Welcome back from the great North American long weekend.

The second of what I expect to be three essays about a conceptual foundation for defending liberalism came out last week at Liberalism.org:

(Here’s the first piece, on the virtues and dangers of what Adam Smith called a “spirit of system” in liberal politics.)

I argue that we should think of politics as coordinated around principles, not in terms of a specific set of people or policies. Principles should be communicated forcefully and simply, in ways that allow other people to join our efforts as they’re willing and able. This accounts for the fact that while there are many worthy political causes, no one gets to choose which ones are politically salient enough to motivate activists and voters, or how people act on that salience. It also avoids smothering the political action that bubbles up around salient principles.

This piece represents an evolution of the thought behind an earlier piece at Liberal Currents and a follow-up on my site about political “lines in the sand” or sorting issues. I argued then that we should frame politics as broadly falling on one side or another of such issues. My new piece instead frames political principles as coordination points around which overlapping circles of intellectual work and political activism just do converge. This makes the concept a useful descriptive tool. It helps us make sense of changing politics.

We should look at the real world—as it really exists, right now—and observe which issues and positions motivate political groups and actors. I’m barely containing my frustration with people who refuse to drop their understanding of politics as shaped by support for free markets and small government. I hope a new descriptive tool helps break through.

Framing the problem around principles helps me respond to a criticism of my closed borders piece: that without evidence of a top-down mandate from a leading right-wing organization for advocating closed borders, my framing can’t be taken in good faith. My answer is that’s not how politics works in a liberal society, or anywhere but a rationally coordinated organization (stay tuned for more on why I think this confusion is so stubborn on the right).

This helps explain how we got here. Brexit and Trump’s first nomination were not the beginning of a political realignment, but points at which changes to global politics were so far along that they became impossible to ignore. We can’t just apply old fusionist frameworks and understand what’s going on today or react usefully. The realignment is nowhere near done, and liberals need to get our feet under us and start navigating it.

Finally: I’m happy that this piece came out at the same time as proposals for full policy programs for the political left are being released. In the United States, these include proposals for a new reconstruction (as from Liberal Currents and The UnPopulist) or a Democratic ‘Project 2029’. (Canadian examples are sparse under a majority government, but let’s keep an eye on Labour leadership in the UK.) Framing political action around principles allows us (I hope) to more usefully contest ideas on our own side (again, stay tuned) while also recognizing when we’re working in the same direction.

I hope you’ll give my piece a read and share it widely.

(Yes, I’m still planning to do the TikTok thing. I had to survive the end of the school year first.)

If you read only one other thing this month, make it this beautiful piece by Jason Kuznicki:

Another important piece for defenders of the open society:

A few days late, but this subversively radical anti-social-contract July 4th piece pleases me:

(A reminder that I post recommendations frequently on Seabird Reader.)

See you in August.

Featured image is by Nitish Meena on Unsplash.