tThe author speaks firmly. The appearance may suggest that it is not the case. It is presented in a familiar style of the genre, almost entirely in a familiar style of the genre, with much printing, short sentences, italic sayings, many lists and charts (“Six signs that may be on the wrong side of history.”
But it is worth taking his words to Bregman (the author of his 30s and author, labelled “one of Europe’s most prominent young thinkers by the TED network.” He starts with the deep, corrosive anomies experienced by many talented young professionals. The title’s “moral ambition” is to recognize that serious financial, organizational, technical and analytical skills, that is, in the United States, going through a law school with a safe ticket to prosperity.
For this to happen, it requires a clear, granular story of how in the past this became an urgent order rather than just a possibility. Who exactly protected the Jews in Nazi-occupied France and the Netherlands? Are you praised and shamed for the naked abuse of corporate power in 20th century America? In the 18th century, how did the campaign to end the slave trade gain crucial traction within a relatively short period of time?
The stories Bregman tells are vivid and often truly inspiring. His pages on the career of radical American activist Ralph Nader and his grandiose victory over corporate inertia and self-interest are in stark contrast to the near-complete abandonment of the values he existed in the United States today. But Bregman also has important things to say in Nader’s description of the nature of effective radical leadership, such as distributing responsibility and allowing a significant amount of room for people to set their own agenda (“The function of leadership is to generate more leaders.
Bregman does not praise the unfortunate climax of Nader’s career, the 2000 presidential run that effectively brought the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000. The relentless strength of his campaign, the demands he gave to himself and others, and the closest confidence he had in his problem-solving ability all ultimately contributed to hearing loss against profound unrealism and criticism. Bregman makes provocative claims to make a difference, but something like “cult” needs to be created – it is clear that religion-free high octane idealism is unsustainable and positively dangerous.
He sometimes says wisely positive things about the tangles of the “effective altruism” movement (which was greatly hurt by the relationship with that of a problematic person like Sam Bankman Fried). One implication of measurable effectiveness promoted the idea that you can earn the largest amount by earning the largest amount. But the effect of this was to blur the focus for some people as much as they could replace actually trying to solve a global problem with infinite discussion of what you would do if you were even richer.
There is no moral superiority about inefficiency, and there is no Alibi to discover validity in good faith. Bregman has the strict need for the myth of “noble losers” where he baptizes it and the purity of his motivation exceeds actual birth. “Win” is a moral command and accountability is essential.
And accountability requires at least two important habits. One is that you have problems to know what the problem is. Especially from people who experience it firsthand. Another thing that is more challenging is to pay attention to these types of purity and maximalism that makes it impossible to build serious long-term strategies for policy making, or to make tactical partnerships with people who don’t necessarily share all the details of your beliefs.
The developing awareness of intersectivity – the interwoven nature of various factors that hinder human dignity and freedom – has been a truly important aspect of recent thinking about what justice means. Ultimately, talking about the release of one group should lead you to make sure that it must be linked to the release of the other group. But the danger, Bregman argues, may result in refusing to work with people who don’t sign up for the horrifying, ever-growing list of orthodox figures that appear to be interconnected. It is a pseudo-religious attitude, which leads to relentless division and inefficiency, privileges the activist sense of moral integrity towards the urgency regarding the easiness of real suffering.
In a correction, Bregman describes many successful moves that have seriously considered the acceptance of tactical compromises and delays needed to reach a safer, dramatic outcome from the abolitionist move from the 1955 Montgomery Bus boycott (he shows that Rosa Parks’ famous protests actually “deliberately planned the greatest impact”).
After the newsletter promotion
However, this story and others show tensions that Bregman never resolves. His appeal is so many for a high-class family looking for a cause that will give maximum moral satisfaction. And there are pages where at least some readers are seduced to tweet about white saviorism. But he is also brilliantly realistic about the need to embrace the usual self-care needs in order to park his desire for a certain kind of saint and not avoid burnout or even worse, any of his myths. The book sells so strongly for young and talented people that there is a lot of emphasis on achievement and satisfaction, but the book as a whole is a deeper look at self-dramatic risks.
That’s why it’s certainly more than a self-help manual. We may be more optimistic than we think current global trends are guaranteed. It may be a bit thin about how to maintain the moral ambitions it stipulates with imagination. But at its best, it insists on the need to do everything possible to be moved and replicated by eating the dignity of not only humanity but the entire living environment (an important element of Bregman’s discussion). And, as he points out at the end of the book, that individuals cannot make a difference is a paradoxically deeply individualistic belief, refusing to see the fabrics of human agents. Is it simplified? perhaps. But calls to weapons often have to be.
