From Max Weber: Politics as a Vocation

Max Weber (1864-1920)

All of the following excerpts are taken from Max Weber's "Politics as a Vocation". A link to the PDF is here (it's short). It's worth noting that Weber, a very well-known German sociologist, presented this a lecture in Munich, Bavaria (Germany) in the midst of an uprising that led to a brief Marxist government there. A few years later, Munich was the site of a beer-hall putsch that merits consideration when contemplating Weber's words. 

[F]irst of all the career of politics grants a feeling of power. The knowledge of influencing men, of participating in power over them, and above all, the feeling of holding in one's hands a nerve fiber of historically important events can elevate the professional politician above everyday routine even when he is placed in formally modest positions. But now the question for him is: Through what qualities can I hope to do justice to this power (however narrowly circumscribed it may be in the individual case) ? How can he hope to do justice to the responsibility that power imposes upon him? With this we enter the field of ethical questions, for that is where the problem belongs: What kind of a man must one be if he is to be allowed to put his hand on the wheel of history?

 One can say that three pre-eminent qualities are decisive for the politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion. To be sure, mere passion, however genuinely felt, is not enough. It does not make a politician, unless passion as devotion to a 'cause' also makes responsibility to this cause the guiding star of action. And for this, a sense of proportion is needed. This is the decisive psychological quality of the politician: his ability to let realities work upon him with inner concentration and calmness. Hence his distance to things and men.

 'Lack of distance' per se is one of the deadly sins of every politician. It is one of those qualities the breeding of which will condemn the progeny of our intellectuals to political incapacity. For the problem is simply how can warm passion and a cool sense of proportion be forged together in one and the same soul? Politics is made with the head, not with other parts of the body or soul. And yet devotion to politics, if it is not to be frivolous intellectual play but rather genuinely human conduct, can be born and nourished from passion alone. However, that firm taming of the soul, which distinguishes the passionate politician and differentiates him from the 'sterilely excited' and mere political dilettante, is possible only through habituation to detachment in every sense of the word. The 'strength' of a political 'personality' means, in the first place, the possession of these qualities of passion, responsibility, and proportion.

 Therefore, daily and hourly, the politician inwardly has to overcome a quite trivial and all-too-human enemy: a quite vulgar vanity, the deadly enemy of all matter-of-fact devotion to a cause, and of all distance, in this case, of distance towards one's self. 

[The politician] works with the striving for power as an unavoidable means. Therefore, 'power instinct,' as is usually said, belongs indeed to his normal qualities. The sin against the lofty spirit of his vocation, however, begins where this striving for power ceases to be objective and becomes purely personal self-intoxication, instead of exclusively entering the service of 'the cause.' For ultimately there are only two kinds of deadly sins in the field of politics: lack of objectivity and--often but not always identical with it--irresponsibility. Vanity, the need personally to stand in the foreground as clearly as possible, strongly tempts the politician to commit one or both of these sins. This is more truly the case as the demagogue is compelled to count upon 'effect.' He therefore is constantly in danger of becoming an actor as well as taking lightly the responsibility for the outcome of his actions and of being concerned merely with the 'impression' he makes. His lack of objectivity tempts him to strive for the glamorous semblance of power rather than for actual power. His irresponsibility, however, suggests that he enjoy power merely for power's sake without a substantive purpose. Although, or rather just because, power is the unavoidable means, and striving for power is one of the driving forces of all politics, there is no more harmful distortion of political force than the parvenu-like braggart with power, and the vain self- reflection in the feeling of power, and in general every worship of power per se. The mere 'power politician' may get strong effects, but actually his work leads nowhere and is senseless. (Among us, too, an ardently promoted cult seeks to glorify him.) In this, the critics of 'power politics' are absolutely right. From the sudden inner collapse of typical representatives of this mentality, we can see what inner weakness and impotence hides behind this boastful but entirely empty gesture. It is a product of a shoddy and superficially blase attitude towards the meaning of human conduct; and it has no relation whatsoever to the knowledge of tragedy with which all action, but especially political action, is truly interwoven.

 Now then, what relations do ethics and politics actually have? Have the two nothing whatever to do with one another, as has occasionally been said? Or, is the reverse true: that the ethic of political conduct is identical with that of any other conduct? Occasionally an exclusive choice has been believed to exist between the two propositions--either  the one or the other proposition must be correct. But is it true that any ethic of the world could establish commandments of identical content for erotic, business, familial, and official relations; for the relations to one's wife, to the green-grocer, the son, the competitor, the friend, the defendant? Should it really matter so little for the ethical demands on politics that politics operates with very special means, namely, power backed up by violence?

 By the Sermon on the Mount, we mean the absolute ethic of the gospel, which is a more serious matter than those who are fond of quoting these commandments today believe. This ethic is no joking matter. The same holds for this ethic as has been said of causality in science: it is not a cab, which one can have stopped at one's pleasure; it is all or nothing. This is precisely the meaning of the gospel, if trivialities are not to result. Hence, for instance, it was said of the wealthy young man, 'He went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.' The evangelist commandment, however, is unconditional and unambiguous: give what thou hast--absolutely everything. The politician will say that this is a socially senseless imposition as long as it is not carried out everywhere. . Thus the politician upholds taxation, confiscatory taxation, outright confiscation; in a word, compulsion and regulation for all. The ethical commandment, however, is not at all concerned about that, and this unconcern is its essence. 

[L]et us consider the duty of truthfulness. For the absolute ethic it holds unconditionally. Hence the conclusion was reached to publish all documents, especially those placing blame on one's own country. On the basis of these one-sided publications the confessions of guilt followed --and they were one-sided, unconditional, and without regard to consequences. The politician will find that as a result truth will not be furthered but certainly obscured through abuse and unleashing of passion; only an all-round methodical investigation by non-partisans could bear fruit; any other procedure may have consequences for a nation that cannot be remedied for decades. But the absolute ethic just does not ask for 'consequences.' That is the decisive point. 

We must be clear about the fact that all ethically oriented conduct may be guided by one of two fundamentally differing and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented to an 'ethic of ultimate ends' or to an 'ethic of responsibility.' This is not to say that an ethic of ultimate ends is identical with irresponsibility, or that an ethic of responsibility is identical with unprincipled opportunism. Naturally nobody says that. However, there is an abysmal contrast between conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of ultimate ends--that is, in religious terms, 'The Christian does rightly and leaves the results with the Lord'--and conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of responsibility, in which case one has to give an account of the foreseeable results of one's action. 

You may demonstrate to a convinced syndicalist [radical], believing in an ethic of ultimate ends, that his action will result in increasing the opportunities of reaction, in increasing the oppression of his class, and obstructing its ascent--and you will not make the slightest impression upon him. If an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor's eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men, or God's will who made them thus, is responsible for the evil. However a man who believes in an ethic of responsibility takes account of precisely the average deficiencies of people; as Fichte has correctly said, he does not even have the right to presuppose their goodness and perfection. He does not feel in a position to burden others with the results of his own actions so far as he was able to foresee them; he will say: these results are ascribed to my action.  The believer in an ethic of ultimate ends feels 'responsible' only for seeing to it that the flame of pure intentions is not quenched: for example, the flame of protesting against the injustice of the social order. To rekindle the flame ever anew is the purpose of his quite irrational deeds, judged in view of their possible success. They are acts that can and shall have only exemplary value. 

But even herewith the problem is not yet exhausted. No ethics in the world can dodge the fact that in numerous instances the attainment of 'good' ends is bound to the fact that one must be willing to pay the price of using morally dubious means or at least dangerous ones--and facing the possibility or even the probability of evil ramifications. From no ethics in the world can it be concluded when and to what extent the ethically good purpose 'justifies' the ethically dangerous means and ramifications. 

The ethic of ultimate ends apparently must go to pieces on the problem of the justification of means by ends. As a matter of fact, logically it has only the possibility of rejecting all action that employs morally dangerous means--in theory! In the world of realities, as a rule, we encounter the ever-renewed experience that the adherent of an ethic of ultimate ends suddenly turns into a chiliastic prophet. Those, for example, who have just preached 'love against violence' now call for the use of force for the last violent deed, which would then lead to a state of affairs in which an violence is annihilated. . . . Those of you who know Dostoievski will remember the scene of the 'Grand Inquisitor,' where the problem is poignantly unfolded. If one makes any concessions at all to the principle that the end justifies the means, it is not possible to bring an ethic of ultimate ends and an ethic of responsibility under one roof or to decree ethically which end should justify which means. 

You will find war integrated into the totality of life-spheres in the Bhagavad-Gita, in the conversation between Krishna and Arduna. 'Do what must be done,' i.e. do that work which, according to the Dharma of the warrior caste and its rules, is obligatory and which, according to the purpose of the war, is objectively necessary. Hinduism believes that such conduct does not damage religious salvation but, rather, promotes it. When he faced the hero's death, the Indian warrior was always sure of Indra's heaven, just as was the Teuton warrior of Valhalla. The Indian hero would have despised Nirvana just as much as the Teuton would have sneered at the Christian paradise with its angels' choirs. This specialization of ethics allowed for the Indian ethic's quite unbroken treatment of politics by following politics' own laws and even radically enhancing this royal art.

 All religions have wrestled with it [problem of political ethics], with highly differing success, and after what has been said it could not be otherwise. It is the specific means of legitimate violence as such in the hand of human associations which determines the peculiarity of all ethical problems of politics. 

Whosoever contracts with violent means for whatever ends--and every politician does--is exposed to its specific consequences. This holds especially for the crusader, religious and revolutionary alike. Let us confidently take the present as an example. He who wants to establish absolute justice on earth by force requires a following, a human 'machine.' He must hold out the necessary internal and external premiums, heavenly or worldly reward, to this 'machine' or else the machine will not function. Under the conditions of the modern class struggle, the internal premiums consist of the satisfying of hatred and the craving for revenge; above all, resentment and the need for pseudo-ethical self-righteousness: the opponents must be slandered and accused of heresy. The external rewards are adventure, victory, booty, power, and spoils. . . . After coming to power the following of a crusader usually degenerates very easily into a quite common stratum of spoilsmen. 

Whoever wants to engage in politics at all, and especially in politics as a vocation, has to realize these ethical paradoxes. He must know that he is responsible for what may become of himself under the impact of these paradoxes. I repeat, he lets himself in for the diabolic forces lurking in all violence. The great virtuosi of acosmic love of humanity and goodness, whether stemming from Nazareth or Assisi or from Indian royal castles, have not operated with the political means of violence. Their kingdom was 'not of this world' and yet they worked and sill work in this world. 

Everything that is striven for through political action operating with violent means and following an ethic of responsibility endangers the 'salvation of the soul.' If, however, one chases after the ultimate good in a war of beliefs, following a pure ethic of absolute ends, then the goals may be damaged and discredited for generations, because responsibility for consequences is lacking, and two diabolic forces which enter the play remain unknown to the actor. These are inexorable and produce consequences for his action and even for his inner self, to which he must helplessly submit, unless he perceives them. 

Surely, politics is made with the head, but it is certainly not made with the head alone. In this the proponents of an ethic of ultimate ends are right. One cannot prescribe to anyone whether he should follow an ethic of absolute ends or an ethic of responsibility, or when the one and when the other. One can say only this much: If in these times, which, in your opinion, are not times of 'sterile' excitation--excitation  is not, after all, genuine passion--if now suddenly the Weltanschauungs politicians crop up en masse and pass the watchword, 'The world is stupid and base, not I,' 'The responsibility for the consequences does not fall upon me but upon the others whom I serve and whose stupidity or baseness I shall eradicate,' then I declare frankly that I would first inquire into the degree of inner poise backing this ethic of ultimate ends. I am under the impression that in nine out of ten cases I deal with windbags who do not fully realize what they take upon themselves but who intoxicate themselves with romantic sensations. From a human point of view this is not very interesting to me, nor does it move me profoundly. However, it is immensely moving when a mature man-- no matter whether old or young in years--is aware of a responsibility for the consequences of his conduct and really feels such responsibility with heart and soul. He then acts by following an ethic of responsibility and somewhere he reaches the point where he says: 'Here I stand; I can do no other.' That is something genuinely human and moving. And every one of us who is not spiritually dead must realize the possibility of finding himself at some time in that position. In so far as this is true, an ethic of ultimate ends and an ethic of responsibility are not absolute contrasts but rather supplements) which only in unison constitute a genuine man--a man who can have the 'calling for politics.'

 I wish I could see what has become of those of you who now feel yourselves to be genuinely 'principled' politicians and who share in the intoxication signified by this revolution. It would be nice if matters turned out in such a way that Shakespeare's Sonnet 102 should hold  

Our love was new, and then but in the spring,
When I was wont to greet it with my lays;
As Philomel in summer's front doth sing,
And stops his pipe in growth of riper days: 

But such is not the case. Not summer's bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness, no matter which group may triumph externally now. Where there is nothing, not only the Kaiser but also the proletarian has lost his rights. When this night shall have slowly receded, who of those for whom spring apparently has bloomed so luxuriously will be alive? And what will have become of all of you by then? Will you be bitter or banausic? Will you simply and dully accept world and occupation? Or will the third and by no means the least frequent possibility be your lot: mystic flight from reality for those who are gifted for it, or--as is both frequent and unpleasant--for those who belabor themselves to follow this fashion? In every one of such cases, I shall draw the conclusion that they have not measured up to their own doings. They have not measured up to the world as it really is in its everyday routine. Objectively and actually, they have not experienced the vocation for politics in its deepest meaning, which they thought they had. They would have done better in simply cultivating plain brotherliness in personal relations. And for the rest--they should have gone soberly about their daily work.

 Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth --that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today. Only he has the calling for politics who is sure that he shall not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or too base for what he wants to offer. Only he who in the face of all this can say 'In spite of all!' has the calling for politics.

  

Quoting Reinhold Niebuhr

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom, 1964

In analyzing the modern failure in each of these areas of thought [rationalism and naturalism] we have suggested that the difficulty arises from the lack of a principle of interpretation which can do justice to both the height of human self- transcendence in the organic unity between the spirit of man and his physical life. The modern mind interprets man as either essentially reason, without being able to do justice to his non-rational vitalities, or as essentially vitality without appreciating the extent of his rational freedom. Its metaphysics fails to comprehend the unity of mind and nature, of freedom and necessity, in the actual life of man. In similar fashion it dissipates the sense of individuality, upon which it insists with so much vehemence in the early Renaissance, because it cannot find a foundation in either nature, historical social structure, or universal mind for this individuality. It lacks an anchor or norm for the free individual who transcends both the limitations of nature and the various social concretions of history. It’s inability to estimate the evil in man realistically is partly due to the failure of modern culture to see man stature of self-transcendence. 

Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1:  Human Nature, 123-124

Email to a Trump Voter

I'm so old I almost entitled this a "Letter to a Trump Voter"

The following is the gist of an email sent to a friend who reported voting deplorables". What follows is my response about this, written about a week post election.
for Trump. This person is a traditional Republican, well-to-due, college educated, and normally cautious in temperament. Afte the revelation of Trump's bragging about being able to grab "pussy", my friend reported thoughts of a non-Trump vote, but then made a late decision to pull the trigger for Trump, citing Clinton's comment about "

I'm sorry for having been so tardy getting back to you, but while I suppose I'm "over the election," I'm still trying to understand it. I was quite shocked that a person like Mr. Trump could be elected president of our nation. And of course, therein lies the key. I think that voters like you and the subject of the Post piece were willing to make a gamble that members of the establishment of the Republican Party were unwilling to make. I was impressed (and reinforced in my attitude) by the rejection of Trump, either by silence or outspoken, from Bushes 41 & 43 to Powell & Rice to Sasse and others (not up for re-election) to Romney. Even the likes of Ryan & McCain gave only back-handed support. Also,  "conservative" and Republican opinion leaders like Kristol, Frum, Brooks, Douthat--I could go on. I'll stop.  No, this was a primal scream. I did not anticipate persons such as yourself and the subject of the Post piece, who have not suffered the absolute and unarguable decline that many in the Rust and Farm Belt have experienced, would vote for a populist candidate. (He performed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party.) 

Although I agree that our political process is marked by extreme dysfunctionality and needs serious reform, I was not willing to gamble. (Besides supporting some very different public policy positions from that of the Republicans & Trump.) Clinton, I had hoped, would move toward serious reforms while having a firm grasp of the rudder and reality (not the TV kind). But because he's an odd Republican (a party of one, in effect), Mr. Trump may support policies that make sense. These policies would include infrastructure repair and upgrade that entails a measured fiscal stimulus, term limits for Congress, minimum wage hikes, limitations on financial speculation, reform of the ACA without removing millions from coverage, and so on. To the extent he can shepherd sound public policy through Congress, all the better.  

As to "the deplorables," it was an impolitic statement for Ms. Clinton to have made. Not false, but not precise either. 50% is too high (I hope), but too many of Mr. Trump's most vocal supporters were too remarkable for exhibiting and promoting deplorable traits. Too many of this supporters have one or more of the deplorable traits (or the whole basket) to which she referred. I have no problem branding racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, and celebration of violence as deplorable. But to me, in the end, there was one overwhelming "deplorable" that outweighed them all: the character, temperament, and underlying message of Trump himself. Every time I think of him I hear myself repeating, "What a horrible person." ("Deplorable" would work as well.) 

 I understand that many Trump voters were willing to overlook his patent faults and frightening statements to send a message of anger, fear, and rejection to our political elite. Elites, both Democrat and Republican, have let the sores fester for too long. Unlike my perception of Trump voters, I'm was not (and am still not) willing to risk burning down the house to rid it of termites. I'd be happy to learn that my worst fears are unfounded. But in the days since the election, Mr. Trump has given me little grounds for hope. I still see him as a demagogue in political practice and as a despot in the making by temperament. (Richard Nixon at least had the virtue of hypocrisy; he said and did some admirable things and tried to hide the spiders in his mind.)  

I will remain vigilant and active. Time will tell. 

The Trump Diaries 23 Nov. 2016

When I was more buff & had happier thoughts

What's on my mind? Damn, it's Mr. Trump.

I have to say that while I hold Mr. Trump in low regard, he is not without a set of skills. He is shockingly ignorant about the Constitution, American government, and public policy. He has a tiny attention span and speaks in a 4th-grade vocabulary. He doesn't read books or anything of any nuance or complexity. He's addicted to Twitter and easily distracted. He is ill-tempered and easily baited. But he is very accomplished at one thing: he's a master salesman.

His sales pitch, his hype, sold enough "Trump" to get him past the Electoral College minimum. So what does he do now? Here's where it gets interesting. He has just disavowed any intention of pursuing Hillary Clinton further on any criminal charges. (Not that it's his choice, but that's another matter.) During his interview with NYT, he came across as open minded about climate change. He has signaled an infrastructure upgrade plans that mimics (on first glance only) the recommendations of Paul Krugman and others. Trump has not gone after gays or gay marriage, unlike his attacks, explicit and implicit, on Muslims, Mexican-Americans, and immigrants in general. In the meantime, his appointments have been of toadies and cronies. What's going on?

Trump wants to retain power. (Of course, all presidents want to retain and deploy power, the only differences arise from the ways they find to do so and their self-imposed limits, such as honor, shame, the judgment of history, and so on.) To maintain power, Trump has to enlist support from elites; people who run and control institutions that allow our society to function. Elites are (on the whole) better educated, more tolerant, and more grounded in science and other realities about how the world works than most Trump supporters. In fact, like all contemporary politicians, Trump must attempt to bridge these two constituencies. Also, it's now obvious that Trump will remain infatuated with his business operations while seeking to lead the American government. How will he keep all of these interests happy?

In order to do so, you can expect to see a very pragmatic Trump. This pragmatic, power-seeking Trump, will prove tempting, deceiving, and perhaps useful to those who oppose him in principle as a demagog and pretender. "Forget about prosecuting my old friend, Hillary Clinton? No problem" he's in effect saying. He says things potentially reasonable about climate change and he says that we'll dig and drill like crazy for more fossil fuels? No problem! Like any demagogue (and any politician, the difference is one of degree), he'll try to say things that disarm us. The challenge for we American citizens and the rest of the world is to gobble up the tasty bits thrown at us without dropping our guards. I'm hoping that the American public will prove smarter than the average guard dog.

Trump is the master of bait and switch sales. He made a lot of money doing so. (Not to mention having avoided paying taxes on a great deal of it.) But I suspect that Trump has few returning customers. He plays for the one time win, as in a prisoner's dilemma, but running a government creates an iterated (repeating) game, and we (should) learn not to fall for his blandishments. Too many failed to see this before the election, but they are seeing it now. Slowly, deliberately, we must drain the power of this huckster.

Peter Turchin: Prophet

Scientist as prophet

Peter Turchin's most recent article (at the increasingly important Evonomics.com website), "I Use the Science of Predicting the Rise and Fall of Societies", presents an excellent introduction to Turchin's work of late. I'm a fan of Turchin's (see some earlier reviews and comments here and here). I'm embarrassed that I haven't yet read Ages of Discord, but I certainly will. (#backlogged) This piece provides a concise summary of his project and his findings. 

But I have a bone to pick with it. 

Turchin writes of his theory: [T]his is a science-based forecast, not a 'prophecy'." He continues: "It's based on social science" involving "broad social trends and deep structural causes of these developments". Turchin goes on to eschew predictions of occasions as precise as an election outcome or the fate of an individual; he's talking about trends and structures, not events.  He likens himself of Isaac Asimov's character Hari Seldon his Asimov's sci-fi classic, Foundation. Like Seldon, Turchin believes that he discerns patterns that foretell an era of decline. But unlike Seldon, he does not recommend retreating to wait for the future; instead, Turchin advocates using this knowledge to shape current events. Turchin writes: 

[I]n Foundation Seldon’s equations told him that it would be impossible to stop the decline of the Galactic Empire—Trantor must fall. In real life, thankfully, things are different. And this is another way in which the forecasts of cliodynamics differ from prophecies of doom. They give us tools not only to understand the problem, but also potentially to fix it.

Turchin rejects the Sheldon course of action that retreats in the face of what he sees as the immutable future. Instead, Turchin argues for action through what I would describe as reason, dialogue, and democracy. Turchin writes: 

[T]he only way forward is through an open discussion of problems and potential solutions and a broad-based collective action to implement them. It’s messy and slow, but that’s how lasting positive change usually comes about.

Turchin rejects any inevitability (unlike Sheldon) and believes that we can avert disaster because we can act. His peroration (and that's the best label) sums it up quite well. It deserves the italics: 

Our society, like all previous complex societies, is on a rollercoaster. Impersonal social forces bring us to the top; then comes the inevitable plunge. But the descent is not inevitable. Ours is the first society that can perceive how those forces operate, even if dimly. This means that we can avoid the worst — perhaps by switching to a less harrowing track, perhaps by redesigning the rollercoaster altogether. 

It's a slim reed to grasp at, but I'll take it. 

But wait, what's the bone that I had to pick with this? You may discern that I have great admiration for his project, and I do. No, the bone--about the size of a chicken wishbone--is this. Turchin claims not to engage in "prophecy." I think that he does engage in prophecy. Of course, if by prophecy one means predicting the future, such as fortune telling or soothsaying; no, of course, he's not doing that. But there is a biblical sense of prophecy that I think is applicable to his effort. The great prophets of the Hebrew tradition conveyed a message to the people: turn away from your evil ways or you will suffer a loss of favor with the Lord. Their message was not the forecast of an inevitable future, but of choices to be made. Follow the way of the Lord or suffer the consequences. Turchin, in a contemporary, scientific idiom, is saying the much the same thing. Like Biblical prophets, he may want to shun the mantle, but I think that its too late for him. He won't know where this will lead him because it depends upon what further research and thought and discussion reveal to him, but I don't think he can--and I hope he won't--shun the mantle. 

Something to Ponder from Reinhold Niebuhr

Romanticism asserts both the vitality of nature and its primitive and organic unities agaisnt the universalities of rationalism. It therefore either defies every principle of form and order (as in Nietzscheanism) or it emphasizes primitive and inadequate natural forms of unity (Blut und Boden) [Blood and Soil]. It thus becomes an instrument of decadence, hastening the destruction of bourgeois civilization without offering a way to a new order. Signficantly the lower middle classes (individuals who desparately flee from their isolation into unities of race and nation, and persons without a sense of history who rediscover history in terms of primitivve tribalism) are the instruments of this decadence. 

The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation Vol. 1 Human Nature (1941) by Reinhold Niebuhr (50)

Who Ya' Gonna' Call? Trump Busters!

Perhaps this dates me, but then consider my Five Venerables!

Whom do I trust?

This is a list of persons whom I’ve come to trust when considering our current political situation. Not that I agree with them in every instance or every detail, nor they with me, for that matter. But I trust each of them to think deeply and cogently about how we ought to act as a citizen of a democratic polity and about what we ought to know to act in the best interest of ourselves and those around us.

The first five on the list are a special group that I call “The Five Venerables” (two years in China) because everyone in the group is over 80 years old (and Lukacs over 90). Among the five, only Wills has written directly about Trump (reminding me of his days writing about Nixon and making Nixon’s enemies list). But the other four have written deeply about values, political and cultural, and provide a deep perspective. (And I’d be astonished if each is not horrified at the thought of Trump). The rest of the list is simply in the order that they came to me as I looked around at reading lists, Twitter feeds, and so on. I’ll try to say a bit about each and where you find them.

1.    John Lukacs. His Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred (2005) is a must.

2.    William (Patrick) Ophuls. A Buddhist teacher and political scientist, a source of deep and challenging insights on ecology, politics, and how we can build a better world. See my blog for book reviews.

3.    Garry Wills. Scholar-journalist, he’s written about Trump (and other topics) at the New York Review of Books blog site (free access).

4.    Ursula LeGuin. The Sage of Portland.

5.    Wendell Berry. Farmer-poet of Kentucky who can celebrate and understand “rural people,” something that has been neglected.

6.    David Frum. The Atlantic and Twitter. The former employee of the G.W. Bush administration has been a real beacon speaking out against Trump, and to me, an affirmation that the challenge goes beyond any Republican-Democrat divide.

7.    James Fallows. The Atlantic and Twitter

8.    New Yorker writers. Outstanding coverage: Remnick, Cassidy, Davidson, Osnos, Gopnick, and others.

9.    Fareed Zakaria. CNN and The Washington Post. He wrote the book Illiberal Democracy (1997), even more important now.

10. Anne Applebaum. The Washington Post and Twitter. An expert on Eastern Europe, she’s watching the same phenomena unfold on both sides of the Atlantic.

11. E.J. Dionne. The Washingon Post and his books.

12. Andrew Sullivan. New York Magazine. Another self-described conservative who deserves a special shout-out.

13. David Brooks. New York Times.

14. Ross Douthat. New York Times.

15. Francis Fukuyama. Political scientist. Twitter, academic journals, and popular press. Books.

16. Jack Goldstone. Political scientist. Popular press & his blog NewPopulationBomb,  as well as academic publications.

17. Thomas Homer-Dixon. Political scientist. Books & popular press. His website.  Especially concerned with climate change and its implications for society and politics.

18. Peter Turchin. Academic biologist turned historian who writes about historical dynamics. Check out his most recent book. Evonomics.com & PeterTurchin.com

19. Daron Acemoglu. Academic economist. Popular articles and books.

20. David Sloan Wilson. Evolutionary biologist and founder of Evonomics.com (critiques traditional economics and provides new paths)

21. Joe Stiglitz. Nobel prize-winning economist. Books and Project Syndicate website.

22. Paul Krugman. New York Times.

23. Andrew Bacevich. Academic specializing in foreign affairs. Books.

24. Cass Sunstein. Legal and political polymath. Writes popularly for Bloomberg.

25. Stephen Walt. IR scholar writes for Foreign Policy Journal and Twitter.

26. Timothy Snyder. Historian of the Holocaust and Eastern Europe.  

27. Thomas Edsall. New York Times.

28. George Lakoff. A linguist with interesting ideas & suggestions about political communications. Books & articles.

29. Jonathan Haidt. Social psychologist. Books and articles. Present on Twitter.

30. Timothy Egan. New York Times.

31. Joseph Tainter. Anthropologist concerned with societal collapse & sustainability. Books and Youtube.

32. Bruce Bartlett. Worked for Republicans. Twitter.

33. Jeff Salzman. Integral theorist & teacher. Podcast & blog The Daily Evolver.

34. Nick Hanauer. Twitter, popular press & book.

35. Eric Liu. Twitter, popular press & book (with Hanauer).

36. Eric Beinhocker. Economic theorist. Twitter & books.

37. Ezra Klein. Vox.com & podcasts.

38. Ian Baruma. Project Syndicate and books.

39. Robert D. Kaplan. Books and articles (e.g., Atlantic, Foreign Policy)

40. Robert Wright. Books and bloggingheads.tv.

41. Ian Bremmer. Twitter, books, popular press.

42. Robert Reich. Facebook, books, Financial Times (gated)

43. Jeffrey Sachs. Twitter, Boston Globe, books.

44. Rick Pearlstein. An independent historian who chronicles the rise of the right.

I’m sure that there are many others whom I missed. Please make any suggestions.


29 April 2017 (always an auspicious date): 

It's time to do a quick update of my Trump-busters list. I don't think that anyone deserves to get bounced, and a couple of crucial additions are necessary: 

45. Masha Gessen. If the list was based on value, she'd be near the top. This Russian native now living in the U.S. has proven to be an invaluable voice in understanding Trump. She writes at the NYRB. I highly recommend her pieces. (Which I often post to my Facebook page.

46. Sarah Kendzior. This American, writing out of St. Louis, is an anthropologist whose specialty is Central Asia (now that's really remote!). And Central Asia's specialty, among other things, is dictatorships and kleptocracies. She provides a lot of fine analysis. You can find out about here at her website. 

All stop at these two because they're crucial and I'll update this prn. 

Some First Thoughts

I'm slowly recovering my mojo after the election, and as I would do after a losing jury trial, I'd move past my emotional bender and begin to perform an autopsy. What went wrong? What should I have done differently? Why didn't I anticipate X? Why on earth didn't those morons agree with me! (With the last statement I realize that I have to back off into clinical mode.)  It's a slow, painful process, but a necessary one. In fact, my reading and thoughts will be mulling over this election and the reality surrounding it for some time. The good news? If you don't care about this stuff (or my take on it), you can stop reading. Relief is just a click away. 

The following is a Comment (which I rarely post) on a blog post entitled "It's Not About Hillary." The blog is provocative (to me), written by a Brit ex-pat I've met here in Bucharest. What follows is my first serious reflection on events after the election, following commiserating with friends and relatives. (I've changed just a few words; I can't resist endless tinkering with my prose.)

You're right: it wasn't about Clinton. Regardless of her perceived faults, from full-blown Clinton Derangement Syndrome to her patent mistakes and faults, anyone with any modicum of political judgment knows that she was a landslide loser in the faults category. The president-elect is a liar, a bullshitter, a tax-and-draft dodger, a misogynist, and a racist who promotes violence. He has the temperament of a spoiled, petulant little boy, the character of a huckster, and the experience of a used car salesman. (He is a terrific salesman. He sells baloney and people buy it. Once.) He has no real friends, only toadies and cronies. Who admires Donald Trump? (Envy? Yes.) He is a man of low character, without a moral compass, a sociopath. I wish none of this were true! If this had been a loss to Mitt Romney, character and moral compass would not be the topics of discussion. Trump is sui generis in American politics. 

The sui generis aspect of Trump is that U.S. electoral college system (not the voters) have elected a classic demagogue. A nation that followed FDR and refused the blandishments of Father Coughlin, Huey Long, and other crackpot demagogues in the Great Depression now succumbs to this? A nation that put aside Joe McCarthy and George Wallace surrenders to this huckster? This is like a second fall, a loss of innocence, the end of American exceptionalism.  

How do we account for this? Going back to the original point, it's not about Hillary Clinton. She’s a Methodist do-gooder who developed political savvy and power through mastery of the material and the system--surely intimidating to the weak-minded males. The smart, hard-working girl who left behind the lackadaisical boys like Donald Trump. But Trump had inherited wealth and privilege, but his voters, especially the less educated white males that voted as a minority group (which they increasingly are), don't have this cushion. The class clown and bully just beat the smart, ambitious girl for class president--and that's about how seriously many voters thought about this election. Clinton had to have grave character faults--A liar! A crook! Benghazi! Emails!--because Trump voters needed justification for their license, their willingness to set aside tradition and civic decorum to vote for this monster from their damaged ids and egos. 

But why take this reckless risk? That’s the deeper question. I agree with those who see this vote like Brexit, only this choice will have more tangible, significant consequences. But the common thread is that the herd is spooked. What is making them so restless, so willing to trample the Establishment? Voters act as if they were young French radicals eager to "Épater la bourgeoisie!" But these people want the good life, the middle-class--if not fabulously wealthy--life. The establishment has made mistakes and has ignored the festering problems of working class America, but this willingness to risk the political order to express grievances is classic, but not rational. The cost of the balm will very soon exceed the temporary satisfaction. The hangover will become apparent soon. 

If you think that the media was unfair to Trump, you're wrong. The media created Trump—a classic television "celebrity.” He received a free ride early because he drove ratings higher by his antics. Only later--much later--did conservatives who take political principles seriously raise a hue and cry, and they work mostly in print. Only two general newspapers endorsed Trump, and many prominent conservative intellectuals spoke out against Trump. But who was heeding them? The degree of Establishment (elite) unity opposing Trump was impressive, but the voters were out to goose the elites, come what may.  

I’m headed back into the books, deeper into history and political thought. Arendt, Niebuhr, Lukacs, Lippmann, Ophuls--those who've lived and written about dark times. The American body politic is ill and needs serious and sustained attention. But first, we must know the disease and follow the lead of the those who have identified the symptoms and chronicled the outbreaks. 

In response to the Reply, I wrote the following: 

Despite the fact that I'm an older white male from small town Iowa, I have a hard time picturing myself the member of an oppressed minority. However, I do understand that much of middle America has been left behind for a variety of reasons, and that elites, Democrat & Republican, have been negligent in addressing these simmering problems. The Republicans, the worst offenders, but that's an apparent point. See, e.g., Kansas.  

Neither Krugman or I really care that whites (however defined) become a minority. Defining Americans by race or ethnicity is a habit, but not a good one. Nativism is an atavistic response by the ignorant (sorry, I can't sugar-coat this) to perceived loss of status. (Read Richard Hofstadter). It's true that too much immigration taxes the ability of society to incorporate new arrivals, and the U.S., is--perhaps more than any other nation--"a nation of immigrants". 

The tribalism that Trump plays upon is truncated, small-minded form of community. Christianity and Islam met their success--and for the Catholic Church, continues to have surprising success--because of their universality. The liberal tradition inherited and seeks to expand this outlook. The American experiment has extended the idea of universality with its "novus ordo seculorum", but it regresses at times. My only hope that the election of this demagogue, this man with all the markings of a would-be despot, doesn't ruin the noble experiment. 

And in response to another Reply that asked "Atavistic and ignorant are just insults. Please can you explain why nativism is bad?", I wrote: 

"Nativism is an atavistic response by the ignorant (sorry, I can't sugar-coat this) to perceived loss of status."  

No, these are not intended as insults, but as descriptions, although I realize that the connotation of each is negative. 
Nativism, in U.S. history & in U.S. political discourse is anti-immigrant sentiment. I suspect my Puritan ancestors may have opposed my Irish Catholic ancestors, but these tides come and go as assimilation occurs and economic circumstances vary. Nativism is not based on reasoned argument about the effects of immigration, but the perceived need for scapegoats based on social and religious prejudice. Immigrants are different, and different is hard for most folks to deal with. Nativism is atavistic because by definition atavism is appeal to a more primitive form of social allegiance, the tribe of native born Americans (excluding, of course, the first native born Americans (i.e., American Indians). While civil society is a must, tribalism is a regression on social and political organization and belief.  

Ignorant has a pejorative connotation, and I intended that, but the plain truth here (and I'm revealing my conservative bona fides here) is that most of the electorate is ignorant--lacks knowledge of and about--what goes on in the political economy. They feel those effects exquisitely, but they look for scapegoats rather than causes (of which there are many). Of course, this is true for all of us (I'm one who believes strongly in the reality of human finitude), but we are not all equally endowed to comprehend different aspects of the world. E.g., don't ask me to fix your car. Indeed, a pressing problem, one long known (centuries?) is that most of the voting public is abysmally ignorant about government and political affairs and are prone to believing the ridiculous. (Obama a Muslim or foreign-born, the most recent manifestations.) 

The U.S. has for for all of the 20th and 21st centuries placed limits on immigration, which have been difficult to enforce, mainly because the American southwest has always been marked by Hispanic culture and families. Culturally and ethnically, the Rio Grande has never been a real divider. The net flow of immigrants is in recent years turned back south, but it's a problem that the U.S. can (and has) lived with for decades. 

Andrew Sullivan Haunts Me

Last spring I posted a discussion of an article by veteran political commentator Andrew Sullivan about Donald Trump as a classic demagogue. The article was on target, citing Trump's features as a would-be despot based on insights from Plato to Eric Hoffer. After that article in New York Magazine, as far as I could tell, Sullivan went silent on the topic. Then, on November 3, he published this article, "America and the Abyss". I read through it quickly a couple of days or so after publication, and at that point it appeared that Clinton would win. I didn't ponder it deeply, feeling the anticipated relief of an iminent reprieve. 

Today, feeling stronger, I went back and began the autopsy. Like millions of Americans, I was stunned, confused, angry, and mortified that so many Americans would fall for this con man. In  reading Sullivan's article, I felt the trauma anew. He prayed that he was wrong, that this would not come to pass, that his worst fears were the rantings of a deluded man. If he is deluded, so am I. However, I believe that he--and many others like him--are Cassandras whose foresight goes unheeded, leading to the ruin of many. I hope that he and I and others like us are wrong, that Trump will not wreck the republic, that at worst he will only pursue policies that I find counter-productive, not unconstitutional, and that all of his decisions will be rational; that my troubled sight is a mere mirage that does not reveal a rough beast. But I don't believe that this leopard will change his spots. 

Sullivan opens his piece: 

The most frustrating aspect of the last 12 months has been the notion that we have been in a normal, if truly ugly, election cycle, with one extremely colorful and unpredictable figure leading the Republican Party in an otherwise conventional political struggle over policy. It has been clear for months now, it seems to me, that this is a delusion. A far more accurate account of the past year is that an openly proto-fascist cult leader has emerged to forge a popular movement that has taken over one of the major political parties, eroded central norms of democratic life, undermined American democratic institutions, and now stands on the brink of seizing power in Washington. 

After addressing the possiblity that his fears are overblown, Sullivan continues with this appraisal of Trump:

Donald Trump is the first candidate for president who seems to have little understanding of or reverence for constitutional democracy and presents himself as a future strongman.This begins with his character — if that word could possibly be ascribed to his disturbed, unstable, and uncontrollable psyche. He has revealed himself incapable of treating other people as anything but instruments to his will. He seems to have no close friends, because he can tolerate no equals. He never appears to laugh, because that would cede a recognition to another’s fleeting power over him. He treats his wives and his children as mere extensions of his power, and those who have resisted the patriarch have been exiled, humiliated, or bought off.  

Sullivan concludes his indictment of Trump's deficiencies and breaches of the mores of demcracy with this conclusion: 

We are told we cannot use the term fascist to describe this. I’m at a loss to find a more accurate alternative.

I, too, have avoided the "f-word", and I've stuck with "demagogue", an older, more generic term, but I don't know that my distinction holds up well up scrutiny. Sullivan also decries the duplicity of the Republican Party in attempting to ride this rough beast, a choice that has an all too errie precedent: 

[The Republican] party, like the conservative parties in Weimar Germany, has never seen fit to anathematize him, only seeking to exploit his followers in the vain and foolish delusion that they can control him in the future in ways they have not been able to in the past. 

This man has no friends, no confidants, only toadies and those with whom he can deal by domination. 

I differ with Sullivan's harsh judgment of the Democrats and the Clinton campaign in highlighting Clinton's vanilla competance. But he does raise a troubling issue: How can the Democrats succeed by "advancing a bloodless rationalism that has never been a match for the tribal national passions of the right."? This presents a deeply troubling ethical and practical dilemma. How can the rational, the prosaic, that gets things done, contend for the minds of those for whom simple and emotionally compelling answers  are most persuasive? Is humankind to remain a "2,000,000 year old man", as Jung (quoted by Ophuls) describes humanity? For now, that is certainly true. How to fight fire with fire when you know the fire will burn you? 

Sullivan references a precedent that I thought consoling, but he deflates my hopes with this comment: "Even the criminal Richard Nixon was eventually restrained and dispatched by a Republican Establishment that still knew how to run the country and had a loyalty to broader American institutions. Such an Establishment no longer exists. " The Republican Establishment now is a far cry from that of the 1970s,  when many, if not most, were genuinely shocked at Nixon's abuses of power. But I fear Sullivan is correct, the current Republican Establishment lacks the moral courage to stand up to this man. A few have, but far too few. 

Like Sullivan, I never believed that this could happen, that a large enough group (but not even a plurality of voters) could bring this type of politics to America. This marks the end of American exceptionalism. Sullivan writes: 

I have long had faith that some version of fascism cannot come to power in America. The events of the past year suggest deep reflection on that conviction. A political hurricane has arrived, as globalization has eroded the economic power of the white working classes, as the cultural left has overplayed its hand on social and racial issues, and as a catastrophic war and a financial crisis has robbed the elites of their credibility. As always in history, you still needed the spark, the unique actor who could deploy demagogic talent to drag an advanced country into violence and barbarism. In Trump, America found one for the ages. 

So I'll end the same way Sullivan ends his piece, even though Election Day has passed: "Do what you can."  

Quotes from Ophuls, Pt. 6

A day ago, I thought I'd write a post-election blog today. But I don't have the heart to write something now. So continuing the quotes from Ophuls, with their insights and provocations to deeper thought, must suffice.

[T]o use Marxist language to make a point contrary to Marx, the state, not the private capitalist, was the true expropriator, and increased national and state power was both the end and the means of this expropriation.This is one powerful reason, among many others, why the Marxist solution to the problems of Hobbesian political economy has failed so badly: by appealing to the original agent of expropriation for salvation, it puts the fox in charge of the chickens. Seizure of the means production by the state does not alter the fact of expropriation; rather, it  replaces one class of exploiters, the monopoly capitalis ts and their political lackeys, with a "new class"of appartchiks and commissars, such as the corrupt nomenclatura that ran the former Soviet Union. 111

The free market is therefore an ideological fiction. Not only did the market system have to be created by the government in the first place, but it can continue only to operate with continuous government intervention and support thereafter. However, because of the disproportionate power of corporations, the economic tail wags the political dog. The upshot is the worst of both worlds: a top-heavy and heavy-handed state bureaucracy layered over a distorted and somewhat corrupt market economy. 118

An especially pertinent point:

Ironically, the supposed "conservatives" of American politics, that complain the loudest about many of these changes, especially moral decay, are the most laissez-faire with respect to the economic enterprise and technological innovation that produce them. In return for higher levels of production, we have to pay the price in lost social cohesion and political autonomy, as the values of "efficiency" and "exchange" implicit in achieving greater productivity have invaded the sociopolitical realm. (The supposed "liberals" of American politics are just as deluded as the "conservatives": equally addicted to material progress, they also want to conquer nature with technology; but they foolishly believe that economic production as possible without economic power, that ordinary citizens can call the political and social tune when, in fact, it is economic and technological enterprise that pays the piper. In short, with the collaboration of all parties, the technological servant has become the political master.) 171

Quotes from Ophuls, Pt. 5

The quotes today from Requiem for Modern Politics all concern television. When reading these quotes, ask yourself: would Donald Trump be a candidate for president if television as a medium didn't exist?

Television is not an informative medium at all, but a dramatic one: it transmits images, not ideas; it evokes emotions, not thoughts; and it arouses passion, not deliberation. Indeed, at its worst, it is frankly inflammatory. 81
 

Reading is active: the reader translates printed words on a page into mental images, which takes imagination and thought. Viewing television is passive: the viewer absorbs ready-made images, which takes neither thought nor imagination. Because reading exercises the mind, whereas television entrances and even stupefies it, citizens no longer deliberate but instead respond to events with raw emotion. Television is theIf refore antithetical to the traditional understanding of politics and citizenship in the liberal tradition. 82
 

Finally, if the goal of civilization is greater consciousness, a position held in one form or another by virtually everyone from Plato to Freud, then television is indeed the enemy of civilization: to use Fruedian language, it fosters more id and less ego, more unconscious emotional reaction and less of the reality principle. In effect, television is psychoanalysis in reverse. 86 [Italics mine]

"If the goal of civilization is greater consciousness": Is this the goal of civilization? If not, what is? What creates "greater consciousness"? 

Quotes from Ophuls, Pt. 4

 William Ophus, sage

N.B. Please read the quotes for today and consider the circumstances of the current election season.

More participation, for example, is often put forward as the panacea for our political ills. But this is a singularly inappropriate remedy – unless those who participate do so in a responsible and public spirited fashion, which is less and less the case. 68

Our myth, of course, is that in partisan debate "the marketplace of ideas" will result in good ideas driving out bad. But the actuality seems to be that all marketplaces, including those including that of political discourse, are dominated by Gresham's law. So slogans and symbols have driven out reasoned discussion; and systemic mendacity has largely preempted reasonable argument. Public discourse in a hyper pluralistic polity therefore generates heat, not light. In fact, that is the real purpose, for the winners of the political struggle are those who build the hottest fires under the politicians feet. 69-70

In effect, politics is now a spectator sport: the moral and social vacuum left by the decay of Lockean society has been filled by an ersatz media community. 78

Quotes from Ophuls, Pt. 3

The drama of modern politics is a tragedy in which the hero, his supposed enlightenment being but another name for hubris, has become the author of his own impending doom. 54

The inexorable tendency of all forms of polity based on liberal premises, as Hobbes himself made explicit, is to compensate for the decline in civic virtue of the individual by increasing the political power of the state – the story of modern politics in a nutshell. 55

The so-called American revolution was, in fact, a rebellion, reluctantly undertaken only after much brooding and many efforts to obtain a redress of grievances. Thus it was fought not to overturn colonial society but to overthrow Royal authority. Nor did the American aristocracy ever abandon its cultural and philosophical allegiance to the mother country or to European civilization in general. In fact, the Founding Fathers exemplified (and were seen by their European contemporaries as exemplifying) the best of the Enlightenment civilization, combining philosophical learning and high principles derived from natural religion with practical reason and political skill. 58

Quotes from Ophuls, Pt. 2

Despotism may govern without faith, liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; it is more needed in democratic republics than in others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral ties not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with the people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the deity?

Alexi de Tocqueville 29

[M]arx, as much biblical prophet as political philosopher, brokes decisively with Hobbes and the Enlightenment mainstream by brining religion back into politics. The Marxist sovereign has the duty to . . . end the class domination and social oppression that has marred all previous history. When this overweaning objective is joined to the general enlightenment drive for social perfection, the result is an ideological crusade for an earthly paradise – in effect, a secular religion. By resurrecting the eschatological element that Hobbbes had tried to exclude from politics, Marx unleased a new era of quasireligous warfare, both withing and between states. . . . As a political doctrine, Marxism therefore combines the autoritariansim of Hobbes with the very worst aspect of premodern politics: the religious element that Hobbes tried so hard to get rid of. 42

The usual way of putting it is to say that women have escaped an anomalous and inferior status to take their rightful place in the modern world. But it would probably be more accurate to say that capitalism has finally succeeded incorporating the last major class to resist the blandishments of the market system. 52

Quotes from Ophuls, Pt. 1

All quotes are taken from Requiem for Modern Politics by William Ophuls. All quotes are his unless otherwise indicated. I'll post a few quotes each time with the intention that they will act as thought seeds. Is this guy nuts or is he on to something? 

The major advances in civilization are processes which all but wrecked the societies in which they occur.

Alfred North Whitehead (xv)

Of course, all political paradigms contain inherent contradictions and therefore generate problems that must be solved.The job of the statesman, as opposed to the mere politician, is to preserve the paradigm by dealing effectively with these problems. However, if political wisdom and skill are lacking or if the contradictions are very deep, small problems eventually coalesce into a large problemmatique that challenges the old paradigm. At this point, more reform, however well conceived, no longer suffices and may even make matters worse, so pressure builds up for a fundamental change in regime. (26)

The challenge is to find a way of going beyond a moral individualism without losing the individual along the way. (27)