I begin by touting the site of James Howard Kuntsler, whose Daily Grunt of 18 May on the collapse of intellectual thought in the academic world will having you laughing or crying (or both). Not my topic today, but a warning nonetheless: When the academic world gives up standards of truth, it gives up its reason for existing–and will not, much longer. Like everything else in our society, it seems to be rotting and going down. (I don’t doubt that the Republicans want this.)
More to the point is his Clusterfuck Nation essay of 15 May 2006:
Is it even possible these days to define a valid doctrine of political Progressivism?
This is the key point. Progressives feel like they are creating themselves out of nothing, as though the progressive movement had never existed. There is a reason for that:
The notion of Progressivism per se really comes from that brief and amazing period in the early 20th century when technological advance was lifting so many out of misery that social justice actually began to seem a plausible political goal rather than an idealist fantasy, and social reformers raced to catch up with the advances of telephones, motorcars, and sanitary engineering.
The idea of distributing the goods of society fairly was a difficult enough notion to promote when those goods were seen to be increasing. As the reality of scarcity sinks in how will people be dissuaded from simply grabbing what they can? The fact that such behavior leads to an impoverished, depopulated outcome is not–to today’s mind–a strong practical argument.
Before a practical argument can be made–and a less desolate out-come pursued–the public mind must be led to rediscover the reality and value of public goods.
The entire thrust of American life the past forty years has been toward the privatization of public goods. . . .
A true Progressivism of the years ahead has to begin by concerning itself with a redefinition of what our public goods really are — and in practical, not abstract terms. That’s why I harp on the project of restoring the railroad system. Not only will it benefit all classes of Americans in terms of sheer getting around, but it would put tens of thousands of people to work at something with real value. It would also begin the process of healing public space ravaged by cars for almost a hundred years.
That is only the beginning, of course, and he has more. You have already guessed the fly in the ointment:
The obvious problem, of course, is that the American public doesn’t want to make other arrangements. It wants desperately to hold onto the old arrangements.
Indeed. If you noticed I have not posted for a while, I should mention here that my real life most inconveniently intruded, just as I neared my goal of writing for an entire season. Which is beside the point. The point being that the other week rather I was wordless at the responses as peak oil made its way into the media. I might have expected it, and should have, yet I was stunned as both media and blogland were flooded with every quick-energy scam ever invented, plus a few we had not seen before. Hydrogen will save us! Cold fusion will save us! (My personal favorite:) Space elevators will save us! Debunking these would seem like arguing with a bunch of drunks who, discovering they have drunk the bar dry, start in on the rubbing alcohol in the medicine cabinet. What is there to say?
So at this point we are in the unenviable position of putting out a message the public does not want to hear. But they will want to hear it, when they are
stuck in their oppressively boring suburbs wondering about the meaning of it all. The failures and disconnections of the living arrangement most Americans have been induced to choose will at last become manifest.
At that point, the idea of public goods–which fifty years ago was a commonplace–can be reintroduced as a new and attractive idea.
A rhetorical point: how can our message be said now so that it will be heard then? This may not be my strength, since one must be able to extend some sympathy to the American plight (and those god-awful suburbs–which I really can’t), but conversely, indirection will not help either. The truth needs to be said plainly, though with all possible sympathy.
Three weeks ago I got into an unresolvable argument with a woman who teaches organic farming. Well, who is right? But she thinks of organic farming as a matter of healthy, good-tasting food. She does not want to think that it has something to do with whether or not we survive.
Fortunately, indirection may be going out of style: For a very nice rant, see Grand Moff Texan on 12 May for a Roof of Bones. Not that GMT is a recent convert–far from it–rather he is picking up and echoing the growing disquiet. This is a thing of joy.
Many progressives have not yet caught up with the facts on the ground. We are still fighting the battles of the 20th century (and losing) without realizing that the whole field of action is about to change. Which does not invalidate the old concerns, but certainly requires a recasting to the new context.
It has to lead us in the direction of making other arrangements for how we live.
This is the key point, for progressives understand that people are not defined by things. Scarcity does not terrorize us. Justice involves how a society acts, not how many things it has.