History & Economy: on Looking Back and Looking Forward

The way of thinking to which civilization is by now largely accustomed is in large respect unprecedented in history. We are the prodigies of that Nietzschean forward-thinking philosophies of the future. There was a time when the capacity for historical recollection counted for something, when historicity was of the gravest concern. This general orientation—in which a society formed itself by reflecting on the past, by taking one's education from that great mother of life lessons—falls within the category of contemplating a facet of Time. It is not the whole of the thing, and as such, it's lessons are admittedly partial and incomplete.

But neither is the pure contemplation of the future. Philosophies of the future which form themselves out of a resistance to the drives toward historicity will find themselves seeking the convenience of dismissing the historical, and promoting merely what is "useful" in the acquisition of rhetorical clout. The future is certainly something for which we are responsible, and it seems to me that historians have been the best at conserving a particular kind of wisdom, the one that anticipates the future while avoiding the mistakes of the past.

But as such, this kind of conservation is not a mere conservativism!

Rather, such conservation allows for real progress; as such, this conservation is itself the conservation of progress. It is fundamentally not a one-sided view of history, in which we are only attempting to escape the past, or avoid growing older: rather, it is a kind of learning, in which the future can become genuinely better than the past, but which does not at the same time lose out on the lessons the past offers. Here, Time as a whole becomes the teacher, past, present, future, all as one being, one persona—and this is radically better (i.e., more wise) than a mere competition between conservators of concept mummies and visionary vampires seeking resources from which to construct their utopia.

The past still has much to teach us. But only if we are willing to learn. The future has much to provide us, but only if we handle our resources wisely. And those resources do include knowledge itself.

During the long course of the 20th century, a trend in public policy and culture gave rise to a gradual shift away from the expertise of historians and toward that of economists. Today, economics is generally at the dead-center of political debates between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives promote family values, deregulation, and private property as the crucible of a viable future. Progressives promote government regulation of private businesses, social welfare programs, and taxation as a solution to widespread economic disparity. Both parties are looking for resources to secure their future and the increase of their power; and both parties have a stake in the past.

It seems to me, however, that there are multiple pasts here, and with that, divergent views of the value and meaning of the past. So, the terms "conservativism" and "progressivism" may not in fact be the best terms to understand the kind of divide that has opened up here between these warring parties.

If a progressive can be seriously concerned with the value of progress, and with avoiding a retrograde collapse of public progressive values into a neo-con luddite-esque nostalgia, there needs to be a strong educational emphasis on the history of precisely what can be salvaged from such feelings, while at the same time offering a critique of such values.

And if a conservative is seriously concerned with the value of conservation, and with avoiding a collapse of the liberal values which have given their culture room to breath and thrive, then they really need to gain a better understanding of the history of liberalism, which is not simply some whimsical concept of mindless freedom, but which was hard-fought and won through tremendous bloodshed and intellectual struggle.

Conservatives don't "own" Western culture, anymore than Liberals do; and both parties have a deep stake in it. the forms of government which we have enjoyed in the last few centuries are not immortal, and pushing too hard to ossify their forms can lead to a paralysis of progress, but paralysis and arthritis are not forms of cultural health in the body politic. They are signs of its being on the wane. If a culture cannot thrive, it will become prey to predatory forces.

Conservatives may not own Western culture, but they are trying to privatize it. Giving the reins of cultural determination to economic modeling is not a culturally meaningful relationship with the past. It shallows the whole thing out, and makes history look less and less like a teacher, and more and more like a slave-driver.