Optimism vs Futility
Progressive and Reactionary Narratives Mapped to the Political Compass and Pew Political Types
Hirschman, who taught in the economics departments of Yale, Harvard, Columbia University, and in social science at Princeton, compared reactionary narratives with progressive narratives. Following Hirschman’s explanations, the quadrants diagram below depicts how the four parties or Pew political types employ these narratives.
According to Wikipedia, Hirschman describes the reactionary narratives thus:
· Perversity thesis: any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy (compare: Unintended consequences).
· Futility thesis: attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent."
· Jeopardy thesis: the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment.
Robin, professor of political science at Brooklyn College and CUNY Graduate Center, gives examples of these arguments, here applied to the problem of poverty (Vox, 2023). The points below are paraphrased, except where a direct quote is indicated.
Perversity thesis: A classic conservative argument is that if you try to solve poverty you create more poverty, because you create generational dependence and disincentivize work by a threshold of welfare benefits such that working at low wages would keep a household at poverty level but potentially remove Medicaid and other benefits.
Futility thesis: “You can have every civil rights bill, every voting rights bill, every inflation reduction act…but in the end you can't do a damn thing. It is absolutely futile. It's hopeless, because politics is really not a sphere that can either transform or ameliorate the human condition” (55:27). Robin doesn’t give an example of the futility thesis in relation to poverty, but a typical economic conservative view would be that it is individual human psychology that leads to poverty. It is innate laziness, learned helplessness, lack of moral guidance, or some combination of these, that leads to lack of accomplishment, which results in poverty.
Jeopardy thesis: You try to do one thing you may achieve it, but you're going to wreak something else. For example, in trying to solve the problem of child poverty by economic support of single mothers, this disincentivized having a male in the household, which many (including Justice Clarence Thomas) have argued destroyed the Black family.
Reactionary narratives applied to ecological issues could be as follows:
Perversity thesis: To mandate conservation creates a slew of bad incentives and greenwashing. Some industries move to nations or states where there is less regulation of pollution, less use of renewable energy for production, and the move results in more transportation back to U.S. markets, which increases use of fossil fuels.
Jeopardy thesis: Construction companies mandated to get LEED certification on affordable housing have increased costs, which they must pass on to buyers. As another example, Jordan Peterson is adamant that by curtailing extraction of fossil fuels for the aim of curbing global warming, Western nations are responsible for the unintended consequences that their policies (a) enriched Russia, which enables its fight against the Ukraine and (b) are setting up an economically struggling working class for catastrophe (i.e., to starve in the cold, in the dark). To mandate conservation effectively would curtail economic and individual freedoms too severely; many believe we cannot sacrifice the gains of democratic governance for the autocracy that would be necessary to prevent an unproven climate emergency.
Futility thesis: Elements of individual human psychology lead inevitably to pollution and failure to conserve resources. Short-sighted and greedy people will always take more than the self-sacrificing people can preserve. Legislation would only limit the ethical actors and cause them to go out of business. For example, greenwashing was revealed to be commonplace in receiving Energy Star certification. The label was given to products that had absurd characteristics and no real energy saving features, when product descriptions were submitted to test the certification process. Therefore, the best we can do is create technological solutions and wait for the market to favor ecologically sustainable products.
At the same time, the Pew political types that are most politically active (progressive left, establishment left, and faith and flag conservatives) necessarily hold to what Hirschman describes as “progressive narratives.” Again, Wikipedia summarizes:
· The synergy illusion: the idea that all reforms work together and reinforce each other, rather than being competing
· The imminent danger: urgent action is necessary to avoid imminent danger
· History Is on Our Side: (e.g., "The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice," by Martin Luther King Jr.)
Progressive narratives applied to poverty could be as follows:
The synergy illusion: (a) universal basic income would alleviate the burden of paperwork for proof of poverty and remove the disincentive to work that is created by cutting off all types of aid when low-wage work hours increase, which increases the numbers in the workforce (more goods and services available); (b) a living wage (increased minimum wage) would help those already working multiple jobs without benefits; (c) universal health care would take the resources used for paper pushing (burden of health care dealing with differing insurance policies) and subsidizing private insurance, and move the resources to direct provision of services, which would create a healthier workforce
The imminent danger: suicide and other deaths of despair have been on the rise for a decade, arguably resulting from direct and indirect effects of increased economic hardship; high wealth disparity has in some nations led to economic instability, hyperinflation, and political instability
The right side of history: ODEC countries that primarily adopted democratic socialism have the highest standard of living and lower wealth disparity
Progressive narratives applied to ecological issues could be as follows:
The synergy illusion: reform of immigration will help climate refugees (suffering from effects of U.S. excess energy consumption) and these largely manual laborers will help build the new infrastructure needed for wind and solar energy (or, as preferred by the outsider left, buildings with passive solar heating and cooling that don’t rely on high tech wind and solar farms, and rooftop solar with voluntarily decreased demand, i.e., decreased standard of living)
The imminent danger: urgent action of reducing and eventually eliminating reliance on fossil fuels is necessary to avoid imminent danger of polar ice caps melting and increase in drought and famine
The right side of history: as each year brings record high temperatures and increased wildfires, predictions of global warming are unfortunately vindicated; future generations will be appalled that we did too little too late
Hirschman believes that while these progressive narratives are simplistic and flawed, they keep up the motivation to work toward reform, while the reactionary narratives lead to inaction.
To avoid the errors of the reactionary narratives and progressive narratives, Hirschman advocates instead for these "mature" bases for discussion (as summarized in Wikipedia):
There are dangers and risks in both action and inaction. The risks of both should be assessed and guarded against to the extent possible.
The unwanted consequences of either action or inaction can never be known with certainty, but our reaction to either is affected by alarmists.
Reactionary or Progressive Narratives Adopted by Quadrants of the Political Compass
Here the bullets for the Pew types include only those most salient for this discussion. For the full set of characteristics indicated by the Pew research, see this post.
Reactionary Narratives Across Pew Types
The faith and flag conservatives (moral majority) do vote reliably, but seem to hold some tenets that match the futility thesis. They believe there is no technological or policy solution that will resolve social and political issues, nor any legal or policy change that can’t be used by the “powers that be” to further establishment aims. This Pew type includes those with evangelical religious views, who believe in messianic prophecy. Jesus returning to the earth to abolish the wicked will right the political wrongs. Yet before that day, the righteous may be called upon to defend their families and the vulnerable, at gunpoint if necessary. These believers are painted by the establishment left as ignorant rural rubes, possibly because the establishment left does not understand them. A question put to me by liberal friends in the run up to the 2016 election was “why don’t they see they are voting against their economic interests?” Many of the MAGA supporters are also are ideologues who may not see the economic implications as the most important. The faith and flag conservatives and especially the populist right perhaps to some extent are manipulated to serve the political interests of the establishment right, primarily the committed conservatives whose economic interests are more in line with the elite in the establishment left (i.e., keep power and wealth in the hands of the duopoly-supporting elite). However, what is missed is that the MAGA coalition are ideological voters foremost, focused on issues such as abortion and right to bear arms.
They also likely hold to the perversity thesis on some issues. They don’t believe the left’s contention that anything can be done politically to improve their economic condition. In particular, they don’t want to get on the gravy train; they want to abolish the gravy train (e.g., drain the swamp) because they believe the working class is largely being made to pay for it. They won’t stoop to be dependent, nor do they want to be forced to pay for the benefits of those morally weak enuf to accept government handouts. At the same time, many if not most of them are consistently generous to those in their own communities who they can verify are in real need.
The Pew types that don’t vote enthusiastically (or at all) are those with a futility view: outsider left, stressed sideliners (possibly centrist), and ambivalent right (dissident right). Possibly these seem to be best placed at the far anti-establishment end, because they do not believe that the most pressing problems will ever be solved from within the establishment or by approved establishment operations. The outsider left would not be surprised that Bernie was thwarted by the Democrat Party leaders ignoring his popularity and promoting Hillary to be the Democratic presidential nominee. The outsider left would support Nader’s views, while the dissident right would support Perot or a Ron Paul, but neither group would expect a third party candidate to have a realistic chance of election under the current electoral procedures. Both outsider left and dissident right might be more likely to work on election reform than other issues in national politics. Many who hold a futility view of national politics instead focus on local politics, if they have interest in political issues.
From within the outsider left (where my quiz results placed me), I can confidently say that there are many in this Pew type who agree with most of the reactionary narratives presented above. There is no technological or policy solution that will reliably resolve social and political issues without making other issues worse. They would argue that for any positive-sounding legal or policy change used by the “powers that be” to further establishment aims, unethical actors will create or find loopholes to further interests that are not shared by the green quadrant generally. Some in this Pew type believe that only a change in human nature has the power to enable true human flourishing on the broadest possible scale. In this belief in the need for change of intent as more important than "correct” policy, they are similar to the faith and flag conservatives. Some find encouragement in a growing trend of SNBR spiritual awakening. I present an argument elsewhere that greens tend to be idealists in their basic temperament. Even the many non-voters in this Pew type can be idealists, especially those that “threw away their vote” by supporting Nader or another third party or non-competitive candidate.
Thanks for reading. Here’s a related post.
Repeat of Quadrants Content
This section repeats the writing in the quadrants, for any who have difficulty reading in that format. Groups are presented in order of political party size. What’s the benefit of the quadrant format anyway? It’s a heuristic that can stick in the visual memory.
Blue Quadrant
Pew type: Democratic mainstays
• Most identify as moderate
• Most racially and ethnically diverse
• Reliable voters
Likely to agree with Hirschman’s middle-path for mature discussion and avoidance of alarmism. Probably agree with the “synergy illusion” and “history is on our side.”
Pew type: Establishment liberals
• Liberal but prefer gradual change
• Change should come thru existing laws and institutions
• More likely to back compromise
• Generally optimistic about politics
• Very politically active
The “progressive narratives” are primary, with recognition that the risks of both should be canvassed, assessed, and guarded against to the extent possible.
Red Quadrant
Pew type: Committed conservatives
• Highly educated
• Very politically active
Likely to agree with Hirschman’s middle-path for mature discussion and avoidance of alarmism. Support the reactionary narratives both on poverty and ecological policy.
Pew type: Faith and flag conservatives
• Believe Christianity belongs in public life
• Mostly white and older age
• Very politically active
Likely to support the reactionary narratives both on poverty and ecological policy.
Support futility thesis in that no positive change is possible thru political aims, only adoption of correct values and religious beliefs will save humanity. Adopts the progressive narrative of imminent danger, which fuels conspiracy theories.
Yellow Quadrant
Pew type: Populist right
• Least college educated
• Very politically concerned
Likely to support the reactionary narratives both on poverty and ecological policy. Adopts the progressive narrative of imminent danger, which fuels conspiracy theories.
Pew type: Ambivalent right
• Economic conservatives, lean liberal on social issues
• Most are not Trump supporters
• Not as politically active
Likely to support the reactionary narratives on poverty and economic issues. Less likely to support the reactionary narratives both on social and ecological policy. These ardent rationalists are likely to agree with Hirschman to avoid the errors of the reactionary narratives and progressive narratives, in favor of "mature" bases for discussion, including curiosity, checking for bias, and balance in information sources.
Green Quadrant
Pew type: Progressive left
• Young and highly educated
• Very politically active
All “progressive narratives” are supported. Robin believes that the left has its own version of reactionary narrative in the form of structural arguments that make use of the futility thesis. Robin states that what some Marxists say against modest and incremental liberal reforms is that unless you deal with the structure of power, all reforms will lead to no lasting or real improvement (Vox, 2023). Thus, completely tearing down the existing political and economic structure is the only way to gain social justice (equity) and save climate.
Pew type: Outsider left
• Many identify as independents
• Less politically active; less reliable voters
Belief in futility thesis is likely why they are less reliable voters, less politically active or use non-profit donation or volunteering as their mode of indirect political action. Top progressive narrative item: “the imminent danger” of global warming and pollution need top-down control.
References
Sources for Hirschman and others are linked in text.
Vox. (2023, Aug 14). What Clarence Thomas really thinks [Audio podcast episode]. In The Gray Area with Sean Illing.