I am interested in imagining what that might look like.
Thinking about Ecohumanist Liberalism": the critique of the technocratic materialism of :Abundance" - and of modern capitalism, communism, and fascism resonates. Not sure how much actuality or traction any use of any "ism" can have. (cf: Al's comment below) As for our relationship to the natural world, passages in the Bible, and European notions of the nature and importance of concept of property are deeply embedded. and point to an explanation of, of the need for, and the challenge of, as E.O. Wilson argues in "Half Earth", setting aside large tracts of the most biodiverse regions of our planet to preserve enough biodiversity to counteract the extinction event we are currently confronting. To what extent do the fundamental values of liberalism support, and to what extant do they oppose, or come up short in guiding us to a future in which we clever dangerous animals can survive and thrive?
Thanks for your comment! To be clear, in my ideal world I would be in favor of "setting aside large tracts of the most biodiverse regions of our planet" (although I'm not sure about half the Earth). My perspective in this post was speaking to the debate between those who advocate for regenerative farming versus lab-grown foods. Ezra Klein is in the latter camp whereas I'm in the former. (A great film to see that makes the regenerative case is "Kiss the Ground." https://kissthegroundmovie.com
As far as the "isms" go, isn't it really in a sense a question of the extent to which ideas matter in social change? Because the "isms" are simply collective patterns of ideas. I think ideas do matter (along with a lot of other factors). And while liberalism may be past its expiration date, I'm not convinced that trashing it is better than reformulating it. The main reason being that I think that working with the cultural resources you have is potentially more doable than trying to throw them all in the trash bin of history and start over.
That said, I think that liberalism in its current form cannot lead us into a better future. However, if it were radically rethought and reformulated, it potentially could. Here, I am not thinking of liberalism as a fixed, specific set of ideas, but rather a very general framework that can be and has been interpreted in very different ways.
This was a compelling read, thank you. One of the many things that jumped out to me about this as a center right person who knows many firm conservatives is that this is an attractive cross partisan vision in many ways and would do well to heal the divide in this country if adopted. The only tweaks I would make for conservatives would be to omit the "mostly vegetarian" (which seemed optional to begin with) and to add the option of religious services into your community visions. The beauty of this is that a secular vegetarian leftie family could live very peacefully with a religious paleo rightie family without needing to live in parallel societies.
Great points and I am glad to hear that. I could easily jettison the "mostly vegetarian" (if people are eating pastured meat, I'm fine with however much they want to do that. "Mostly vegetarian" is really just my personal preference).
And, I had actually been planning to put in a statement along the lines of "keeping some version of 'the Sabbath' has been reinstated as the norm, with businesses closing one day a week and people taking that time to spend time with family, in worship, in nature, or with whatever activity nurtures them in a positive way on a soul (or whatever you want to call it) level." But I ended up forgetting about that edit before I hit "publish."
Thanks, Carol, for unpacking the "ewww" I also felt in reading early reviews of the overly lauded Abundance, and for articulating a preferable alternative vision.
I just want to note, without denying that the Democrats have serious problems - not least, being overly committed to corporate capitalism - that Obamacare and Biden's build back better program are evidence that genuine social progress can be made while also embracing diversity and inclusion.
"Diversity and inclusion" have become words overly loaded with negative connotations, and often for good reason, unfortunately. Which is a terrible thing, as America has always been a diverse country. And including everyone on a level of presumptive equality and respect has long been a positive goal - and one that we should definitively never abandon.
Like liberalism itself, though, I see these terms as representing values that need to be re-articulated in ways that would work better today. Without an overhaul, at this point that language has become counter-productive when it comes to bringing the true diversity that is America together in a positive way. For starters, conservative religious people also need to be included in the concept of what "diversity" includes.
Again, I agree those terms have become highly problematic, not least because of the bureaucratization of DEI programs; but I also feel that too much of the discourse surrounding them is governed by the most intolerant of the Warriors against Woke.
I also agree that reclaiming that ground requires making space for religious conservatives to live according to their faith and convictions, providing they refrain from trying to impose their beliefs and values on the rest of us. I've been thinking a lot about Popper's Paradox of Tolerance lately, especially in relation to the self-proclaimed Conservative Christians, who appear to be neither conservative nor Christian in either word or deed.
But my previous comment was not intended to champion diversity and inclusion, nor to champion the Democrats. Rather, I was responding to an inference in your post that the Democrats' efforts could be reduced to defending a DEI agenda; they may be culpable of overreach in that area, but we should also acknowledge their laudable efforts to extend and protect health care, and for that matter, democracy. Especially in the context of Trump's MAGA movement.
I think I misunderstood your initial comment. It sounds like perhaps you interpreted my dig at the campaign to "dismantle the gender binary" as a reference to DEI? If so, I actually see those as two different issues, although certainly united under the "woke" umbrella.
No doubt, you and I will continue to agree about much that is deeply problematic about modern liberalism, AND most likely continue to (respectfully, I hope) disagree about how to go beyond to a more meaningful vision.
First, excellent column; one of the best I've seen of yours.
Ok, a little history.
I recall being utterly disillusioned with the Old Left in the mid 1960s, when I began, in my mid teens, to investigate the possibilities of world change.
The New Left, on the other hand, at its best (before veering off into all that you have rightly critiqued) seemed very much dedicated to this kind of vision:
"Nature, the Creation, the Mystery, the Universe, or whatever you want to call it, which is infinitely more vast, powerful, and awe-inspiring than ourselves."
I remember, during a period in the late 1990s when I was a frequent presenter at the New York Center, speaking with a very popular writer, Michael Dowd (author of "Thank God for Evolution). He actually rather meekly (and with some appropriate embarrassment) admitted that he wanted to appeal to everyone from atheists to fundamentalists by using vague words which the atheist could interpret as "our merely subjective projection of meaning and awe on what is objectively a completely meaningless, purposeless, random universe," or as "the awe inspiring manifestation of a God who loves each of us personally."
I saw many attempts to blend spirituality and politics and found few if any to be less bland and meaningless. However, there was EF Schumacher, who wrote about education in his stunningly brilliant and wise book, "Small is Beautiful."
He spoke of the universe as an ever evolving manifestation of a Divine Consciousness which we may discover directly, by direct experience, in the depths of our own hearts as well as in the world around us.
This was the early 1970s, when psychology and neuroscience had barely begun to accept the possibility of using the word 'Mind."
Twenty years later, David Chalmers spoke, in Scientific American, of the hard problem of consciousness, which an increasing number of scientists are admitting is simply incapable of being solved with our present method of science.
I saw this coming when I was 17, but never thought I would live to see it. Now, 55 years later, I see almost monthly a growing number of internationally renowned scientists echoing quantum mechanics pioneer Max Planck's observation that "Consciousness is the fundamental thing in the universe."
But even knowing this intellectually won't solve humanity's (much less liberalism's) problems. Only when we reorient our lives so we can recognize this fundamental Consciousness directly - and even more important, live the wisdom inherent in it in our day to day lives, will all of our problems pale in comparison to this direct experiential recognition of the awe inspiring mystery of the Creation, the universe, which is infinitely more vast and powerful than anything our ordinary human reason can imagine.
Perhaps our difference is that the best case scenario I can imagine (which doesn't mean that I think it will actually come to pass, but it is within the realm of possibility for me) is a society that has more of a respected cultural place for religious/spiritual values and experience, while still being pluralistic and tolerant (a tall order, but part of the liberal tradition as I understand it).
Even in the best case scenario with that, though, I don't believe that most humans will ever ascend to a higher level of Consciousness. Basically, I think that the story of the Fall captures something fundamental about the human condition, and that is unchangeable. But we can work with it in better or worse ways.
I have a vague memory of "Small is Beautiful" being popular; it would be interesting to revisit that again.
Actually, you may be surprised to see that I agree with you (at least) 101% on this:
the best case scenario I can imagine (which doesn't mean that I think it will actually come to pass, but it is within the realm of possibility for me) is a society that has more of a respected cultural place for religious/spiritual values and experience, while still being pluralistic and tolerant (a tall order, but part of the liberal tradition as I understand it).
***
If you just added, "the best case within our lifetimes" it would be perfect. I happen to believe the evolution of consciousness is dramatically speeding up but in terms your and my practical goals, we can easily work together for you expressed above without even having to address this point.
the next question is - is someone like James Talarico a good model for the more respected place of R/S values? Or the Dalai Lama who steadfastly over more than half a century simply states that "mine is a religion of kindness, love and compassion."
I honestly don't know but I've devoted my adult life to(since 1970) to this question.
Thanks for this thought-provoking essay (and sparing me the burden of reading thev Thompson/Klein book). :-)
Lol. I did read it! And tried to be fair.
I completely agree with you, Carol!!
If we are depending on the current top heavy system of financialized politicized monopoly "capitalism" run by eccentric multi-billionaire hedge fund managers and "entrepreneurs" whose only real skill is buying up networked monopolies, hyping IPOs and doing other stock (or crypto) manipulations, the only guarantee is that our energy will not be clean, housing won't be affordable, AI based surveillance will be the only growth industry and the rich will continue to get richer while we continue to get poorer. Your vision is compelling and inspiring. Sorry I can't be more optimistic.
Thank you. And there are plenty of good reasons for pessimism.
Nonetheless, I feel like there's also a role for imagining what more positive scenarios might be. What that role is may be nothing more than personal interest and enjoyment. But even so, I think that's OK.
I'm hoping Americans will be able to make changes to the underlying system to allow something like the positive vision you describe become real. With much of our political landscape in flux now, that's perhaps more possible than we might imagine.
Bravo! I like the term Ecohumanist Liberalism, although I try to avoid terms that end in “ist,” “ism,” etc. Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, and even Liberalism all tend to segregate and separate in ways that work against the integration of humans with each other and undermine our universal affinity (identity) with nature. Capitalism and communism are incorrigibly materialistic, so whatever path we choose to avoid and counter those pernicious views of reality requires a spiritual aspect that unites rather than divides. Politics, ethics, aesthetics, and even religion easily fall into the trap of seeking a materialistic solution for spiritual problems. Thanks for this thought-provoking blog.
Thank you! Appreciate it.
Interesting point about the "-isms." I debated with myself for a long time about whether I was still on board with "liberalism" in any sense (given that its contemporary manifestations of liberalism I don't like much at all. Abundance in on the better end, and I'm not even enthused about much of that. So.)
Ultimately, what made me decide to stick with "liberalism" (even though I believe that any liberalism worth defending today has yet to be developed, I think it needs a radical overhaul) is that: 1) it's the core American political tradition and therefore the deepest cultural resource that we have to work with; 2) I value pluralism and think America requires it; liberalism is the tradition we have that upholds that value the best; and 3) with qualifications, I still like the basic individual rights and freedoms paradigm that's at the core of liberalism. I don't agree with the post-liberal right and left that the entire liberal tradition is irredeemable; I just think it needs a lot of rethinking.
On the whole, that doesn't seem to be happening, of course. And I do honestly feel like liberalism is for now is in well deserved disrepute and unlikely to be revived. However, I'd still like it to be revived in new forms if possible, and believe many other people would, too. So I am interested in imagining what that might look like.
Thinking about Ecohumanist Liberalism": the critique of the technocratic materialism of :Abundance" - and of modern capitalism, communism, and fascism resonates. Not sure how much actuality or traction any use of any "ism" can have. (cf: Al's comment below) As for our relationship to the natural world, passages in the Bible, and European notions of the nature and importance of concept of property are deeply embedded. and point to an explanation of, of the need for, and the challenge of, as E.O. Wilson argues in "Half Earth", setting aside large tracts of the most biodiverse regions of our planet to preserve enough biodiversity to counteract the extinction event we are currently confronting. To what extent do the fundamental values of liberalism support, and to what extant do they oppose, or come up short in guiding us to a future in which we clever dangerous animals can survive and thrive?
Thanks for your comment! To be clear, in my ideal world I would be in favor of "setting aside large tracts of the most biodiverse regions of our planet" (although I'm not sure about half the Earth). My perspective in this post was speaking to the debate between those who advocate for regenerative farming versus lab-grown foods. Ezra Klein is in the latter camp whereas I'm in the former. (A great film to see that makes the regenerative case is "Kiss the Ground." https://kissthegroundmovie.com
As far as the "isms" go, isn't it really in a sense a question of the extent to which ideas matter in social change? Because the "isms" are simply collective patterns of ideas. I think ideas do matter (along with a lot of other factors). And while liberalism may be past its expiration date, I'm not convinced that trashing it is better than reformulating it. The main reason being that I think that working with the cultural resources you have is potentially more doable than trying to throw them all in the trash bin of history and start over.
That said, I think that liberalism in its current form cannot lead us into a better future. However, if it were radically rethought and reformulated, it potentially could. Here, I am not thinking of liberalism as a fixed, specific set of ideas, but rather a very general framework that can be and has been interpreted in very different ways.
This was a compelling read, thank you. One of the many things that jumped out to me about this as a center right person who knows many firm conservatives is that this is an attractive cross partisan vision in many ways and would do well to heal the divide in this country if adopted. The only tweaks I would make for conservatives would be to omit the "mostly vegetarian" (which seemed optional to begin with) and to add the option of religious services into your community visions. The beauty of this is that a secular vegetarian leftie family could live very peacefully with a religious paleo rightie family without needing to live in parallel societies.
Great points and I am glad to hear that. I could easily jettison the "mostly vegetarian" (if people are eating pastured meat, I'm fine with however much they want to do that. "Mostly vegetarian" is really just my personal preference).
And, I had actually been planning to put in a statement along the lines of "keeping some version of 'the Sabbath' has been reinstated as the norm, with businesses closing one day a week and people taking that time to spend time with family, in worship, in nature, or with whatever activity nurtures them in a positive way on a soul (or whatever you want to call it) level." But I ended up forgetting about that edit before I hit "publish."
Thanks, Carol, for unpacking the "ewww" I also felt in reading early reviews of the overly lauded Abundance, and for articulating a preferable alternative vision.
I just want to note, without denying that the Democrats have serious problems - not least, being overly committed to corporate capitalism - that Obamacare and Biden's build back better program are evidence that genuine social progress can be made while also embracing diversity and inclusion.
"Diversity and inclusion" have become words overly loaded with negative connotations, and often for good reason, unfortunately. Which is a terrible thing, as America has always been a diverse country. And including everyone on a level of presumptive equality and respect has long been a positive goal - and one that we should definitively never abandon.
Like liberalism itself, though, I see these terms as representing values that need to be re-articulated in ways that would work better today. Without an overhaul, at this point that language has become counter-productive when it comes to bringing the true diversity that is America together in a positive way. For starters, conservative religious people also need to be included in the concept of what "diversity" includes.
Again, I agree those terms have become highly problematic, not least because of the bureaucratization of DEI programs; but I also feel that too much of the discourse surrounding them is governed by the most intolerant of the Warriors against Woke.
I also agree that reclaiming that ground requires making space for religious conservatives to live according to their faith and convictions, providing they refrain from trying to impose their beliefs and values on the rest of us. I've been thinking a lot about Popper's Paradox of Tolerance lately, especially in relation to the self-proclaimed Conservative Christians, who appear to be neither conservative nor Christian in either word or deed.
But my previous comment was not intended to champion diversity and inclusion, nor to champion the Democrats. Rather, I was responding to an inference in your post that the Democrats' efforts could be reduced to defending a DEI agenda; they may be culpable of overreach in that area, but we should also acknowledge their laudable efforts to extend and protect health care, and for that matter, democracy. Especially in the context of Trump's MAGA movement.
I think I misunderstood your initial comment. It sounds like perhaps you interpreted my dig at the campaign to "dismantle the gender binary" as a reference to DEI? If so, I actually see those as two different issues, although certainly united under the "woke" umbrella.
No doubt, you and I will continue to agree about much that is deeply problematic about modern liberalism, AND most likely continue to (respectfully, I hope) disagree about how to go beyond to a more meaningful vision.
First, excellent column; one of the best I've seen of yours.
Ok, a little history.
I recall being utterly disillusioned with the Old Left in the mid 1960s, when I began, in my mid teens, to investigate the possibilities of world change.
The New Left, on the other hand, at its best (before veering off into all that you have rightly critiqued) seemed very much dedicated to this kind of vision:
"Nature, the Creation, the Mystery, the Universe, or whatever you want to call it, which is infinitely more vast, powerful, and awe-inspiring than ourselves."
I remember, during a period in the late 1990s when I was a frequent presenter at the New York Center, speaking with a very popular writer, Michael Dowd (author of "Thank God for Evolution). He actually rather meekly (and with some appropriate embarrassment) admitted that he wanted to appeal to everyone from atheists to fundamentalists by using vague words which the atheist could interpret as "our merely subjective projection of meaning and awe on what is objectively a completely meaningless, purposeless, random universe," or as "the awe inspiring manifestation of a God who loves each of us personally."
I saw many attempts to blend spirituality and politics and found few if any to be less bland and meaningless. However, there was EF Schumacher, who wrote about education in his stunningly brilliant and wise book, "Small is Beautiful."
He spoke of the universe as an ever evolving manifestation of a Divine Consciousness which we may discover directly, by direct experience, in the depths of our own hearts as well as in the world around us.
This was the early 1970s, when psychology and neuroscience had barely begun to accept the possibility of using the word 'Mind."
Twenty years later, David Chalmers spoke, in Scientific American, of the hard problem of consciousness, which an increasing number of scientists are admitting is simply incapable of being solved with our present method of science.
I saw this coming when I was 17, but never thought I would live to see it. Now, 55 years later, I see almost monthly a growing number of internationally renowned scientists echoing quantum mechanics pioneer Max Planck's observation that "Consciousness is the fundamental thing in the universe."
But even knowing this intellectually won't solve humanity's (much less liberalism's) problems. Only when we reorient our lives so we can recognize this fundamental Consciousness directly - and even more important, live the wisdom inherent in it in our day to day lives, will all of our problems pale in comparison to this direct experiential recognition of the awe inspiring mystery of the Creation, the universe, which is infinitely more vast and powerful than anything our ordinary human reason can imagine.
Perhaps our difference is that the best case scenario I can imagine (which doesn't mean that I think it will actually come to pass, but it is within the realm of possibility for me) is a society that has more of a respected cultural place for religious/spiritual values and experience, while still being pluralistic and tolerant (a tall order, but part of the liberal tradition as I understand it).
Even in the best case scenario with that, though, I don't believe that most humans will ever ascend to a higher level of Consciousness. Basically, I think that the story of the Fall captures something fundamental about the human condition, and that is unchangeable. But we can work with it in better or worse ways.
I have a vague memory of "Small is Beautiful" being popular; it would be interesting to revisit that again.
Actually, you may be surprised to see that I agree with you (at least) 101% on this:
the best case scenario I can imagine (which doesn't mean that I think it will actually come to pass, but it is within the realm of possibility for me) is a society that has more of a respected cultural place for religious/spiritual values and experience, while still being pluralistic and tolerant (a tall order, but part of the liberal tradition as I understand it).
***
If you just added, "the best case within our lifetimes" it would be perfect. I happen to believe the evolution of consciousness is dramatically speeding up but in terms your and my practical goals, we can easily work together for you expressed above without even having to address this point.
the next question is - is someone like James Talarico a good model for the more respected place of R/S values? Or the Dalai Lama who steadfastly over more than half a century simply states that "mine is a religion of kindness, love and compassion."
I honestly don't know but I've devoted my adult life to(since 1970) to this question.