It is a quick and easy read that raises the question of where we should be headed. Bregman urges us to "direct our minds to the future" and consider how we might begin to measure progress in better terms. Not by the usual economic and market metrics, but instead by quality of life. In light of the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton, we in the United States might ask if the status quo is something worth sustaining or rethinking.
Bregman's analysis, it needs to be emphasized, is not some academic, ponderous, leftist idealism. It is very much grounded in practical goals, working with ideas that we can and should be seeking to realize: basic income, shorter work weeks, and better immigration strategies.
Especially in the context of the 2020 election season, Bregman's book will be worth reading as a source of permission: permission to allow oneself to entertain ideas that one is normally discouraged from envisioning: What if we gave everyone free money? What if we gave the homeless apartments? What if the work week was only four days and consisted of 25 hours? Might looser borders and immigration offer benefits to everybody?
New ideas that make the world better frequently sound like lunacy at first, because they violate deeply held doctrines. Though these doctrines (e.g., poverty is a character flaw) serve narrow interests, with the right wording and sufficient repetition, self-harming ideology can take broad hold of a population (e.g., "I'm poor and it's my fault."). These ideological assumptions frame our realities. But if real progress is to take place, naturally, they need to be reconsidered.
I've seen some of these assumptions collapse in my lifetime. Not so long ago, one faced strident resistance by even uttering the notion of universal healthcare. (I speak from experience on this.) You were immediately dismissed out of hand. You were also looked upon as a leftwing crackpot who was eager to convert the United States into the Soviet Union. You met with reflexive judgments such as: "Can't be done." "Too expensive." "People will stop becoming doctors." "Canadians are coming here for treatment, so why should we adopt their system?"
(I won't go into the details for this post, but suffice it to say that these stock assertions opposing universal healthcare are all inaccurate.)
Today, Medicare for All (or some variant) is a central talking point among the Democratic presidential candidates. It's something that people—even many Baby Boomers, who now ironically are the beneficiaries of "socialized medicine"—are finally considering. It's something that is being taken seriously, has majority popular approval, and has become an eventuality.
Predictably, the news media have divided the Democratic field into progressives and "moderates." Progressive is the right word. Moderate is the wrong word, if we calibrate the terms according to majoritarian opinion.
Yet, though a policy idea can enjoy solid majority support, it can at the same time languish and suffer neglect for lack of public discussion. Books like Bregman's, on the other hand, can help inspire such discussions, as well as remind us that the world really doesn't need to be the way it is.
. . .
Vox recently conducted an interview with Bregman, which discusses the themes he presents in the book. Well worth a listen.
