Hm. I like ideas as much as the next person, but there’s an aspect of this piece that niggles at me. I get that the left is usually in favour of movement towards some goal, but I’m uncomfortable with reasoning that starts from “we should be going somewhere” instead of making the case for a specific problem that needs solving. It reminds me of those activists who are always searching for their next cause, out of some psychological need instead of because they are really thinking about the issues.
I suppose you could respond that ideas are precisely what this rootless activist needs, and you’d have a point. But the first question is still whether we need to move, rather than where we need to move to. Do we need ideas on where to move, or are things mostly fine?
Lurking under this debate is the fact that, in America, the right is currently calling for more change than the left. Often, this is framed as a change *back*, but it still creates a situation in which the Democratic Party is in many ways becoming the party of conservatism in a sense. Many people will be voting Democratic, this year, out of fear about possible changes for the worse rather than hope for the better. Perhaps greater ambivalence towards ideas arises partly out of this shift, and partly out of lingering “third way” technocratic centrism. In that case, this argument may fail to persuade, since many on the “left” may fear change more than they seek it.
None of this changes my conviction that we should grapple with tricky questions and engage in free-ranging debates across ideological lines. But I find that this particular argument does not quite ring true to me. Perhaps I am more conservative than I look.
so I really like this and I agree about the risk aversion in democratic party politics. Instead of taking the chance on ideas that might get down to the root of our dissatisfaction, we are too often trying to maintain a certain or return to a status quo, that probably came into contestation for good reason.
Is this a feature of electoral politics Sam across the board? It strikes me political parties will always be doing this and are simply not made to be idea factories in the long run. Even politicians who were once intellectually daring once they find power and retain it seek to preserve what they have undermining the curiosity and adventurousness necessary for such first principle discussions.
Is there a paradox that the fear of reversion back to something bad is not a conservative feature but one inherent in progressive politics. Is this not what gives rise to purges and counter revolutionary forces common not only in french revolutionary politics but plenty of others?
george I take this to be a pivotal sentence in your critique: “Electoral politics is dominated by two major parties, whose programs, to the extent they differ, correspond to the needs and goals of opposing sectors of the business community. The goals and ground rules that all sectors of business agree on constitute the framework of public policy, rarely or never challenged in the electoral arena. Policy proposals that fall outside this framework — i.e., good new ideas from the left — remain invisible and inaudible.”
I agree to the claim that ideas are not **all** we need—nor do I take that to be a trivial point.I had a few paragraphs in an earlier draft where I argued that the distinctive achievement of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen was that it took a metaphysical insight about human dignity and then drew the lines closely enough that one could see the implications in concrete political instantiation. As I see the issue you note, the problem is not that we have ideas, but that somehow what we have let ideas become strange trivial games we play in seminar rooms, rather than following through their full force as in 1789.
There may be a problems of naivety about power and lack of agility of tactics, but I do think that both originate in a deeper problem with ideas. Challenging ourselves to see principles worth fighting for, also gives us far more stamina for the battle, and the clarity to see where to insert the knife.
Agree, forgetfulness / complacency with past liberal ideas and a barrage of a multitude of semi-conflicting and confusing ideas seems to be more of an issue these days than the lack of ideas
I would say it's not necessarily the case that the right can fall back on stasis. Literal conservatism is not necessarily right-wing. The most radical politics of the 1980s through the 2000s were of the Reaganite right; the left advocated the status quo and could fall back on stasis. The Trumpian right is pushing changes that are just as radical; the left now is too, as it wasn't in previous decades, but stasis is the preserve not of the right but the centre.
Great article Sam, You nailed it: "The greatest need at the moment is to escape our intellectual stupor, and for this, we are in desperate need of contestation. " The problem is the Left does not want my input or my contest, and it will crucify me if I offer it.
The correct new ideas for the Left are actually the old ideas of the right. The problem is indeed metaphysical in that the Left can not and will not concede any ground to those outside its vision of complete individual autonomy free of all social constraints. Constraints that is, aside from the forms of civility that it has inherited from Christian virtues. They were only thwarted when cancel culture made enough of a stir for everyone, to be called out... something about Red China Blues, I think...).
I'm afraid Kamila and team, while moderating so much, have not shirked defund the police and the sexuality land-grab enough to achieve a win. The saddest part is they won't learn the lesson, even the hard way.
The only appropriate response to this is probably to re-educate ourselves on the nature of the good citizen. It would be a generational revolution, which yes, is necessary in all human society. Deserves a podcast, I think!
Today the Left only wants power. And with the parlous state of American education, they best grasp for the levers with emotional hysteria alone. That's what motivates low-information voters.
Sad but indisputable. No other excuse for Kamala/Walz.
I am not sure that ideas matter as much as those who purvey them say they do. Just as I am uncertain that my local mango salesman’s suggestion to eat only mangoes is a wise one.
The Left needs people trying new things in economics, govt, business, health, etc. If we do this then the ideas will come easy.
What the Left does not need is more low-circulation journals filled with lengthy, earnest arguments that no one reads.
Where I agree with the author is that what the Left also does not need are ever-escalating purity tests. The unfortunate truth is that terrible people can have brilliant insights.
The problem with perpetual revolution is there is little thought or time spent on implementation. The aftermath of the French Revolution was a bloody mess that circled back to becoming an autocratic empire in order to function. Constant Revolution is exhausting, disruptive, and inhumane.
I would suggest that the current split between the progressive left and conservative right is primarily over the implementation of revolutionary technological changes and a severe lag for our sociology and psychology to adapt at that rate. Tech Bros tout their “disruptive technologies” without any thought or concern of the human toll of such rapid and ceaseless destruction of economic and social structures. Ironically, the social structures that support rampant revolutionary technological change are counter to the slower, mundane tasks of social welfare and unifying legislation.
We are entering a new era of technological aristocracy with a few high-tech ‘Robber Batons’ building wealth and empires that Napoleon could only dream of. “Let them eat AI…”
Democracy is ill-adapted to the modern frantic rate of change. It is little wonder that tech billionaires are tending right towards authoritarianism. The collective “will of the people” is an impediment to their goals of the tech revolution. It is they who will dictate what phones we use, the cars we drive, and even the infrastructures to support them. Revolution inevitably spawns autocracies to sustain them. It is ironic that the American and French Revolutions were conceived to destroy authoritative aristocracy only to become such again. “Hail to the new boss, just like the old boss…” Yes, we will be fooled again.
Why the “Left” needs to resort to Islamist ideologies and seems to constantly blame others for faults instead of performing introspection and actually trying to fix things by themselves is a tough question in itself (i.e., resorting to “down with the system!”instead of offering a new coherent system.
And no - DEI, reparations and critical race theory are not coherent or in any way aligned with reality)
Perhaps that’s why it’s been said you can only be “truly Left” in your confused twenties…
If you’ve grown up and are still “a Leftist” there’s something wrong with you - not with society.
This is a great piece as always Sam. It made me think of Arendt's definition of revolution and her distinction between the French and the American revolution. I was also thinking of Jonathan Israel's book Revolutionary Ideas that charts the progress of the French Revolution and his argument of the deformation of the very philosophy that initially drove it. Oddly enough, I also learned this morning that Cicero was cited 10x more frequently in Assembly debates than Rousseau which might give some indication of some of the deeper roots of this kind of philosophising.
I totally agree with you about the importance of acknowledging first principle differences. I was wondering though structurally if there does need to be a stronger ballast for us to manifest those first principle differences. If not then where can we truly manifest them? The french revolution ultimately failed because of that lack of structure leading ultimately to chaos, bloodshed and defeat. I think this is also an issue for liberals as well as those on the left although you are correct to highlight this is a bigger issue for those imagining a greater society.
I spend a lot of time (probably too much time) reading new ideas or ideas-attempting prose - sometimes in books or longer, more academic articles, but most often in quicker opinion pieces like this, and I've found lately that there's just very little I find myself agreeing with. There's a lot of provocative writing, a lot of good propaganda (from many political standpoints), some decentish rehashing of ideas that have been articulated in the past... but very little I would be happy as adopting as a set of personal ideals or political program, or even as an academic consensus on particular topic.
It's possible this is entirely due to my personal disposition, and what excites others repulses me. But I like to hope I'm not the only one, that there are others out there with an unsatisfied hunger for ideas. And this essay makes me somewhat more hopeful.
so I think this is right, and that there are two points to make:
1. I do think we live in a fairly mediocre intellectual climate. It's not so much that there aren't smart or sincere people, but that there are real disincentives for thinking that pushes imaginative limits
2. that said, I'm not sure that agreement is exactly the goal but instead "risk"—arguments that get serious enough about the gravity of the world—including our moral duties— that they are willing to take the chance on deep understanding. It's funny, I've come to think of Kierkegaard as one of the main exemplars of the kind of writing I'm after—ambitious enough to unsettle one's priors, but then non-didactic, pressing the audience to have to cope with the world for themselves
Hm. I like ideas as much as the next person, but there’s an aspect of this piece that niggles at me. I get that the left is usually in favour of movement towards some goal, but I’m uncomfortable with reasoning that starts from “we should be going somewhere” instead of making the case for a specific problem that needs solving. It reminds me of those activists who are always searching for their next cause, out of some psychological need instead of because they are really thinking about the issues.
I suppose you could respond that ideas are precisely what this rootless activist needs, and you’d have a point. But the first question is still whether we need to move, rather than where we need to move to. Do we need ideas on where to move, or are things mostly fine?
Lurking under this debate is the fact that, in America, the right is currently calling for more change than the left. Often, this is framed as a change *back*, but it still creates a situation in which the Democratic Party is in many ways becoming the party of conservatism in a sense. Many people will be voting Democratic, this year, out of fear about possible changes for the worse rather than hope for the better. Perhaps greater ambivalence towards ideas arises partly out of this shift, and partly out of lingering “third way” technocratic centrism. In that case, this argument may fail to persuade, since many on the “left” may fear change more than they seek it.
None of this changes my conviction that we should grapple with tricky questions and engage in free-ranging debates across ideological lines. But I find that this particular argument does not quite ring true to me. Perhaps I am more conservative than I look.
so I really like this and I agree about the risk aversion in democratic party politics. Instead of taking the chance on ideas that might get down to the root of our dissatisfaction, we are too often trying to maintain a certain or return to a status quo, that probably came into contestation for good reason.
Is this a feature of electoral politics Sam across the board? It strikes me political parties will always be doing this and are simply not made to be idea factories in the long run. Even politicians who were once intellectually daring once they find power and retain it seek to preserve what they have undermining the curiosity and adventurousness necessary for such first principle discussions.
Is there a paradox that the fear of reversion back to something bad is not a conservative feature but one inherent in progressive politics. Is this not what gives rise to purges and counter revolutionary forces common not only in french revolutionary politics but plenty of others?
Why the left does not need new ideas:
http://georgescialabba.net/mtgs/1986/11/right-turn-the-decline-of-the/print/
george I take this to be a pivotal sentence in your critique: “Electoral politics is dominated by two major parties, whose programs, to the extent they differ, correspond to the needs and goals of opposing sectors of the business community. The goals and ground rules that all sectors of business agree on constitute the framework of public policy, rarely or never challenged in the electoral arena. Policy proposals that fall outside this framework — i.e., good new ideas from the left — remain invisible and inaudible.”
I agree to the claim that ideas are not **all** we need—nor do I take that to be a trivial point.I had a few paragraphs in an earlier draft where I argued that the distinctive achievement of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen was that it took a metaphysical insight about human dignity and then drew the lines closely enough that one could see the implications in concrete political instantiation. As I see the issue you note, the problem is not that we have ideas, but that somehow what we have let ideas become strange trivial games we play in seminar rooms, rather than following through their full force as in 1789.
There may be a problems of naivety about power and lack of agility of tactics, but I do think that both originate in a deeper problem with ideas. Challenging ourselves to see principles worth fighting for, also gives us far more stamina for the battle, and the clarity to see where to insert the knife.
Agree, forgetfulness / complacency with past liberal ideas and a barrage of a multitude of semi-conflicting and confusing ideas seems to be more of an issue these days than the lack of ideas
I would say it's not necessarily the case that the right can fall back on stasis. Literal conservatism is not necessarily right-wing. The most radical politics of the 1980s through the 2000s were of the Reaganite right; the left advocated the status quo and could fall back on stasis. The Trumpian right is pushing changes that are just as radical; the left now is too, as it wasn't in previous decades, but stasis is the preserve not of the right but the centre.
Some old thoughts on the topic here: https://loveofallwisdom.com/blog/2010/08/literal-conservatism/ (warning, it was written in 2010 and quotes MLK saying the N-word)
Great article Sam, You nailed it: "The greatest need at the moment is to escape our intellectual stupor, and for this, we are in desperate need of contestation. " The problem is the Left does not want my input or my contest, and it will crucify me if I offer it.
The correct new ideas for the Left are actually the old ideas of the right. The problem is indeed metaphysical in that the Left can not and will not concede any ground to those outside its vision of complete individual autonomy free of all social constraints. Constraints that is, aside from the forms of civility that it has inherited from Christian virtues. They were only thwarted when cancel culture made enough of a stir for everyone, to be called out... something about Red China Blues, I think...).
I'm afraid Kamila and team, while moderating so much, have not shirked defund the police and the sexuality land-grab enough to achieve a win. The saddest part is they won't learn the lesson, even the hard way.
The only appropriate response to this is probably to re-educate ourselves on the nature of the good citizen. It would be a generational revolution, which yes, is necessary in all human society. Deserves a podcast, I think!
The Left needs, but does not want, ideas.
Today the Left only wants power. And with the parlous state of American education, they best grasp for the levers with emotional hysteria alone. That's what motivates low-information voters.
Sad but indisputable. No other excuse for Kamala/Walz.
I am not sure that ideas matter as much as those who purvey them say they do. Just as I am uncertain that my local mango salesman’s suggestion to eat only mangoes is a wise one.
The Left needs people trying new things in economics, govt, business, health, etc. If we do this then the ideas will come easy.
What the Left does not need is more low-circulation journals filled with lengthy, earnest arguments that no one reads.
Where I agree with the author is that what the Left also does not need are ever-escalating purity tests. The unfortunate truth is that terrible people can have brilliant insights.
The problem with perpetual revolution is there is little thought or time spent on implementation. The aftermath of the French Revolution was a bloody mess that circled back to becoming an autocratic empire in order to function. Constant Revolution is exhausting, disruptive, and inhumane.
I would suggest that the current split between the progressive left and conservative right is primarily over the implementation of revolutionary technological changes and a severe lag for our sociology and psychology to adapt at that rate. Tech Bros tout their “disruptive technologies” without any thought or concern of the human toll of such rapid and ceaseless destruction of economic and social structures. Ironically, the social structures that support rampant revolutionary technological change are counter to the slower, mundane tasks of social welfare and unifying legislation.
We are entering a new era of technological aristocracy with a few high-tech ‘Robber Batons’ building wealth and empires that Napoleon could only dream of. “Let them eat AI…”
Democracy is ill-adapted to the modern frantic rate of change. It is little wonder that tech billionaires are tending right towards authoritarianism. The collective “will of the people” is an impediment to their goals of the tech revolution. It is they who will dictate what phones we use, the cars we drive, and even the infrastructures to support them. Revolution inevitably spawns autocracies to sustain them. It is ironic that the American and French Revolutions were conceived to destroy authoritative aristocracy only to become such again. “Hail to the new boss, just like the old boss…” Yes, we will be fooled again.
Why the “Left” needs to resort to Islamist ideologies and seems to constantly blame others for faults instead of performing introspection and actually trying to fix things by themselves is a tough question in itself (i.e., resorting to “down with the system!”instead of offering a new coherent system.
And no - DEI, reparations and critical race theory are not coherent or in any way aligned with reality)
Perhaps that’s why it’s been said you can only be “truly Left” in your confused twenties…
If you’ve grown up and are still “a Leftist” there’s something wrong with you - not with society.
You said “probably”--I’m assuming that’s your “beau geste” nod when “clearly” their revolution has won the day
This is a great piece as always Sam. It made me think of Arendt's definition of revolution and her distinction between the French and the American revolution. I was also thinking of Jonathan Israel's book Revolutionary Ideas that charts the progress of the French Revolution and his argument of the deformation of the very philosophy that initially drove it. Oddly enough, I also learned this morning that Cicero was cited 10x more frequently in Assembly debates than Rousseau which might give some indication of some of the deeper roots of this kind of philosophising.
I totally agree with you about the importance of acknowledging first principle differences. I was wondering though structurally if there does need to be a stronger ballast for us to manifest those first principle differences. If not then where can we truly manifest them? The french revolution ultimately failed because of that lack of structure leading ultimately to chaos, bloodshed and defeat. I think this is also an issue for liberals as well as those on the left although you are correct to highlight this is a bigger issue for those imagining a greater society.
Thank you for this stimulating essay!
I spend a lot of time (probably too much time) reading new ideas or ideas-attempting prose - sometimes in books or longer, more academic articles, but most often in quicker opinion pieces like this, and I've found lately that there's just very little I find myself agreeing with. There's a lot of provocative writing, a lot of good propaganda (from many political standpoints), some decentish rehashing of ideas that have been articulated in the past... but very little I would be happy as adopting as a set of personal ideals or political program, or even as an academic consensus on particular topic.
It's possible this is entirely due to my personal disposition, and what excites others repulses me. But I like to hope I'm not the only one, that there are others out there with an unsatisfied hunger for ideas. And this essay makes me somewhat more hopeful.
so I think this is right, and that there are two points to make:
1. I do think we live in a fairly mediocre intellectual climate. It's not so much that there aren't smart or sincere people, but that there are real disincentives for thinking that pushes imaginative limits
2. that said, I'm not sure that agreement is exactly the goal but instead "risk"—arguments that get serious enough about the gravity of the world—including our moral duties— that they are willing to take the chance on deep understanding. It's funny, I've come to think of Kierkegaard as one of the main exemplars of the kind of writing I'm after—ambitious enough to unsettle one's priors, but then non-didactic, pressing the audience to have to cope with the world for themselves