It takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish, and we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say.

It seems like it has been an age since I wrote anything on this blog, much less (until about two months ago) actually read the blogs/news I used to read regularly. In December, my body forced me to completely slow down pretty much right up until school was in full swing again in January. And here I am, just now beginning to write again, amazed that an entire semester has gone by. I’m not fully sure why, but I just wasn’t able to get back into any sort of an extracurricular reading/writing routine during this time. This was probably for the best as far as my schooling goes, but it is certainly a shame that I haven’t been in a very good position to comment intelligently on current affairs during this rather eventful time.

Besides the constant shortage of time, I think part of my reluctance to sit down and write has had something to do with a general ambivalence I’ve been feeling toward our politics and culture on the whole. Shortly after I wrote the last two posts concerning the election, I felt certain that some would see what I wrote as naive and unrealistic propaganda. And perhaps I began to think this, because there is some cynical/fatalistic part of me that worries that may be true to some extent. But then there is certainly a large part of me that still has belief in those sentiments and holds out hope for such healthy democratic society. That is not to say, however, that I don’t have a healthy skepticism of politics and power and the enormity of it all (though it is certainly not merely governmental power that concerns me), nor do I fail to see that our two dominant parties seemingly share many of the same general assumptions, though disagreeing a bit on the path and the means. In truth, I am concerned with many of our dominant cultural assumptions and aspirations for what seems to amount to limitless material growth, consumption, and atomization; all of which I think need to be questioned, discussed, and reassessed far more and in far deeper ways than is now being done in the main. And unfortunately, too few of those who dominate our “left” and “right” seem interested in doing this in any fundamental or significant way.

So where do we look? It is a complicated question, no doubt. As I have shown, I do have strong sympathies with the movements and ideas that have crafted our contemporary idea of “liberalism”/progressivism (and, of course, in a general sense, we are all pretty much liberals to some extent). And I have been increasingly angered by the band of vitriolic and reactionary so-called “conservatives” (and the lack of a resolute opposition to them) in this country that seem more interested in whining and obstructing and trampling all over whatever capacity we have politically for locating the civil and humane (or to clean up their mess) than bringing something of value and reason to the table.

In an interesting contrast, though, I do think we have some classically conservative-minded social critics (such as Wendell Berry, Patrick Deneen, et al.), that are very much worth paying attention to. Such critics might be called “traditionalists” or “localists,” or some such thing, for their emphasis on the importance of acknowledging limits and reestablishing culture, the communal, and the traditional on the local, small scale as counters to the individualistic placelessness and deracination that characterizes much of our society and has left us with a rather disjointed, alienating, and wastefully designed environment. These critics are certainly distrustful of very large and distant bureaucratic government, sure. But, unlike those who generally pass for “conservative” in the mainstream, they are actually quite conscious of the social/communal and environmental implications necessarily contained in the term (root word = conserve), and are quite critical of the sometimes difficult-to-see destructiveness attendant with market forces and the concentration of private power, bureaucratic or otherwise, as well. While I’m not yet sure how far I’m willing to go with such thinkers politically, I value their voice largely because they provide a rare, genuine and spiritual consideration of what is truly of value in the face of a world where everything and everyone become ever more and more defined by overwhelming, insatiable commercialization and acquisitiveness.

So perhaps there is quite a lot to be said for social critics standing somewhat outside of our largely unhelpful left/right dichotomy. Actually, we seem to have a fair share of critics these days – well, on the internet at least. There are even some generally assigned to the political left, such as James Howard Kunstler, who articulate a social critique very similar to the above-mentioned critics. But these kinds of critics (Deneen, Kunstler, et al.) seem to differ significantly from some others (some anti-state “libertarian” free marketeers come to mind) whose criticism is almost entirely leveled at government while they otherwise unabashedly praise capitalism and consumerism – come what may – resting on their unwavering, dogmatic faith in “the market” and “sovereign individuals/property owners” – if left fully to their own devices – to sort out what is best. There is a lot I could write, and will as time goes on, about the significance I see in this contrast. But this is not quite the purpose of this post.

The point here is, I generally am interested in challenges and changes to our current system; our current assumptions; our current dominant values; etc. But of course I have my own complicated bias and predisposed ideas of what I’d like to see, even while I remain somewhat open-minded and somewhat undecided. And I’m learning to be perfectly ok with that. As Bertrand Russell wrote,

“the essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.”

Certainly, that is a key attribute in politics and for realistically engaging the mixed-up complexities of our society, so full of complications, myriad concerns, varying conditions, unintended consequences, and inevitable exceptions.

So, I’m interested in pragmatically seeking out decent solutions as well as continually assessing the values we are or should be applying to the solutions we seek for the problems we face. But I am not particularly interested in what ought to work or not work according to some axiomatic ideologic system or dogmatic rigidity. In fact, I’m beginning to think that “isms,” particularly the ways they are popularly understood and bandied about – at best counterproductively and at worst falsely and meaninglessly – and our propensity to grasp at ideologies and present ourselves with false choices are large contributors to our recurring downfall.

Besides the fact that the real nature of modern “conservatism” has made the label itself a kind of sick joke, there is perhaps no better example of the above than the silly way “conservatives”/Republicans and others are now fearfully throwing around (without clear definition) warnings of “socialism” and the dismantling of “capitalism.” It begs the question what exactly are these things supposed to mean or exactly look like anymore? In a general sense, of course, we understand the meaning, but also must be aware that the term “socialism” is mainly being used, as it long has been, in a broad, simplistic way to generate fear and create an us vs. them, or “collectivism” vs. “individualism;” “tyranny” vs. “liberty;” “slavery” vs. “freedom” sort of paradigm.

But this is just completely silly. Instead of genuine discussion about policy and reasoned, achievable proposals, we all too often get only selective, knee-jerk opposition in the form of platitudes and brandished labels (e.g., socialism), aimed at simply stirring up all general negative connotations and perceptions of such labels. Not only does this serve to block rational and realistic discussion about what we face and can or should publicly shape, but it creates false choices. Sure, areas of our system could conceivably have rather different socioeconomic orientations (and of course, we’ve long had and widely accepted public elements that are not deemed “socialistic”), but, no, that would not necessarily have to mean only what many ideological alarmists want you to think that would mean. We don’t seem to find ourselves in this always either/or situation in which the choice is either some cartoon, pure system image of this or that – “socialism” or “capitalism,” wherein such things can only behave in one certain way or lead to one particular end leaving us in either total enslaved ruin or free, prosperous happiness.

Even so our ideologues continue to loudly insist that this is so, as they trot out the faded memories of all the worst regimes saying, “It can happen here too, and this is how it starts!” All this even as all the “isms” and ideologies (which some love to talk about conveniently without ever defining) we are told are at our door look a little odd in actual practice as they are invariably bound to become a little disheveled and compromised in the face of political realities, and bits and pieces of their practical applications coexist or are fused to create our mixed and varied social landscape.

We need to find ways to move past our counterproductive, often illusory grasping at ideologies and understand that politics is all about compromise and consensus building (among other less desirable things), and would, therefore, benefit from a higher level of humble engagement and civil discourse. Of course that probably has a lot to do with why we dislike politics so much, why we would rather get and stay angry, and why some would like to dismiss it altogether. But all of this takes work, and, as ugly as it can be, I don’t think, as some seem to, that our answer is to simply wish for little to no government, nor can we afford to remain aloof from it. So for me, it seems we must proceed constructively toward politics, while also reclaiming the civically engaged and publicly responsible role of citizens over and above the siren call to be disengaged, self-centered consumers. And hopefully, as we attempt to affect change, we will find the serenity, courage, and wisdom of which Reinhold Niebuhr famously wrote.

More on all this in the coming months…