This long read on #NeoIdealism is fascinating, in Byline Supplement to @bylinetimes

Benjamin Tallis, of the German Council of Foreign Relations, argues that Neo-Idealism in the context of #InternationalRelations is

"a definitive break with Liberal Internationalism’s sometimes facile reading of the ‘end of history’ – relying on the ‘convergence wager’ in which the spread of liberal economics would inevitably seed liberal politics ..."
1/5

https://www.bylinesupplement.com/p/the-rise-of-the-new-idealists

The Rise of the New Idealists

Dr Benjamin Tallis on a dramatic sea change in international politics

Byline Supplement

"While some in countries like Germany misguidedly saw noble purpose in their lucrative entanglement with authoritarian regimes, in reality it enriched authoritarians and helped entrench their power as systemic rivals to liberal societies.

"Neo-Idealists are clear that illiberal competitors should not be dealt with in too liberal a way. They recognise that ‘free trade’ of the kind seen in the last two decades in fact boosts autocracies such as China and undermines democracies ..."
2/5

"Yet, particularly given the level of our current dependencies on China, this raises questions over democracies’ sources of growth and prosperity.

Neo-Idealists should therefore embrace ‘friendshoring’ and other ways to increase economic activity within and between democracies. This will come at a short-term cost, which can be thought of as a ‘national security premium’.

"Neo-Idealists have shown they know the price of freedom and are willing to pay it, but they need to go further ..."
3/5

"They need to show how they can transform this national security premium, into an investment in a better future. That will require fully seizing and accelerating both green and technological transitions but also entrenching redistributive models that will spread the costs and benefits of these transitions far more equitably across our societies ..."

4/5

"They should seek to rebalance a global order that even liberalism’s defenders see as “rigged” and thus incentivise both rooted and aspirant democracies to adopt their approach. Just as importantly, they must reform domestic political economic arrangements to share the benefits of freedom more fairly with more of our populations – as the Biden administration seems to have recognised."

5/5

@Richard_Hull thanks for sharing! This is the first time I’ve encountered the term #NeoIdeaism and I like what I see.

It feels like a sibling to #SolarPunk. Both philosophies focus on creating healthy societies. SolarPunk gets there by integrating environmental sustainability and technological (retro-)innovation. NeoIdealism works with economics, trade, governance and labor.

🧵1/5

The main point of conflict I see between #SolarPunk and #NeoIdealism is economic structure.

#SolarPunk has a strong #anticapitalism streak, that asserts #Capitalism is incompatible with surviving #ClimateChange and #SocialJustice

#NeoIdealism might be able to embrace and subsume this critique by including domestic #SocialJustice and #sustainability as key values, and thus essential constraints on #Globalism and #Growth

@Richard_Hull

🧵2/5

@PeterBronez @Richard_Hull

In all honesty, that's the main sticking point for me with #solarpunk. I'm 100% on board with creating sustainable solutions for environmental problems. I want everyone, everywhere, to have access to clean air and water, healthy food, etc. But, as much as I despise crony capitalism, I just cannot bring myself to turn my back on capitalism itself, for all the massive good it's done, largely for the impoverished people in the world. And I don't think I'm alone.

@AlexanderKingsbury @PeterBronez @Richard_Hull

“I’m all for a livable planet BUT I am wholly on board with the thing that is making the planet unlivable.”

I guarantee that whatever definition you personally have of capitalism in your head is not the actual definition of capitalism.

Concur. Both “Capitalism is bad” and “Capitalism has an inscrutable definition in the secret scrolls” are unhelpful statements with nothing constructive to say.

The debate is clear: how do we evolve Pax Americana to meet the challenges of the 21st century?

@AlexanderKingsbury @belcher @Richard_Hull

Pax Americana has been the core framework for global order for 80 years. It started with rebuilding Europe after WWII. It struggled mightily against the Soviet Union’s vision of the world, and won decisively after 50 years.

Now, 30 years later, the world is very very different. We must adapt, keeping human rights as our North Star and adding environmental sustainability as a critical second objective.

@AlexanderKingsbury @belcher @Richard_Hull

We cannot afford to abandon powerful tools like “markets” and “democracy” simply because their current incarnations are insufficient for this era.

It is necessary to criticize their shortcomings, but that is in no way sufficient. We must move beyond criticism to synthesis. What comes next? How do we build it? How do we get there fast enough?

@AlexanderKingsbury @belcher @Richard_Hull

For thinking about change I get a lot of help from Frank Geels' Multi-Level Perspective, distinguishing between micro, meso and macro level change and the interactions between them. Originally from #STS #InnovationStudies, it is now common in work on #sustainability #transitions and #transformations

@PeterBronez @AlexanderKingsbury @belcher @jlou
@jsbarretto
@franktaber

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8z2436d4u5d0dhyflt6ns/Geels_2011_Responses-to-criticisms.pdf?rlkey=8jcla4iirsajykycyixhlu5xj&dl=0

Geels_2011_Responses to criticisms.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

Dropbox