MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
By Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus,
Al Jazeera English guest op-ed, Nov. 17, 2011
To retain relevance in the 21st century, liberals in the US will need to revitalise their ideology.
Final paragraph: For a new liberalism to be relevant in this changing post-American world, we must build upon what has always been special about the US: our productive spirit, our wealth, and our capacity to reinvent ourselves. We must talk back both to the Gatsbys, whose financial schemes for growth are phony, and to the Lomans, whose sense of entitlement has turned to resentment. We must reject nostalgia for the New Deal and the class-based politics of a nation that was far younger and poorer than the modern colossus in which we live today. And against today's politics of entitlement, we should affirm our gratitude for the investments made by those who came before us, and renew our commitment to invest in the US still to come.
Biographical note: Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus are executive editors of the Breakthrough Journal and co-founders of the Breakthrough Institute. (My addition: And authors of the controversial essay of 2004, The Death of Environmentalism-see wikipedia entry.)
Comments
Thought provoking.
I wrote a much longer comment but it disappeared into the ether. I'd better troubleshoot my keyboard before trying again.
Oh, and thanks for reading Al Jazeera so I don't have to. At least now I know why I don't read dailyKos very often either. What is it about orange?
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 1:18pm
Sorry you lost your comment. I have found that sometimes when that happens it's not a total bummer, as in the process of trying to remember what you wrote over a couple days, you firm up your own thoughts. Possibly some kind of neural net thing....
{Warning for those who don't like meta, read no further. }
Speaking of neurology, ditto on orange, I think it does irritate many folks' nervous systems (some artists have used it for that effect.) I too find Al Jazeera's site design as a whole (not just the orange,) particularly irritating , and sometimes suspect it was intentional at the start and as they changed their editorial direction, they didn't care about changing design, too busy with other stuff. Daily Kos' design used to be equally irritating but I find their new re-design to be much easier on the nervous system even though they are now stuck with the orange as a trademark.
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:39pm
p.s. Just found that Michael Lind has been writing on similar topics recently in his column at Salon.com. I remember that you, like me, often find his pieces thought provoking. If you haven't been checking him, you might find his last few pieces worthwhile.
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:44pm
Thanks for the reminder about Lind. He keeps disappearing from my reader feed for some reason. I just added him again and found his latest comparing a broken red state economic model to Walter Russell Mead's broken blue social model. It concludes:
Amen. What other conclusion is there?
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 11/22/2011 - 5:10pm
This is one area where there is serious disagreement. I have tried to make this particular argument - maybe not so concisely - and have received a lot of push back.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 1:45pm
Well, one obvious objection is that the level of aggregate wealth in a nation has nothing to do with the degree of inequality in that nation. We have seen a tremendous amount of data recently showing that inequality in America is actually at record-setting levels. So I don't understand why the authors would think that class-based political agendas are now irrelevant.
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 2:19pm
I can't speak for them, but one perspective to take is that at the time of the New Deal, one had a majority of the country at basically around the poverty line, and who whose family had always been there. Even before the great depression. There was no middle class as we know it today and is a result of the post WWII boom - which has been much responsible for the aggregate wealth of the country. Today we have a large segment of the country in what we would be the middle class, or people who are trying to achieve what their parents achieved and are struggling to do so. "Save the middle class" was not what the New Deal class politics were about. And there are many in this country with middle class perspectives which align their identity with those in the next tax bracket or so up rather than down. While they may not identify with the 1%, they do identify with or would like to identify with the well-to-do. In this regard, the issue is how is the 1% hurting their financial planning which they hope will ensure a happy and prosperous retirement, not about workers of the world unite stuff.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 2:35pm
I have finally had the chance to read the whole article, and in a sense its entirety is the authors explaining why the class-based political agendas are now irrelevant. So to answer you would require pasting the whole article. But this snipet touches on a key facet:
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 6:05pm
Shellenberger and Nordhaus have been preaching the same stuff for a number of years. Their world view is not innovative, but is straight out of the 90's, and increasingly repellent to most progressives. Not only is it no longer "relevant", but they're about three steps and one Great Recession behind the zeitgeist. Class warfare has been raging at a fever pitch in the US and Europe since 2008, and the heretofore losing classes are only just now starting to get their act together. The redistributive urge is really catching on and beginning to kick in now. The neoliberal moment of Shellenberger and Nordhaus has passed.
There are a lot of affluent cultural liberals who aren't able to follow the progressives down the new egalitarian path right now. The next few years are going to be exciting and turbulent, and might be challenging for comfortable, anti-egalitarian cultural liberals.
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 8:09pm
Okay - just curious. How egalitarian are you? In other words, how much economic difference are you willing to find acceptable.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 8:26pm
Not absolutistically egalitarian. But pretty damn egalitarian. Like approaching socialist-grade egalitarianism. I believe we could and should live in a society in which no one makes more than 5-10 times what anyone else makes, and where no one can pass any wealth at all on down to their descendants. Everyone starts from scratch. We keep the lid on earnings through maximum wage laws, aggressively redistributive marginal income tax rates, socialization of investment, and euthanasia of the rentier. Health, education and banking are public utilities; and major infrastructure is also a public function.
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 8:27pm
By the way, my views have little to do with "entitlement". I'm not a believer in natural rights. I do think a more equal society would be fairer. But I also think a vigorously egalitarian and democratic society would provide a better overall quality of life for most of its members than the grossly unequal neoliberal market-obsessed monstrosities beloved by the Clintons, Shellenberger and Nordhaus, etc..
And we certainly should be grateful for the investments of our ancestors. I'm grateful American citizens invested in whipping the Nazis and building nationwide highway system for example. I'm grateful for their investment in public education, water systems, dams. And there is more of that great stuff to come. We could have even more productive investment if we socialized it, and didn't allow so much of the benefit of investment to be skimmed away into individual fortunes, rather than poured back into public purposes and the common good.
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 8:36pm
Okay so is it okay* that my mom growing up in a government town and their big thing was going to the local mountains for a two week fishing trip (my grandpa was all about fishing) is okay or not okay when people like Rock Hudson and Frank Sinatra (and their hanger-ons) are kicking back poolside at their mansions? Should this not happen? Should this cause a revolution?
*this particular example just popped into my mind for what it is worth
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 8:53pm
We don't really need a revolution. We just need to change a bunch of laws. The noisy and provocative people on the street help, though, because they are opening up some holes in the cultural and ideological defenses, and letting some fresh and commonsensical ideas get through.
I'm not interested in lot of moralism about what's OK or not OK, looking at things from the standpoint of individuals. I'm just interested in the kinds of rules that will work better for society overall.
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:07pm
But the reality is that is if you are going to get your message past the choir, you are going have to take a stand about what is OK and what is not OK. One can get a arousal from focusing on the lifestyle of the 1%, but what about the lifestyle of the %5 or 10%. If one is going to draw a line, then one has to back it up.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:12pm
No, I don't think we need to get into all of the intellectually paralyzing hairsplitting and casuistry to get to work on major changes. Big political changes involve big thematic shifts in the dominant imagery and paradigms. I can decide to clean out my garage this this weekend without knowing in advance where I am going to put each and every nail, garden tool or wrench. I can just plow right in with a basic pan in mind, and work out the details as we go along.
We can get a majority of people excited about a better, more equal, more prosperous and less insecure world - and jump right into that project - without giving everyone some detailed blueprint, and showing them exactly where they fit in it.
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:47pm
And this kind of proves the point of my latest blog. What you are saying in terms of the economic revolution is don't ask me to get into the grey area of whether someone should serve a slice of pie based on the skin of their color.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:16pm
You can get into all the gray areas and ponder your life away in indecision as much as you want. But most people don't cling to the gray so reflexively.
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:52pm
This resonates with me. I like fair, but I'd rather have an unfair heaven than a fair hell. I.e., (and this is a deliberate false choice for illustration purposes) I'd rather have a case where everyone has shelter and enough food but some people have more money than Zeus than a case where everyone is poor and doesn't know where their next meal is coming from. So, then, false choice aside, the question becomes, how can we raise the median "happiness quotient"? I think that your rule-of-thumb that no one should be making more than 10x what others make is a good one. I also think that ultimately we need to consider reducing the number of hours we work per week. Efficiencies have improved, and machines are capable of doing more and more of our work. Thus, in order to keep everyone employed, we need to be working less or consuming more. So far, we've gone almost 100% with consuming more.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 7:17am
I for one noticed. I'm sure they're getting pushback on this, too, much more than you've probably endured. They have a lot of experience in pushback, as I recall from 2004-5. Actually, they seem to be pretty determined now, more than 5 years later, to stir a certain type of pot as a major goal in life. So it's not surprising with all that practice that you feel they are saying things you agree with better than you can say them, no?
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 11:07pm
Since I am the center of the universe, the pushback I have endured is more significant.
Seriously, thanks for the link. I don't believe that I am able to express in the best way what I think needs to be expressed. So I am always grateful for those who either state it better or point to those who do.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/21/2011 - 12:15am
One of the best articles I have read lately. They have done an excellent job articulating "the way forward" that is both liberal and relevant in today's world. I would go as far as to say they point to a fundamental flaw in the Occupy 99% message and tactics as the pathway to achieving the desired goals.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 6:14pm
Oh I have many reactions to this.
It would be easier if you simply put this or a similar thought stream on the regular stream.
Please continue with a blog.
by Richard Day on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 7:44pm
Not to plug myself, okay I am, I just posted my blog take in a way to this blog. The beauty of this article is that there is about 9 or 10 blogs that can start from it, and those blogs can generate 4 or 5 blogs and so on and so on.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 8:06pm
Richard,
Absolutely feel free to start a blog on anything I post in this section at any time including this! I use it to share things I've read with others here without having to furnish a full fledged blog entry putting my own thoughts on the content. Just recommending it for the quality or some other particular reason.
I just use this section like I recall Genghis originally explaining it, as a place to recommend/share things you've read without having to put the work of a blog into it.
Actually I think the opposite from your reaction when I see people post stuff in this section with lengthy added opinions of their own. When I see that, I always think "why the heck didn't you do a blog post instead of putting that here"? If it's more your work than the original author's, then it's a blog, with some ownership interest, as it were.
I do disagree that this is the wrong section to have lengthy discussions, though. Especially when it's already an opinion piece. I don't see why that would require adding another writer's opinion on top of a writer's opinion, i.e., a blog post. We have the tracking system here, so a discussion can continue in any section on any old type of post for quite some time.
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 11:04pm
Wow. I did not know that.You're wrong.by Qnonymous (not verified) on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:08pm
I think some of these folks out demonstrating yesterday in Conway, New Hampshire actually have a better sense of what is new and modern than do Shellenberger and Nordhaus - even though some of them are old-timers.
I'm told the cheeky old guy in the middle is named "Harvey", and that he is a WWII vet from Wolfeboro.
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 11:02pm
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 11:28pm
Another "new kind of liberalism" view I just ran across:
Neither Revolution Nor Reform: A New Strategy for the Left
By Gar Alperovitz, Dissent Magazine, Fall, 2011
Bio: Gar Alperovitz, Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland and Co-Founder of the Democracy Collaborative, is the author, most recently, of America Beyond Capitalism and (with Lew Daly) Unjust Deserts. He is working on a book on system-changing institutional directions.
Excerpts to give an idea:
by artappraiser on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 12:43am