I first want to thank the social liberal party, D66, for giving me the chance to respond to Susan Neiman.

And of course I want to thank Susan Neiman

for her highly interesting and important lecture

Only very few people know the art of

performing the right intervention at the right time;

you are certainly one of them

Many people have been fed up with cynicism (or pragmatism alone);

And many will be happy to hear you argue that we do indeed have moral needs;

Thank you for recognizing these and for your stirring them up

Now often a respondent is framed to disagree with the speaker

Well, I do not.

I am simply very inspired by  your lecture

I do not so much want to criticize it but I want to build on it, think further along your lines, in 3 steps:

• 1. 

  how to be idealist under conditions of plurality and tragedy
• 2. 

  how to re-embrace Englightenment ideals today
• 3. 

  what could that mean practically, tomorrow?
• 1. 

  plurality and tragedy

In your lecture, pluralism is hardly an issue;

we can all be one, united in enlightenment ideals,

all standing behind Obama

There seems to be no struggle of coping with insurmountable difference

I could not help thinking about my recent meeting with Jim,

a white, elderly man, who is the leading activist against restructuring

a poor neighbourhood in Amsterdam.

The housing corporations and the city council have planned

to tear quite some houses down and

build bigger, more expensive homes, for a more mixed population.

 They argue that a more mixed population improves the neighbourhood and makes it possible for those whose financial situation improves, to stay in the neighbourhood.

Jim does not trust these arguments.

He believes that politicians and housing corporations

are only after their self-interest:

they have these plans not to improve the neighbourhood but

to put the project on their CV-s,

to leave behind some tangible success when they have left.

There is no lack of moral clarity in Jims story:

he wants to cherish beauty and fairness and small scale; 

he wants to give power to the people,

against power-greedy men who are only after their self-interest.

Jim is talking on behalf of The People.

There may be some citizens who support the plans for restructuring,

 But they are very few, he says,

They are manipulated by politicians or corporation-managers.

They do not show up at meetings.  He does not recognise a tension between protection and renewal.

Jim speaks on behalf of the people

he dismisses all claims that The People may be divided, and that aims may be clashing. Many politicians ted to side with him, even though they will often acknowledge these tensions; they are too afraid to loose his vote.

The story of Jim raises the issue of pluralism: How to reinvent new idealism under conditions of plurality?

It is not so much the right or the conservatives that have captured moral clarity (as you argue):

it is, at least in Europe, the populists.

Those who speak on behalf of the people,  be they citizens or politicians.

and who do not recognize differences in ideals between people.

Other citizens are simply dismissed as non-existent,

and politicians are dismissed as egoists –

so neither groups have ideals that Jim has to seriously argue with.  And there are no serious conflicts between the two.

So it is indeed about time we re-embrace the Enlightenment-ideals wholeheartedly.

But we should do so under conditions of plurality.

We should make a triple move:

. defend our ideals  as a contribution to liberty, equality and solidarity, but also:

. recognize that other people have different ideals, that are really ideals too- not merely masked self-interests.

.recognize tragic di,emma’s, conflicts and ideals

We should not only take our own ideals seriously,

but also those of our worst enemies, and the conflicts between our own ideals.

(Jim does not. He does not recognize other people have ideals too- if they differ from his ideals, they should be unmasked as self-interest and powerplay. He does not acknowledge conflicts between e.g. protecting and improving the neugborhood)

Jim is a living proof of how cynicism has reached the streets.

Jim is also a living proof of re-embracing idealism without recognizing difference:

Jim is very open to idealism and hope,

as long as he does not have to recognize and endure plurality.

So: yes we do have moral needs,

and we do desperately need hope and idealism;

but we must also embrace plurality and tragedy,

Plurality (and pragmatism) without hope =  today’s progressive paralysis

Hope without tragedy and plurality=  populism, tending toward fascism.

To endure plurality, we need idealism with a blink and a tear;

we need to be idealists combined with self-mockery.

2.

How to re-embrace Englightenment ideals?

We have indeed all become cynics at worst,

pragmatics at best,

but both are poor sources of inspiration indeed. 

Neither cynicism nor pragmatics can inspire us

to put much effort and energy in the public cause,

to be indeed active citizens.

We have moral needs, Neiman argues,

and she presents Enlightenment ideals of

freedom, equality and solidarity

as the sources from which we can still tap

if only we dare to embrace them.

But where to begin?

Liberty, I would argue, is very pressing ideal on a global scale.

It is our global duty to help promote liberty.

In our own countries, at least here in Western Europe and in the US,

liberty is not the most pressing  issue, but it is globally

At home, however, we should put more of our intellectual and practical energy in

the other two pillars of Enlightenment: 

equality and solidarity.  (E.g. the health care bill in the US is not about liberty, but about equality and solidarity; lilberty is rather obstructing equality and solidarity  here.)

To equality and solidarity  I will now turn

Equality:

After the disillusions of socialism,

we have turned our backs to equality (of outcomes) ;

we have focussed solely on equality of opportunity:

stressing good quality education for all,

stressing the importance of equal chances to compete in meritocracy.

            that is fine, but not enough.

To narrow equality to equal opportunity is

to simply postpone the problem of inequality to later stages in life:

the outcome of fair competition is still inequality:

every competition, however fair,

produces a few winners and many loosers,

who now only have to blame themselves rather than their circumstances.

So equality in a meritocracy means more than equal opportunities:

it also means broadening our ideas of equality;

softening the effects of meritocracy:

• - 

  by restraining the effects of competition in education and work

-by reducing inequality of income

-by acknowledging luck: we do not simply end up in a good position because we are clever, but also because of good luck and knowing the right people. We should recognize and also value luck as one source of distribution

Solidarity:

Solidarity is another neglected issue. It is directly linked to equality:

.provided we will not have a classless society in our life-time, and

. provided  we recognise pluralism

We should reinvent solidarity under conditions of pluralism and inequality, by:

• 1. 

  Reconnecting social classes;
• 2. 

  Resurrect vertical bonds between social classes;
• 3. 

  make sure the poor can and do participate in politics

(rather than just oppose to politics as such as Jim does)

• 4. 

  create occasions where classes meet and engage in proper debate

(in order to fight polarization between social classes as also embodied in Jim’s story).

3.

What to do tomorrow?

In case your thoughts  have been drifting away,

thinking all this is much too abstract and philosophical,

Let me end with some more practical suggestions

-Those of you who are e.g. active in a political party locally or nationally,

could organise meetings and discussions with people from completely different backgrounds, on the quality of life and its tragedies.

It is not enough to try and improve their chances for better education: 

inequality will not wither away by more chances;

We all have a personal responsibility in reducing the effects of enduring inequality and  to create vertical bonds, and in inviting people to join us, make clear to them they are needed. Susan Neiman talked so inspiringly about the Obama-election campaign: enormous amounts of people who were active in it, sacrifieced their holidays and their weekends, because they felt needed, because the need for them was organised.

And those of you who themselves are successful somehow,

could recognize that it was not just your own efforts that put you there,

it was also good luck and knowing the right kind of people.

Therefore, you could try to be the right people for others;

you could make themselves available

as a source of knowledge and contact for others who are less well off.

Above all:  you can fight populism in your daily life, by defending Enlightenment ideals and the plurality and tragedy that should come with them.

Thank you for you attention.