JUST SAY NO.

It has long been a Cold Spring Shops theme that Credentialed Experts get it wrong, and ought not be granted much authority.  But they're as persistent as the Energizer Bunny.

There is, in my reading, a general tendency on the political left to acknowledge the severity of the coronavirus crisis, but then to shift immediately to the possibilities for a major societal transformation. I find this optimism commendable but not always persuasive. As much of it—understandably—seems oriented as much toward what should be as to what is, I worry about overreach. The discussion too often lacks the kind of strategic thinking we need to get to a desirable future.

That's retired Rutgers global affairs professor Frank Fischer, with the predictable prejudices of his class.

As suggested by the authoritarian measures that have been imposed, there is a serious risk of conservative forces prevailing. In any case, these forces will not go away. Given the massive unemployment, major economic disruption, and widespread social anxiety brought by the coronavirus crisis, large numbers of people will unwittingly embrace the paternalist system of a political strongman, first and foremost in the desperate effort to feed their families. In contrast to the older view that people will rise up when things get bad enough, historical sociology shows that this is more likely when lives seem to have gotten better, coupled with new possibilities worth struggling for.

Unfortunately, still missing at the moment is a powerful movement that can articulate a clear and convincing message capable of rallying sufficiently large numbers around the globe to the cause. The program of such a movement needs to include essential elements of democratic socialism, but these ideals and practices have regrettably been discredited by the majority, especially in the U.S. To be sure, Sen. Bernie Sanders generated immense interest in this alternative among young people, but this is not yet the grounds for an emerging revolution.

Arguably, it is more likely that the crisis will set back progressive movements than facilitate them. People worried about their basic safety are not particularly interested in new social experiments. For many, the known system will appear to offer a safer bet. This will certainly be the case for the middle and upper echelons of contemporary society, whose fealty will enable established political and economic leaders to resume their activities with little decisive resistance.

In fact, we already see a rapid return of the old politics and the economic relations it promotes. For example, in San Francisco, the city's billionaires are fighting the efforts of the local government to address coronavirus-related problems, especially those concerning the large homeless population. In Berlin, the older mainstream lines of political contention are reappearing as the country opens up: Lufthansa gets massively bailed out, but the essential workers, jobless, and social welfare recipients receive only minimal gains.

That is an interesting bundle of points.  In the final paragraph, I wonder what he's seeing in San Francisco.  The libertarian populists in the Kurt Schlichter vein see in that homeless population the fruits of years of the self-styled progressives and their openly socialist accomplices undermining bourgeois norms, and the tech oligarchs are OK both with the druggies in the streets and the excessive lockdowns, as anyone who is anyone is already able to work from home, and attempts by those deplorables to push back against either the lockdowns or the social media censorship of dissenting views should be suppressed.  That renders the preceding paragraph perplexing: right now there is a great deal of resistance, not all of it from the so-called resistance that has been engaging in a four year temper tantrum, to the current suppression of normal activities.  Now look up to that first paragraph: the "authoritarian measures" we see in the United States are most intrusive and counterproductive in states and cities governed by the kind of people the so-called progressives argue with, and then vote for.

Never mind all that, the professor wants to sing a few more choruses of The Internationale.

We need to pursue "structural reforms" (or "non-reformist reforms"), strategically moving ahead piece-by-piece where openings present themselves. But, crucially, these moves must be structurally related to a progressive agenda: they need to ensure and facilitate additional steps forward in political pursuit of the progressive agenda.

We need to think positively, but, in the process, we must be careful not to delude ourselves into believing that we are on the cusp of a Great Transition. In a more just world, the coronavirus crisis could well open the way for a major societal transition. But we are not living in such a world and need to think strategically in light of current political conditions, taking advantage of openings that present themselves along the way. As long as we do not lose the vision of the much-needed societal transition, a strategic focus on non-reformist reforms should be a central part of the way forward.

Sorry, no. "They'll likely be back, nastier, next time."  Don't give them a next time.