Carol - losing one's 'religion' is tough. But now you can see things as they really are. That is progress. When adopting your new ecumenical approach, don't neglect pragmatism. Peace
Thanks Brian. Just went to mearsheimer.com and wikipedia (sorry, just had a little time to do a quick scan).
Seems he's focused on international relations. Carol's written here, in her first blog post, about various issues related to the "culture wars" and what I imagine are liberal and progressive solutions to various economic problems.
2 questions: Could you possibly say a sentence or two as to why you think Mearsheimer's view of international relations could help contribute to a solution to the overall problems Carol's raised?
And do you think Mearsheimer's pragmatism has anything to contribute specifically to cultural conflicts?
And I'll close with a thought - I'm familiar with William James' "Radical empiricism" (which I think is a later development of his overall pragmatist philosophy) from B. Alan Wallace's writings on Tibetan Buddhism. James' later views were a serious departure from modernism in general, which means, he was attempting to formulate an understanding of the human psyche and human relations, and the universe in general, which has implications that could lead to a radically different politics than either liberalism (whether of the progressive variety or not) or conservatism.
I've been interested in American pragmatism a la James and Dewey for a long time, and would love to see that sort of approach updated and popularized. I think it has an enormous amount to offer. It's sad that such a valuable part of the American tradition has effectively been shunted into a little academic niche and otherwise forgotten.
I know John Mearsheimer of course - he was teaching at U Chicago when I was in grad school. But, I never studied with him. TBH I am pretty weak on international relations.
That said, to answer Don's question, the relationship between foreign and domestic policy is quite clear in the sense that we will never be able to invest sufficiently in the U.S. if we keep spending untold billions on pointless warmongering and "nation building" overseas.
Tulsi Gabbard was the only Democratic candidate who insisted on talking about this during the last election cycle, and boy did she get vilified and shut down for it. The military-industrial-espionage complex is indeed super-powerful, and the corporate-controlled media does a great job at keeping us in the dark about what the U.S. is doing overseas and the opportunity cost this has on us domestically.
Two thoughts - first, I couldn't agree more that such a valuable part of the American tradition has been 'shunted' into an academic niche. Second, my take on Mearsheimer's realism is that it is pragmatism by another name and very relevant to domestic politics. Whether we define ourselves by party, state, race, culture, gender identity, or whatever, we are acting to be 'regional hegemons' of our own world and, often, to export it to others the way imperialists do across nation-states.
I'm quite a lot older than you (born 1952, i'll leave you to do the math). I started paying attention to news and politics in my early teens, and didn't see anything on the Left that appealed to me (the moderate Eisenhower center-right was already decomposing into what even National Review's William F. Buckley called the "lunatic fringe" (who would be considered too liberal in today's Republican party).
In the mid to late 60s, the anarchic/libertarian NON STATIST left of the 19th century was being revived. The secular side of it I still found unappealing, but there was EF Schumacher. He was a self described socialist, but in the Catholic tradition.
There is a wonderful vision of society in the 20th century Catholic political "toolbox" known as subsidiarity. Right wing libertarians claim it for their own based on a profound misunderstanding. I'll describe it and you'll see, if you leave off after the beginning, it sounds libertarian.
Subsidiarity is based on the principle that the smallest, least government intervention possible is always the best. Sounds right wing libertarian, right? No. I'm going to add a crucial word; "The smallest, least governmental intervention THAT'S APPROPRIATE" in a given situation.
So take zoning issues. Every village is going to have different needs for zoning, so carrying this out at the local level is best.
On the other hand, subsidiarity has no problem with South Dakota's state bank.
And similarly, sees no problem with Federal rescue efforts, or international crime laws.
This is very much Schumacher's view: "Small is (usually) beautiful" - but not always.
But finally, there's a crucial part I've left out: Schumacher, you may or may not know, wrote about "the perennial philosophy - a non religious, non superstitious, entirely reasonable understanding of the foundation of all spiritual traditions, one in which an infinite Intelligence, an infinite Existence and Consciousness is the substratum of all that is.
Gustav Landauer was a contemplative anarchist (his own label) in the mid 19th century, and Schumacher is very much in that tradition of German spiritual/contemplative anarchism.
In the late 1960s and early 70s, when I "came of age" in understanding alternative foundations of politics, I found that this contemplative approach - which resembled the best of left wing anarchic approaches (NOT big government progressive approaches) seemed the most harmonious and the most promising for the future.
I also loved it because it incorporated the best of the modern (going back to Burke and Oakshotte) conservative tradition, understanding the change is organic, and unless definitively called for, slow and respectful of tradition.
Finally, if you are at all interested, the single best writing I've ever seen on politics is from Sri Aurobindo, in his books 'The Human Cycle" and "The Ideal of Human Unity" (both available free at www.aurobindo.ru
Hi Don - Thanks for your very interesting comment. There is a lot there to follow up on. Just a few thoughts, though:
I read "Small is Beautiful" in college and remember liking it but that was my last encounter with E.F. Schumacher - I'd like to revisit his work, for sure.
I am more familiar with the perennial philosophy and, to a lesser extent, Aurobindo (although not the particular works you cite) from my study of yoga. The former always appealed to me. But, that said, I can't exactly take it at face value. It strikes me as part of the modernist development of the cultural category of "spirituality" that Peter van der Veer wrote about in "The Modern Spirit of Asia," an analysis that I've found quite compelling.
TBH I am not very well informed about the anarchist tradition; it always struck me as so utopian I had a hard time engaging. But I'm always open to learning more and reconsidering.
I am more familiar with Oakeshott, and quite interested in that sort of Burkean conservativism, which I was exposed to a good bit in college and grad school. Some of the most thought-provoking and deeply intelligent professors I ever studied with were rooted in that lineage. While I'm by temperament more of a progressive, I've long had a lot of respect for it.
Thanks for the quick, thoughtful response. i'm aware of the many academics who have disdain for the idea of the perennial philosophy as presented by Huxley and others. Huston Smith does, I think, quite a good job of refuting most of the constructivist claims. However, if you want a more purely Indian-rooted view (and generally much subtler and nuanced than the Western brand), I can try to think of some quick ones. But let me help narrow my suggestions:
1. Anarchic tradition: Sri Aurobindo's The Human Cycle and The Ideal of Human Unity combine a pragmatic (he was quite familiar with James from his days at Cambridge as the highest scoring Greek and Latin scholar) understanding of the limits of human behavior and passions, with a truly profound yogic understanding of the world. I would recommend this first before anything else.
2. To get the best and quickest take on a sane conservatism that is more in line with your progressive temperament, I would focus on the Catholic subsidiarity movement (unfortunately, I don't have a specific article or book to recommend; perhaps there might be some good, short YouTube videos?)
This is SUCH a great project you're doing. Oh, I did think of one more thing. Ralph Nader traveled the country with a conservative encouraging dialog between conservatives and liberals. I'm sorry to add one more thing to your reading list, but his book "Unstoppable" - about the possibility of a Left-Right alliance against corporatism - might be something to add wisdom and practical suggestions for your project.
Oh gosh, you're going to block me:>)) One last suggestion: Dr. Iain McGilchrist says that, after 30 years of reflection on these issues (20 years went into the writing of his book "The Master and His Emissary" he thinks that the overwhelming power of the delusion of materialism is the single biggest issue on the planet and nothing will be ultimately resolved until this is seen through. He doesn't mean in the sense of people having too much, but in the belief in a purely physical universe.
please feel free to ask questions. Most people I know take a few years to get what McGilchrist is talking about; it took me about 20 years to start to get what Sri Aurobindo was talking about. Maybe I can save you some time:>)
Carol, you say, understandably, that Trumpism and wokism were shocks. One dimension, I infer, of these shocks relates to the question of where they leave progressivism in America’s political milieu. I don’t think that political progressivism is as broken and useless as a consequence of these as you seem to believe, but its evolution in the right ways, I agree, is needed at this historical juncture.
I think it’s quite relevant for progressives to look at the roots of Trumpism. I think there are three, stated briefly. One is the huge loss of manufacturing jobs which took place mainly during the George W. Bush era, and coincided with China’s admission to the WTO. Another is the Iraq War. The third is the big wave of home foreclosures – to the tune of 3.8 million – that were an integral part of the Great Recession (while college educated people generally fared much better than those who were not in terms of continuing to work). Obviously, these episodes fell right on the backs of America’s working class.
In regard to restoring working class prosperity, following these disasters in jobs and housing, progressives have much better answers to that than Trumpism does. It’s vitally important that progressives stand in contrast and in resistance to the con games and personality cult of Trumpism, and continue to engage with the working class. The vision that you’re developing, Carol, which, as you say, is a paradigm for “21st-century conditions,” certainly has the potential to do that.
In regard to wokism, the overarching objective of that is the eradication of racism, which is very laudable. Any time is a good time for that. Both political savvy and political deficiencies can be found in wokism. The denunciation of people can be a political deficiency. Sometimes, people are not guilty as charged, and there isn’t the common sense due process of dealing with the contextual facts of an expression and its intent. (However, some expressions really do serve the perpetuation of racism, or are dangerous or triggering for people, and those merit notice, critique, and sometimes alarm). Progressivism can potentially mediate the forms of wokism while fostering its underlying values.
Hi Harry - Thanks for reading and commenting! While I agree with what you say in many ways, I think that you are neglecting the role of the Clinton Administration in promoting the neoliberal policies that have hurt the American working and middle classes (particularly NAFTA, financialization of the economy, and the shift of the Democratic Party away from its former working base and toward college-educated professionals and the donor class). And, the Obama Administration continued this pattern by the way in which they handled the 2008 financial crisis.
I'm definitely much more critical of wokeism than you are. Of course, I support the goal of racial equity. But, I think that wokeism is not an effective way of pursuing it. It's true that this movement has produced some positive shifts in terms of more sensitivity around issues facing women in the work force and so on. But even that has consistently had a very PMC (professional-managerial class) bias. And, the growth of metastasizing and increasingly authoritarian bureaucracies that wokeism pushes I find absolutely terrible.
I wrote a little more about these issues in my next post and tried to include some good links for those who are interested in more background in terms of how I'm thinking about these things. Obviously, there's a lot more to say and these are complex matters -- which I am at times deliberately simplifying in order to make what I think is are important points more clearly.
Carol - losing one's 'religion' is tough. But now you can see things as they really are. That is progress. When adopting your new ecumenical approach, don't neglect pragmatism. Peace
Brian, can you say more about pragmatism? Do you mean William James' philosophy?
Well, yes, William James. John Dewey, too. However, I was more thinking of John Mearsheimer. Carol should understand.
Thanks Brian. Just went to mearsheimer.com and wikipedia (sorry, just had a little time to do a quick scan).
Seems he's focused on international relations. Carol's written here, in her first blog post, about various issues related to the "culture wars" and what I imagine are liberal and progressive solutions to various economic problems.
2 questions: Could you possibly say a sentence or two as to why you think Mearsheimer's view of international relations could help contribute to a solution to the overall problems Carol's raised?
And do you think Mearsheimer's pragmatism has anything to contribute specifically to cultural conflicts?
And I'll close with a thought - I'm familiar with William James' "Radical empiricism" (which I think is a later development of his overall pragmatist philosophy) from B. Alan Wallace's writings on Tibetan Buddhism. James' later views were a serious departure from modernism in general, which means, he was attempting to formulate an understanding of the human psyche and human relations, and the universe in general, which has implications that could lead to a radically different politics than either liberalism (whether of the progressive variety or not) or conservatism.
I've been interested in American pragmatism a la James and Dewey for a long time, and would love to see that sort of approach updated and popularized. I think it has an enormous amount to offer. It's sad that such a valuable part of the American tradition has effectively been shunted into a little academic niche and otherwise forgotten.
I know John Mearsheimer of course - he was teaching at U Chicago when I was in grad school. But, I never studied with him. TBH I am pretty weak on international relations.
That said, to answer Don's question, the relationship between foreign and domestic policy is quite clear in the sense that we will never be able to invest sufficiently in the U.S. if we keep spending untold billions on pointless warmongering and "nation building" overseas.
Tulsi Gabbard was the only Democratic candidate who insisted on talking about this during the last election cycle, and boy did she get vilified and shut down for it. The military-industrial-espionage complex is indeed super-powerful, and the corporate-controlled media does a great job at keeping us in the dark about what the U.S. is doing overseas and the opportunity cost this has on us domestically.
Two thoughts - first, I couldn't agree more that such a valuable part of the American tradition has been 'shunted' into an academic niche. Second, my take on Mearsheimer's realism is that it is pragmatism by another name and very relevant to domestic politics. Whether we define ourselves by party, state, race, culture, gender identity, or whatever, we are acting to be 'regional hegemons' of our own world and, often, to export it to others the way imperialists do across nation-states.
Hi Carol,
I'm quite a lot older than you (born 1952, i'll leave you to do the math). I started paying attention to news and politics in my early teens, and didn't see anything on the Left that appealed to me (the moderate Eisenhower center-right was already decomposing into what even National Review's William F. Buckley called the "lunatic fringe" (who would be considered too liberal in today's Republican party).
In the mid to late 60s, the anarchic/libertarian NON STATIST left of the 19th century was being revived. The secular side of it I still found unappealing, but there was EF Schumacher. He was a self described socialist, but in the Catholic tradition.
There is a wonderful vision of society in the 20th century Catholic political "toolbox" known as subsidiarity. Right wing libertarians claim it for their own based on a profound misunderstanding. I'll describe it and you'll see, if you leave off after the beginning, it sounds libertarian.
Subsidiarity is based on the principle that the smallest, least government intervention possible is always the best. Sounds right wing libertarian, right? No. I'm going to add a crucial word; "The smallest, least governmental intervention THAT'S APPROPRIATE" in a given situation.
So take zoning issues. Every village is going to have different needs for zoning, so carrying this out at the local level is best.
On the other hand, subsidiarity has no problem with South Dakota's state bank.
And similarly, sees no problem with Federal rescue efforts, or international crime laws.
This is very much Schumacher's view: "Small is (usually) beautiful" - but not always.
But finally, there's a crucial part I've left out: Schumacher, you may or may not know, wrote about "the perennial philosophy - a non religious, non superstitious, entirely reasonable understanding of the foundation of all spiritual traditions, one in which an infinite Intelligence, an infinite Existence and Consciousness is the substratum of all that is.
Gustav Landauer was a contemplative anarchist (his own label) in the mid 19th century, and Schumacher is very much in that tradition of German spiritual/contemplative anarchism.
In the late 1960s and early 70s, when I "came of age" in understanding alternative foundations of politics, I found that this contemplative approach - which resembled the best of left wing anarchic approaches (NOT big government progressive approaches) seemed the most harmonious and the most promising for the future.
I also loved it because it incorporated the best of the modern (going back to Burke and Oakshotte) conservative tradition, understanding the change is organic, and unless definitively called for, slow and respectful of tradition.
Finally, if you are at all interested, the single best writing I've ever seen on politics is from Sri Aurobindo, in his books 'The Human Cycle" and "The Ideal of Human Unity" (both available free at www.aurobindo.ru
Hi Don - Thanks for your very interesting comment. There is a lot there to follow up on. Just a few thoughts, though:
I read "Small is Beautiful" in college and remember liking it but that was my last encounter with E.F. Schumacher - I'd like to revisit his work, for sure.
I am more familiar with the perennial philosophy and, to a lesser extent, Aurobindo (although not the particular works you cite) from my study of yoga. The former always appealed to me. But, that said, I can't exactly take it at face value. It strikes me as part of the modernist development of the cultural category of "spirituality" that Peter van der Veer wrote about in "The Modern Spirit of Asia," an analysis that I've found quite compelling.
TBH I am not very well informed about the anarchist tradition; it always struck me as so utopian I had a hard time engaging. But I'm always open to learning more and reconsidering.
I am more familiar with Oakeshott, and quite interested in that sort of Burkean conservativism, which I was exposed to a good bit in college and grad school. Some of the most thought-provoking and deeply intelligent professors I ever studied with were rooted in that lineage. While I'm by temperament more of a progressive, I've long had a lot of respect for it.
Thanks for the quick, thoughtful response. i'm aware of the many academics who have disdain for the idea of the perennial philosophy as presented by Huxley and others. Huston Smith does, I think, quite a good job of refuting most of the constructivist claims. However, if you want a more purely Indian-rooted view (and generally much subtler and nuanced than the Western brand), I can try to think of some quick ones. But let me help narrow my suggestions:
1. Anarchic tradition: Sri Aurobindo's The Human Cycle and The Ideal of Human Unity combine a pragmatic (he was quite familiar with James from his days at Cambridge as the highest scoring Greek and Latin scholar) understanding of the limits of human behavior and passions, with a truly profound yogic understanding of the world. I would recommend this first before anything else.
2. To get the best and quickest take on a sane conservatism that is more in line with your progressive temperament, I would focus on the Catholic subsidiarity movement (unfortunately, I don't have a specific article or book to recommend; perhaps there might be some good, short YouTube videos?)
This is SUCH a great project you're doing. Oh, I did think of one more thing. Ralph Nader traveled the country with a conservative encouraging dialog between conservatives and liberals. I'm sorry to add one more thing to your reading list, but his book "Unstoppable" - about the possibility of a Left-Right alliance against corporatism - might be something to add wisdom and practical suggestions for your project.
Oh gosh, you're going to block me:>)) One last suggestion: Dr. Iain McGilchrist says that, after 30 years of reflection on these issues (20 years went into the writing of his book "The Master and His Emissary" he thinks that the overwhelming power of the delusion of materialism is the single biggest issue on the planet and nothing will be ultimately resolved until this is seen through. He doesn't mean in the sense of people having too much, but in the belief in a purely physical universe.
His latest book is "The Matter With Things," and this is a good intro: https://www.essentiafoundation.org/reading/iain-mcgilchrist-consciousness-is-the-stuff-of-the-cosmos/
ok, enough for now!
Hi Don - Thank you for these very interesting suggestions! Much appreciated and I plan to follow up.
please feel free to ask questions. Most people I know take a few years to get what McGilchrist is talking about; it took me about 20 years to start to get what Sri Aurobindo was talking about. Maybe I can save you some time:>)
Carol, you say, understandably, that Trumpism and wokism were shocks. One dimension, I infer, of these shocks relates to the question of where they leave progressivism in America’s political milieu. I don’t think that political progressivism is as broken and useless as a consequence of these as you seem to believe, but its evolution in the right ways, I agree, is needed at this historical juncture.
I think it’s quite relevant for progressives to look at the roots of Trumpism. I think there are three, stated briefly. One is the huge loss of manufacturing jobs which took place mainly during the George W. Bush era, and coincided with China’s admission to the WTO. Another is the Iraq War. The third is the big wave of home foreclosures – to the tune of 3.8 million – that were an integral part of the Great Recession (while college educated people generally fared much better than those who were not in terms of continuing to work). Obviously, these episodes fell right on the backs of America’s working class.
https://www.epi.org/publication/manufacturing-job-loss-trade-not-productivity-is-the-culprit/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/09/06/workers-with-low-levels-of-education-still-havent-recovered-from-the-great-recession/
In regard to restoring working class prosperity, following these disasters in jobs and housing, progressives have much better answers to that than Trumpism does. It’s vitally important that progressives stand in contrast and in resistance to the con games and personality cult of Trumpism, and continue to engage with the working class. The vision that you’re developing, Carol, which, as you say, is a paradigm for “21st-century conditions,” certainly has the potential to do that.
In regard to wokism, the overarching objective of that is the eradication of racism, which is very laudable. Any time is a good time for that. Both political savvy and political deficiencies can be found in wokism. The denunciation of people can be a political deficiency. Sometimes, people are not guilty as charged, and there isn’t the common sense due process of dealing with the contextual facts of an expression and its intent. (However, some expressions really do serve the perpetuation of racism, or are dangerous or triggering for people, and those merit notice, critique, and sometimes alarm). Progressivism can potentially mediate the forms of wokism while fostering its underlying values.
Hi Harry - Thanks for reading and commenting! While I agree with what you say in many ways, I think that you are neglecting the role of the Clinton Administration in promoting the neoliberal policies that have hurt the American working and middle classes (particularly NAFTA, financialization of the economy, and the shift of the Democratic Party away from its former working base and toward college-educated professionals and the donor class). And, the Obama Administration continued this pattern by the way in which they handled the 2008 financial crisis.
I'm definitely much more critical of wokeism than you are. Of course, I support the goal of racial equity. But, I think that wokeism is not an effective way of pursuing it. It's true that this movement has produced some positive shifts in terms of more sensitivity around issues facing women in the work force and so on. But even that has consistently had a very PMC (professional-managerial class) bias. And, the growth of metastasizing and increasingly authoritarian bureaucracies that wokeism pushes I find absolutely terrible.
I wrote a little more about these issues in my next post and tried to include some good links for those who are interested in more background in terms of how I'm thinking about these things. Obviously, there's a lot more to say and these are complex matters -- which I am at times deliberately simplifying in order to make what I think is are important points more clearly.