During the past few months, I’ve been reassessing where I want to go next with this project. When I launched Liberal Confessions in late 2021, I was driven by a desire to figure out what had happened to the left-liberal politics I’d always identified with and why. As I’ve written about previously, the twinned advents of Trumpism and wokeism (which I now think of as post-liberal progressivism) shocked, disoriented, and confused me. Writing this Substack was a way to sort out my thoughts and reorient while connecting with others who were interested and perhaps experiencing similar feelings.
By last winter, however, this original animating impulse had faded. During the past year, I’d developed a much clearer conception of how my long-standing left-liberal political identity had developed and why it had recently imploded. Since I’m (rather weirdly) wired to chew obsessively on questions such as “what happened to the late 20th-century progressive liberal paradigm I grew up with?” until I’ve arrived at some sort of answer that satisfies, this sense of increased understanding was a relief.
But as is often the case, resolving one issue immediately raised another, namely: OK, then, so — now what?
Hitting a Wall
Initially, I thought that wrapping up this project by fleshing out the conclusions I’d come to more thoroughly was the obvious answer. I’d write up the ideas I’ve sketched out here on Liberal Confessions more comprehensively, as a book. As I started to draft an outline, however, I quickly ran into a major obstacle: Namely, it didn’t feel at all satisfying to commit to a big project that was only about looking backward, particularly when that was colored by a sense of disappointment and loss. In fact, it was downright depressing.
After all, while I wanted to understand the past better, that was never really an end in itself. Deep down, I was hoping to come up with a new narrative about what had happened to American liberal democracy during the course of my lifetime (i.e., from the 1960s onwards) that not only made better sense of the past and present, but could also look forward to an imagined future. Without any sort of positive democratic vision to orient towards, simply parsing the past and present more closely felt increasingly pointless.
Consequently, I focused more on the question of what such a positive new political vision might be. To qualify, it would need to appear both reasonably plausible and inspiring (at least from my own personal perspective). If I could find or craft such a forward-looking paradigm, I figured, then I could move forward with my planned book project.
The problem was (and still is), however, that I couldn’t come up with anything close to the sort of compelling answer I was hoping to find. I’ve looked for a new paradigm to advocate in the work of the many excellent independent political commentators and media sources I follow regularly. But while there’re a lot of important ideas being articulated there that I support fully, there’s no overarching vision that (to mix metaphors) strikes the profoundly resonant chord I’m hoping to hear.
Mostly, there’s a lot of incisive critique of the existing political order. And that is certainly exceedingly valuable. But it does gets get depressing as a steady diet over time. Without a more full-fledged, forward-looking vision to sign onto, learning more and more about how bad things are now tends to generate a strong desire to disengage. I felt this aversion growing in myself and wondered: Rather than launching a book project, should I just hang up the whole thing?
Charting a New Course
Reflecting on this and other related questions, I’ve come to the following provisional conclusions:
I’d like to continue parsing why what I call post-liberal progressivism (a.k.a., wokeism) erupted in the mid-2010s and displaced the left-liberal paradigm I’d grown up with. I have many thoughts on this topic that I haven’t written out and shared yet. I’d like to finish that project as I still find it interesting and worthwhile (if also rather depressing).
That said, looking backward isn’t enough. I also want to develop a more positive and forward-looking political vision. Given that what I’m drawn to is both emergent and well off the beaten path, this will almost certainly take a good long time (if it ever comes together as I’d ideally like it to at all). In the meantime, it can be difficult to stay motivated. In today’s climate, it’s hard to care about politics if you not only don’t identify with Team Red or Team Blue, but actively dislike both.
Plus, it’s not just politics. Today’s Zeitgeist trends strongly negative. Maintaining a positive attitude requires swimming against a powerful cultural tide. And that, too, gets exhausting and can be difficult to maintain.
Consequently, to help myself keep the faith — and hopefully offer something of value to others in the process — I’ve decided to launch a second Substack-based writing project, Re/Generate. In contrast to Liberal Confessions, which focuses on politics and society, Re/Generate will be devoted to sharing resources and inspiration for personal resilience, growth, and renewal.
As I’m currently envisioning it, Re/Generate will feature writing (and perhaps podcasts!) on topics ranging from art, psychology, and spirituality to cooking, travel, and dogs. In all cases, my goal will be to capture something in writing that I’ve personally found to be helpful in living the best everyday life possible, and share it with you.
Housekeeping Details
If you’re currently a subscriber to Liberal Confessions, I’ve taken the liberty of subscribing you to Re/Generate, too. (And if you’re a paid subscriber, I’ve added you at the same level for no extra charge.) This dual subscription setup is only to get going, however. Once Re/Generate is launched, each newsletter will operate independently.
Please note that if you ever want to unsubscribe, you can easily do so by clicking on the icon in the upper-right-hand corner (with three horizontal lines next to a circle), opening the drop-down menu, selecting “manage subscription,” and scrolling down to the designated box. (Hopefully, you won’t want to, but just in case.)
As always, feel free to share any thoughts in the comments below or via email at carolhorton@substack.com. And if you’ve read this far, thanks for your time and attention! It is truly appreciated.
I got here from Steven J Lawrence's substack.
As punishment for some major sin in a past life, my older brother had to babysit me when my mom was sick and my dad was overseas (USAF fighter pilot), so he took me to rock concerts since he had free backstage passes from an underground hippy-rock radio station he worked for. I quickly developed deep skepticism about the sanity of most of the people in the late 60s counterculture, the "left", "liberals", etc.
I did however read every Whole Earth Catalog (which had a strong "libertarian-left" flavor) that had ever existed.
I was in the Bahai community for about 30 years, starting as a teenager in the early 1970s. They had/have a very specific, grand plan for "world peace" and a bunch of other superficially "liberal/progressive" stuff that they claim will be possible via spiritual transformation (requiring a Islamic type oath of belief to gain official membership in the Bahai organization and then spiritual salvation).
The religion emerged in Iran in the early to mid 1800s and claims to fulfill the prophecies of the return of Jesus, and it claims that we are in the "end times" (Apocalypse) described in the Bible, Qur'an, etc. Bahaism came to the USA and Western Europe from Iran around 1900s during a peak of interest in "eastern mysticism", including a lot of guru fetishism by wealthy socialities. It then began to evolve into more of a religious bureaucracy. I was told by some older "subversive" Bahais in the 1970s that the organization had been infiltrated by the FBI and/or CIA during the J. Edgar Hoover era, and had become de-radicalized. I was around the periphery of a dissident group of activists and academics starting in the late 1980s that had similar ideas about how the religion's "administrators" had gained power and marginalized "radicals".
If you want a mindlessly enthusiastic religion that seems "liberal" on the surface, with some Sufi-like spiritual texts and themes, but that is actually just a fundamentalist Islamic system of patriarchy, check it out. lol
I transitioned from Bahaism to studying Ken Wilber's integral theory, which was an improvement in many ways (Wilber tries to account for evolution, but kind of screws things up), but Wilber's movement turned out to be more of a neoliberal paradigm about making money from Trust Fund Kidz via alt new age type seminars-workshops-books than I think makes sense.
Back in the 80s and 90s, Wilber was very aspirational, but as is usually the case, a lot of problems with organizational culture developed with Wilber's movement and business spin-offs in the early 2000s.
Wilber's problems are similar to those of Adi Da, who Wilber was a cult-follower of when young.
There seems to be a pattern of spiritual groups and movements being cultish and their "guru" types recycling failed, manipulative group dynamics over and over (Blavatsky).
What I do now (retired), besides studying evolutionary psychology and related fields as a hobby, is to try to find individuals involved in the search for new paradigms and evolutionary possibilities and support them (when I'm not on van camping trips or caring for my increasingly 93 year old mother).
I see the entire left-vs-right narrative itself as an evolutionary dead end, incapable of satisfying emergent coherence needs (spiritual, economic, social, moral, political) at the level required to prevent the big disasters that exist now from getting worse.
If I had to identify one thing that is probably essential, it is development of anti-fragility to disruption. That is where the evolutionary leap to a new version of western civilization is probably going to really show up, beyond all the fragmented, scattered but necessary discussions about human nature and what is going bad.
Jim Rutt and his Game-B group seem like they did the best prototype of how to build an anti-fragile social-change group. Their hardened attack surface of sophisticated content moderators repulsed a couple of major attacks by "woke left" kooks, and one major attack by the alt-right Doolittle "Propertarian" kooks. But is hasn't gone much of anywhere in the last couple of years, even though they had hoped (before COVID) to have developed an ambitious independent tech stack to replace just about everything above the level of the internet backbone: servers, a social media platform, a cell phone, maybe e-money, and so forth.
Breaking through the "infoglut", constant change, crisis, and complexity is a real problem.
Side note: population genetics are one of the biggest limits on how "liberal" or "post-liberal" a given society can be. See Joseph Henrich's (Harvard) WEIRD model and genetic determination of personality traits. And Kurt Fischer's Dynamic Skills theory.
This is one (post left-vs-right) way of potentially making sense of the mess that people might find useful:
(jargon warning)
https://metarationality.com/stem-fluidity-bridge
Kegan stage 3: traditional-conservative mythic religious social order
stage 4: modern rationalism, Enlightenment, democracy (objective, Constitutional order)
stage 4.5: postmodern road bumps and deconstructive chaos (relativism, construct awareness, nihilism)
stage 5: holistic-fluid (post left-vs-right) culture
One of Chapman's core goals is to resolve the *pattern-nebulosity conundrum* in human consciousness, philosophy, etc. (similar to Iain McGilchrist's work)
-----
sorry for the length of the above comments.
Carol, this a poignant piece.
Someone suggested Putnam's book as a good resource. Seems to me that Putnam's thesis is, "We have been here before. We'll get throught it, again." For what it's worth, I think he may be wrong.
It seems to me that as a society, we have lost our unifying creation story, and we're in the process of creating a new one. Actually, many new ones. Woke have found theirs. Native American nationalists have their's, and so on. But Liberalism has been knocked off its chair, and its former adherents are wondering where their creation story went. It's very difficult to live without an underlying creation story and it seems we are now in a disquieting place without purpose. Recognizing the old creation story is not coming back, leaves us with your question, "now what?"
I look forward to reading your journey, musing and insights in Re/Generate.