Patrick, really well done. Clearly presented history and context. Insightful comments at the conclusion, both sides presented. I look forward to the continuing discussion. Stay the course.
Life is Herculean these days, but we are making the best of it.
As you point out, this is 249 years in the making. What I know is the full flowering brings the dénouement.
The current moment is the full flowering uber-alpha male of the rational self interest mindset. And so we are prudent to focus on compost, renewal and local.
As Voltaire said, “why yes, Dr Pangloss but I must tend my garden.”
Thank you, Patrick for writing this NOW. I too will watch the fireworks and wonder if we will ever have a country that I can celebrate truly, with "freedom for all".
In the progressive enclave of Cascadia, it takes courage to face fact that the roots of our current crisis of democracy can be traced to the Constitution itself, thus calling into question the bedrock foundation of our limited freedoms.
Similarly the dramatic rise of the grievance culture contributing to the emergence of fascism in American culture can be traced to our over-reliance on command and control regulations for everything from affirmative action, energy production and environmental protection. In his book Abundance Ezra Klein boldly asserts that progressive's reliance on the procedural and legal obstructionism of these laws has outlived it's usefulness. I agree. It's so much easier to stop bad things from happening that we have all but abandoned promoting the common good.
Our environmental laws and regulations emerged in the same context of governance by elites who do not trust regular people and communities to make good decisions about their future. The earliest environmentalists - Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir, Gifford Pinchot and others we're more interested in preserving wilderness, parks and forests as playgrounds for the wealthy elite than for the for the ecological services they provide, which we can no longer afford. Similar dynamics were at play in the 60s and 70s when Richard Nixon Senator Gaylord Nelson and even our beloved Denis Hayes dreamed up laws like the endangered species act, clean water act, national environmental policy act and others that we rely on today. These laws were incredibly effective at restraining the ecological destruction of that era, but our continued reliance on them is a major source of the frustration expressed by a growing proportion of our society (among other things).
In that vein, I have begun to question whether building codes as they exist (my area of professional focus and expertise) can be effective at addressing carbon pollution and equity concerns in new construction, much less existing buildings. Energy code advocates (as I have long been) continue to make incremental progress toward requiring NetZero construction, but at what cost? The time may soon come when all of our progress will be erased through the same political backlash that handed control of US government to crooks and fascists. I am working on a research agenda and policy proposal to transform building codes by replacing the current prescriptive rules enforced through the threat of sanctions, with a system based in flexibility, incentives, trust and collaborative governance. Even in such a small narrow policy arena, there are no easy answers but it's a place to start that I can wrap my head around. If we hope to lunch at bloodless revolution, it will require a leap of faith and a lot of hard work at the negotiating table. If we're willing to sacrifice our lives, perhaps we should start by letting go of our reliance on prescriptive laws, lawsuits and centralized authority. Perhaps then we can begin to bridge the cultural gap.
I wonder if you, your readers and our leaders are ready to contemplate a new constitutional convention, and a fundamental rethinking of the administrative State and the rule book it relies on?
In a progressive enclave like Cascadia, it takes courage to face the fact that the roots of our current crisis lie in the Constitution itself, thus calling this bedrock of our limited freedoms into question.
Similarly, we need to acknowledge the roots of grievance culture enabling the rise of fascism in America, which can be traced ( among other things) to an over-reliance on command and control regulations on everything from affirmative action, energy production and environmental protection. In this book Abundance, Ezra Klein boldly critiques the procedural state which has crippled progress on housing, energy and technological innovation. I too have come to question the ultimate effectiveness of prescriptive rule books like building codes (my area of professional focus/expertise) to address carbon emissions, health and equity in new construction much less existing buildings. I'm working on a research agenda and policy proposal to transform building codes by replacing prescriptive rules enforced through the threat of sanctions to a system built on flexibility, trust incentives and collaborative governance. It's a small part of the larger challenge but it's a place to start that I can wrap my head around.
If we are going to launch a bloodless revolution as you suggest, it will include questioning many of the laws and legal strategies progressives rely on to make incremental changes, and shift to transformative policy ideas that address the grievances of the growing proportion of society that chafes at the bureaucracy and obstructionism of our current prescriptive approach to regulation. It's so much easier to stop bad things from happening that we have all but abandoned the idea of promoting the common good. At least in Cascadia, the seeds of such a transformation do seem to be sprouting. Yet if we make the leap of faith you may stand a chance of closing the cultural gap.
As you point out, even our environmental regulations emerged in the context of governance by American elites who do not trust regular people or communities to make good decisions for our collective future. The earliest environmentalists, Teddy roosevelt, John muir, Gifford pinchot etc. were more interested in preserving parks and forests as playgrounds for the elite than for the ecological services they provide, something we can no longer afford. This carried forward to the 1970s, when Nixon and cultural elites dreamed up the clean water act, endangered species act, national environmental policy act etc. These laws have been incredibly effective at restraining the environmental destruction of that era, but they are no longer working for us as the scale of the challenges has grown exponentially.
I wonder if you and your other readers (and our progressive leaders) are ready to contemplate a new constitutional convention, and a fundamental rethinking of the bureaucratic regulations contributing to the rise of the grievance culture that is undermining the fabric of our society?
In my work on buildings I came to believe performance-based codes are superior and should be implemented wherever possible.
I think the changes we need are deeper than Klein and others envision. Having known the climate world, as you have, I see how the dialogue was consumed by technocratic solutions, big carbon policy frameworks rather than direct support for innovations on the ground. The market incentivized by those policies would supply innovations. I will say parenthetically that perhaps the most effective climate framework has been the clean energy standards which set performance-based goals.
I think we need more radically democratic and post-capitalist solutions than the abundance agenda envisions. For example, renewable energy development is held up by popular opposition to transmission lines expressed through legal processes. But why do we need those lines? Because the utility business model, through regulations guaranteeing a rate of return on capital investment, and through depending on electricity sales to make profits, favors large installments in remote rural areas. A cooperative energy framework that is truly democratically managed would favor renewable energy installations in the urban footprint. With no need for profit, the desire for community control would overcome possible higher cost factors. Having worked in solar, you probably have some views on this. A community energy cooperative would also forward deep efficiency, while regulators have to pull teeth to make utilities supply efficiency, and it usually picks up mostly low hanging fruit.
In terms of housing, yes zoning and environmental laws have hindered multifamily units, with older neighborhoods seeking to maintain single housing lots. Living in a Seattle neighborhood that is being overcrowded by mega-buildings because so much of the city is single family, I feel it. But the broader housing issue is market failure, because developers are incentivized to build housing that supplies higher profit rates. The answer is social housing, outside the private market.
These two examples reflect my skepticism for the abundance agenda. It is, to my mind, an extension of neoliberal thinking which says if we just take down obstacles the market will supply the goods. I believe we need to build a community sector beyond the market in both public and cooperative modes. If you scroll back, you will see this thinking reflected in my previous pieces. I am also exploring degrowth, because it is clear we have exceeded planetary boundaries. Capitalism is conditioned on growth. It is part of its DNA. We need to move beyond it to build economic institutions geared to supplying human needs in an ecological context. This is not to say abolish the market, but it is to say move beyond the growth imperative.
Having been part of the forest wars in Cascadia, and also having an early career experience as a country-beat reporter in Easterm Washington, I have some perspective on how rural areas feel left out by regulations on resource use. That sense of abandonment has fed the MAGA movement. There have been efforts to build collaboratives between environmentalists and local communities such as the Quincy Library Group. Again, we are stuck trying to deal with this in a capitalist framework. Big timber and other resource corporations driven by the bottom line are incentivized to exhaust the resources. The increasing financialization of forests is making this worse. A community that controlled its own forests, for example, would be motivated to manage it for long-term sustainability.
So I hope you can see that, as someone who has tried to work for solutions in the context of the current economic system, I can no longer believe they can be solved in this way. It’s the system itself that needs to change. I have to say Klein et al and the abundance agenda are coming in for criticism as diverting from that task, and the fundamental challenge to oligarchy that it entails. You might be interested in scrolling a bit back to my 3-part review of Saito’s work on degrowth communism and the middle piece on radical abundance and capitalism’s necessary creation of scarcity. Begins here. https://open.substack.com/pub/theraven/p/can-degrowth-communism-save-the-world?r=36q38&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
In terms of a constitutional convention, there has been significant movement on the right for one, with calls by many states, much around a balanced budget amendment. I believe it would be seized by corporate forces that would impose an even more anti-democratic framework than the one we have now. In the future one might be conceivable, with a great deal of organizing behind it. Right now, we are not ready.
I hope you are weathering okay despite the challenges I know you’re facing. Glad to continue dialogue on these issues.
Thanks for your well considered ideas. My belief is that we have well overshot the limits of our ability to make such conscious choices. As Yeats wrote, the center cannot hold. It would not be enough to set forward a new political form. We would simultaneously have to reform the rules of capitalism, trying to reset what has become a hopelessly byzantine system of lawyers and accountants aimed at capturing wealth at any cost. Strictly as a side project we might want to consider saving the ecological viability of the planet. Nature has established the rules here, so facing our dismissal of all limits to our consumption is the only option. This has never been successful, even theoretically, on any meaningful scale. A graceful and spiritual acceptance of the reality of our future is probably also out of our reach.
Sorry I can't pitch in to support your efforts. The technology to do that is a barrier for me.
If you scroll down my page you will find much on planetary boundaries and degrowth. If you believe the “Limits to Growth” projections, degrowth will be forced on us in a big way over the coming decade or two. Already is in many ways. Home insurance costs are skyrocketing due to natural disasters. Most oil shale plays are peaking, and the last that isn’t, the Permian, is likely to peak soon. Beef is at record prices because droughts have forced herd reductions. Climate is having widespread food price impacts. The question is how will we prepare for it. My answer is the same as for the political changes we need, and the theme of this site. Build the future in place. Build community institutions capable of weathering the storms and linking to create broader political, cultural and economic change.
A progessive tone is good. Interpreting everything through the lens of a 'progressive' take on history is not. I don't believe every history text but neither do I believe George Washington was motivated solely by money or land acquistion. If a new American Revolution does occur (which I agree is necessary) we'll need a less ideological and more inclusive view of life to succeed.
“ My story — and I will stick with the word expansion — goes back to mid-century. The opposing two groups, later known as Patriots and Tories, and which I’ll call expansionists and non-expansionists, are there. Take two leading figures, Ben Franklin and George Washington, who will both become leading Patriots. What are they doing in mid-century? Well, they’re actually siding with the British. They’re both helping them in the French and Indian War. On the one side was France and its Native American allies. On the other was Great Britain and the American colonists. Between 1754 and 1763, Franklin was helping in Pennsylvania, while Washington led a small fighting force near Fort Duquesne, modern-day Pittsburgh. Both Franklin and Washington had a vision of an expansive country, one that’s going to grow economically and territorially.
“In the 1750s, and in some cases back in the 1740s, being an expansionist meant siding with the British — not unthinkingly, not unreservedly, but still viewing the British as allies. After 1763, expansionism means opposing the British because the goal for Washington, Franklin, and their followers is the same: to have a rapidly growing country. The British are helping them achieve that goal before 1763, and they’re hindering that quest after 1763. That continuity, which I looked at by researching five different colonies, is right at the heart of understanding the Revolution.”
In terms of inclusivity, note my statement: Trump will play his hand to the hilt, and likely overplay. The question is whether the immune response of the U.S. body politic will be strong enough to resist this onslaught, and the answer is uncertain. Ultimately, only a societal uprising will turn this back, and one that spans the political spectrum, including traditional conservatives alarmed at the decline of the rule of law. It has to be deeply rooted in the communities where we live.
Patrick, really well done. Clearly presented history and context. Insightful comments at the conclusion, both sides presented. I look forward to the continuing discussion. Stay the course.
Thanks, David! Good to hear from you. I hope you and Brian are doing well.
Life is Herculean these days, but we are making the best of it.
As you point out, this is 249 years in the making. What I know is the full flowering brings the dénouement.
The current moment is the full flowering uber-alpha male of the rational self interest mindset. And so we are prudent to focus on compost, renewal and local.
As Voltaire said, “why yes, Dr Pangloss but I must tend my garden.”
It all grows from the roots.
Thank you, Patrick for writing this NOW. I too will watch the fireworks and wonder if we will ever have a country that I can celebrate truly, with "freedom for all".
Hi patrick, I finally subscribed!
In the progressive enclave of Cascadia, it takes courage to face fact that the roots of our current crisis of democracy can be traced to the Constitution itself, thus calling into question the bedrock foundation of our limited freedoms.
Similarly the dramatic rise of the grievance culture contributing to the emergence of fascism in American culture can be traced to our over-reliance on command and control regulations for everything from affirmative action, energy production and environmental protection. In his book Abundance Ezra Klein boldly asserts that progressive's reliance on the procedural and legal obstructionism of these laws has outlived it's usefulness. I agree. It's so much easier to stop bad things from happening that we have all but abandoned promoting the common good.
Our environmental laws and regulations emerged in the same context of governance by elites who do not trust regular people and communities to make good decisions about their future. The earliest environmentalists - Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir, Gifford Pinchot and others we're more interested in preserving wilderness, parks and forests as playgrounds for the wealthy elite than for the for the ecological services they provide, which we can no longer afford. Similar dynamics were at play in the 60s and 70s when Richard Nixon Senator Gaylord Nelson and even our beloved Denis Hayes dreamed up laws like the endangered species act, clean water act, national environmental policy act and others that we rely on today. These laws were incredibly effective at restraining the ecological destruction of that era, but our continued reliance on them is a major source of the frustration expressed by a growing proportion of our society (among other things).
In that vein, I have begun to question whether building codes as they exist (my area of professional focus and expertise) can be effective at addressing carbon pollution and equity concerns in new construction, much less existing buildings. Energy code advocates (as I have long been) continue to make incremental progress toward requiring NetZero construction, but at what cost? The time may soon come when all of our progress will be erased through the same political backlash that handed control of US government to crooks and fascists. I am working on a research agenda and policy proposal to transform building codes by replacing the current prescriptive rules enforced through the threat of sanctions, with a system based in flexibility, incentives, trust and collaborative governance. Even in such a small narrow policy arena, there are no easy answers but it's a place to start that I can wrap my head around. If we hope to lunch at bloodless revolution, it will require a leap of faith and a lot of hard work at the negotiating table. If we're willing to sacrifice our lives, perhaps we should start by letting go of our reliance on prescriptive laws, lawsuits and centralized authority. Perhaps then we can begin to bridge the cultural gap.
I wonder if you, your readers and our leaders are ready to contemplate a new constitutional convention, and a fundamental rethinking of the administrative State and the rule book it relies on?
Hi Patrick, I finally subscribed.
In a progressive enclave like Cascadia, it takes courage to face the fact that the roots of our current crisis lie in the Constitution itself, thus calling this bedrock of our limited freedoms into question.
Similarly, we need to acknowledge the roots of grievance culture enabling the rise of fascism in America, which can be traced ( among other things) to an over-reliance on command and control regulations on everything from affirmative action, energy production and environmental protection. In this book Abundance, Ezra Klein boldly critiques the procedural state which has crippled progress on housing, energy and technological innovation. I too have come to question the ultimate effectiveness of prescriptive rule books like building codes (my area of professional focus/expertise) to address carbon emissions, health and equity in new construction much less existing buildings. I'm working on a research agenda and policy proposal to transform building codes by replacing prescriptive rules enforced through the threat of sanctions to a system built on flexibility, trust incentives and collaborative governance. It's a small part of the larger challenge but it's a place to start that I can wrap my head around.
If we are going to launch a bloodless revolution as you suggest, it will include questioning many of the laws and legal strategies progressives rely on to make incremental changes, and shift to transformative policy ideas that address the grievances of the growing proportion of society that chafes at the bureaucracy and obstructionism of our current prescriptive approach to regulation. It's so much easier to stop bad things from happening that we have all but abandoned the idea of promoting the common good. At least in Cascadia, the seeds of such a transformation do seem to be sprouting. Yet if we make the leap of faith you may stand a chance of closing the cultural gap.
As you point out, even our environmental regulations emerged in the context of governance by American elites who do not trust regular people or communities to make good decisions for our collective future. The earliest environmentalists, Teddy roosevelt, John muir, Gifford pinchot etc. were more interested in preserving parks and forests as playgrounds for the elite than for the ecological services they provide, something we can no longer afford. This carried forward to the 1970s, when Nixon and cultural elites dreamed up the clean water act, endangered species act, national environmental policy act etc. These laws have been incredibly effective at restraining the environmental destruction of that era, but they are no longer working for us as the scale of the challenges has grown exponentially.
I wonder if you and your other readers (and our progressive leaders) are ready to contemplate a new constitutional convention, and a fundamental rethinking of the bureaucratic regulations contributing to the rise of the grievance culture that is undermining the fabric of our society?
In my work on buildings I came to believe performance-based codes are superior and should be implemented wherever possible.
I think the changes we need are deeper than Klein and others envision. Having known the climate world, as you have, I see how the dialogue was consumed by technocratic solutions, big carbon policy frameworks rather than direct support for innovations on the ground. The market incentivized by those policies would supply innovations. I will say parenthetically that perhaps the most effective climate framework has been the clean energy standards which set performance-based goals.
I think we need more radically democratic and post-capitalist solutions than the abundance agenda envisions. For example, renewable energy development is held up by popular opposition to transmission lines expressed through legal processes. But why do we need those lines? Because the utility business model, through regulations guaranteeing a rate of return on capital investment, and through depending on electricity sales to make profits, favors large installments in remote rural areas. A cooperative energy framework that is truly democratically managed would favor renewable energy installations in the urban footprint. With no need for profit, the desire for community control would overcome possible higher cost factors. Having worked in solar, you probably have some views on this. A community energy cooperative would also forward deep efficiency, while regulators have to pull teeth to make utilities supply efficiency, and it usually picks up mostly low hanging fruit.
In terms of housing, yes zoning and environmental laws have hindered multifamily units, with older neighborhoods seeking to maintain single housing lots. Living in a Seattle neighborhood that is being overcrowded by mega-buildings because so much of the city is single family, I feel it. But the broader housing issue is market failure, because developers are incentivized to build housing that supplies higher profit rates. The answer is social housing, outside the private market.
These two examples reflect my skepticism for the abundance agenda. It is, to my mind, an extension of neoliberal thinking which says if we just take down obstacles the market will supply the goods. I believe we need to build a community sector beyond the market in both public and cooperative modes. If you scroll back, you will see this thinking reflected in my previous pieces. I am also exploring degrowth, because it is clear we have exceeded planetary boundaries. Capitalism is conditioned on growth. It is part of its DNA. We need to move beyond it to build economic institutions geared to supplying human needs in an ecological context. This is not to say abolish the market, but it is to say move beyond the growth imperative.
Having been part of the forest wars in Cascadia, and also having an early career experience as a country-beat reporter in Easterm Washington, I have some perspective on how rural areas feel left out by regulations on resource use. That sense of abandonment has fed the MAGA movement. There have been efforts to build collaboratives between environmentalists and local communities such as the Quincy Library Group. Again, we are stuck trying to deal with this in a capitalist framework. Big timber and other resource corporations driven by the bottom line are incentivized to exhaust the resources. The increasing financialization of forests is making this worse. A community that controlled its own forests, for example, would be motivated to manage it for long-term sustainability.
So I hope you can see that, as someone who has tried to work for solutions in the context of the current economic system, I can no longer believe they can be solved in this way. It’s the system itself that needs to change. I have to say Klein et al and the abundance agenda are coming in for criticism as diverting from that task, and the fundamental challenge to oligarchy that it entails. You might be interested in scrolling a bit back to my 3-part review of Saito’s work on degrowth communism and the middle piece on radical abundance and capitalism’s necessary creation of scarcity. Begins here. https://open.substack.com/pub/theraven/p/can-degrowth-communism-save-the-world?r=36q38&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
In terms of a constitutional convention, there has been significant movement on the right for one, with calls by many states, much around a balanced budget amendment. I believe it would be seized by corporate forces that would impose an even more anti-democratic framework than the one we have now. In the future one might be conceivable, with a great deal of organizing behind it. Right now, we are not ready.
I hope you are weathering okay despite the challenges I know you’re facing. Glad to continue dialogue on these issues.
Thanks for your well considered ideas. My belief is that we have well overshot the limits of our ability to make such conscious choices. As Yeats wrote, the center cannot hold. It would not be enough to set forward a new political form. We would simultaneously have to reform the rules of capitalism, trying to reset what has become a hopelessly byzantine system of lawyers and accountants aimed at capturing wealth at any cost. Strictly as a side project we might want to consider saving the ecological viability of the planet. Nature has established the rules here, so facing our dismissal of all limits to our consumption is the only option. This has never been successful, even theoretically, on any meaningful scale. A graceful and spiritual acceptance of the reality of our future is probably also out of our reach.
Sorry I can't pitch in to support your efforts. The technology to do that is a barrier for me.
If you scroll down my page you will find much on planetary boundaries and degrowth. If you believe the “Limits to Growth” projections, degrowth will be forced on us in a big way over the coming decade or two. Already is in many ways. Home insurance costs are skyrocketing due to natural disasters. Most oil shale plays are peaking, and the last that isn’t, the Permian, is likely to peak soon. Beef is at record prices because droughts have forced herd reductions. Climate is having widespread food price impacts. The question is how will we prepare for it. My answer is the same as for the political changes we need, and the theme of this site. Build the future in place. Build community institutions capable of weathering the storms and linking to create broader political, cultural and economic change.
Not sure if the technology limit refers to credit cards. I have ways of taking written checks.
A progessive tone is good. Interpreting everything through the lens of a 'progressive' take on history is not. I don't believe every history text but neither do I believe George Washington was motivated solely by money or land acquistion. If a new American Revolution does occur (which I agree is necessary) we'll need a less ideological and more inclusive view of life to succeed.
Historians such as Mark Egnal and William Appleman Williams have traced the founders’ drive for continental expansion to their turn against the British. This is an interesting interview with Egnal. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/founders-would-be-horrified-renowned-historian-drops-truth-bomb-on-american-revolution-and-lessons-for-today
“ My story — and I will stick with the word expansion — goes back to mid-century. The opposing two groups, later known as Patriots and Tories, and which I’ll call expansionists and non-expansionists, are there. Take two leading figures, Ben Franklin and George Washington, who will both become leading Patriots. What are they doing in mid-century? Well, they’re actually siding with the British. They’re both helping them in the French and Indian War. On the one side was France and its Native American allies. On the other was Great Britain and the American colonists. Between 1754 and 1763, Franklin was helping in Pennsylvania, while Washington led a small fighting force near Fort Duquesne, modern-day Pittsburgh. Both Franklin and Washington had a vision of an expansive country, one that’s going to grow economically and territorially.
“In the 1750s, and in some cases back in the 1740s, being an expansionist meant siding with the British — not unthinkingly, not unreservedly, but still viewing the British as allies. After 1763, expansionism means opposing the British because the goal for Washington, Franklin, and their followers is the same: to have a rapidly growing country. The British are helping them achieve that goal before 1763, and they’re hindering that quest after 1763. That continuity, which I looked at by researching five different colonies, is right at the heart of understanding the Revolution.”
In terms of inclusivity, note my statement: Trump will play his hand to the hilt, and likely overplay. The question is whether the immune response of the U.S. body politic will be strong enough to resist this onslaught, and the answer is uncertain. Ultimately, only a societal uprising will turn this back, and one that spans the political spectrum, including traditional conservatives alarmed at the decline of the rule of law. It has to be deeply rooted in the communities where we live.
Americans have NO guts.
Some of us do.
Good.