What do we do now?

In a Trump world, what do we do?

The first thing is, we need to stop focusing so heavily on the political arena. Liberals have an almost reflexive tendency to turn to government as a solution to social problems. But politics has been largely frozen for some decades now – not only in the US but in most of Europe and other industrial nation as as well. Most progressive energy has been spent simply trying to hold off the reactionary tide. Now the dike has been breached, and many progressive political advances are likely to be lost in the flood: health care reform, labor laws, environmental protections, affirmative action, financial regulations, redistributive policies.

But politics is not all there is. There is civil society, and there is the economy; and in both those areas progressive ideas have considerable power and can grow even in a hostile political climate.

Civil society – people’s everyday relationships and values – is now deeply split. About 30% of the country, by my estimates, wants to return to a kind of tribalism. They feel lost in the cultural changes of the last few decades – the internationalization, the influx of immigrants, the emphasis on inclusion for disenfranchised groups such as Blacks to gays, the commercialization and flaunting of sexuality. They have felt at home and comfortable in a culture, largely rural, held together by strong families and churches, racially and ethnically homogeneous. They therefore reject the basic idea of diversity and inclusion. This goes way beyond the few who have turned to explicitly white-supremacist ideology; most are simply trying to preserve the way of life they love.

Against this, and the main source of hope, is about 40% of the country that have embraced an active culture of diversity – who believe that “foreign” people bring something positive, that we should seek to learn from them, develop ourselves, improve the world by actively working to understand them. This large segment thrives on the rich mix of ethnicities and experiences, and on cultural fusions in music, food, and art. This basic sensibility – similar to “cosmopolitanism” of the past – has often appeared among small cultural elites of artists and philosophers, but its spread through the general population since the 1960s is historically unprecedented. It has spawned an ecosystem of associations, media, curricula, and habits that are now deeply embedded for a large part of the population. This forms a basis of visceral resistance to the age-old tribal impulse represented by Trump, a resistance that is likely to last.

The most plausible progressive task for now is to build on those gains in civil society. Many of the “new” progressives have already been going in that direction for some decades – emphasizing mutualism and social entrepreneurship rather than government regulation. They have been somewhat disengaged from politics, which is part of what has allowed the conservative counter-revolution to gain  steam. But the corresponding advantage is that the current political crisis doesn’t much affect them: they can continue many of the things they have been doing. Those of us who have focused more on government policies would do well to turn some of our attention there.

In this task surprising support can sometimes be found in the world of business and markets. The ability to succeed in a market economy can free socially-conscious groups from dependence on government, which is essential now. Furthermore, big corporations can be valuable allies. Many really believe in encouraging diversity because it improves their competitive capabilities: corporations on the whole have resisted conservative efforts to roll back affirmative action regulations. Some have become champions of environmentalism because they genuinely recognize the potential economic costs. They do not support tribalism: their outlook is generally international and  cosmopolitan. And they have been in the forefront of development of techniques for managing collaborative alliances and networks.

Thus social entrepreneurship and corporate alliances – a linking of civil society with the economic sphere – have gradually become important elements of the progressive movement. For example:

• Those of us who have fought for environmental regulations are in despair. But in the meantime a network of social entrepreneurs have created technologies that make many polluting industries obsolete, even without regulations. For instance, in the last few years hundreds of housing units – apartment buildings as well as individual houses – have been built to near-zero emissions standards, at about the same initial cost as standard construction, and with much lower maintenance cost over time. So there is suddenly a huge economic incentive to for an action which could make a major difference in efforts to save the planet.
• The government recently promulgated Obamacare regulations shifting the basis of health care compensation fee-for-service, which encourages multiplication of high-cost procedures, to fee-per-person (capitation). This encourages an approach of maximizing population health, which is much saner from a social point of view. The Republicans may repeal Obamacare, but insurance companies generally support the move to fee-per-person and population health because it works better economically; so they are likely to stick with it even if the government regulation disappears. Civil society groups have already become active in helping build population health through improved nutrition and mutual support. There is a natural alliance here among these groups, care providers, and insurance companies which could make a very positive difference in care provision.

I am not arguing that government is unnecessary in these and many similar cases. In a healthy system effective regulation would also be an important element. What I am arguing is that even in the wasteland that is likely to be the political landscape of the coming years, there is much that we can do to contribute to a better world.