Progressives Misunderstand Bitcoin – Bitcoin Magazine
Logan Bolinger is an attorney and author of a free weekly newsletter on the intersection of Bitcoin, macroeconomics, geopolitics, and law.
As Bitcoin continues to infiltrate American politics and policy, debates about which political party is more naturally aligned with the Orange ethos have spread and intensified. The growing number of self-described progressives entering the space has catalyzed some heated discussions about how Bitcoin fits into the ideology of the political left. Is Bitcoin Progressive? Isn’t that basically progressive? Is there anything else? To understand why these may not even be the right questions and why many (but not all) progressives seem to struggle with Bitcoin, we should delineate some of the partisanship claims and identifiers that tend to limit our thinking. To the point, it is high time we distinguished capital “P” progressivism from lowercase “p” progressivism.
I am convinced that Bitcoin, while harmonious with purportedly progressive ideas, ultimately transcends the ossified two-party paradigm we have in American politics. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the skepticism of the politically left-wing cohortspecifically Progressives, remains acute and unaffordable. So what’s the problem here? Why do people who identify politically as progressives? blackened Bitcoin, a technology that credibly addresses many of their purported concerns and priorities? It’s a vexing question, and it’s been explored by a number of Bitcoiners who have come to the space from the left (myself included). There is certainly an element of over-trusting the machinery – and overestimating the competence – of the state and misunderstanding how money works, but I think there are other things going on that are less discussed. I want to put some of these thoughts on the table.
First, I think it’s helpful to articulate some definitions, since “Progressive” connotes different ideas to different people. Let’s start by distinguishing between progressivism and progressivism. While it probably seems like these two concepts are synonymous, their real-time divergence is an obvious problem with the latter being a politically formalized advance and advocate of the former.
(Source)
Let’s start with small “p” progressives. What does this mean? I would argue that it ultimately refers to prioritizing the improvement of overall quality of life and a willingness to modify or transcend existing systems to do so. This means that the ideas and ideals drive the bus, and the tools that are most useful are those that are easiest to use. I realize this definition is a bit loose, but I think that’s part of the point. Personally, I would argue that quality of life requires and requires the preservation and maintenance of a certain degree of sovereignty. I would also argue that quality of life need not be a zero-sum, closed system where the only way to increase it for one cohort is to transfer it from another.
Capital “P” progressivism, as it refers to the more politically formalized subset of Democrats, is quite different. Like all political affiliations in America, I think this has evolved into an identity, and one that defines itself most in opposition to what it is not. Just as Republicans have drifted from conservatism and Democrats have drifted from liberalism, progressives have drifted from progressivism.
While no one expects Republicans or Democrats to necessarily operate with an uncorrupted philosophical coherence and/or moral consistency, I think there are many who sort of expect progressives to operate that way. But like both Republicans and Democrats more generally, I would argue that progressives have drifted away from some of the first principles that supposedly underpin their ideology. This kind of drive seems inevitable in our politics and is an argument for trying to break through and move outside of our old party political paradigms.
In sum, progressive does not equal progressive. Sometimes it does, but it is certainly not true that progressives are inherently or always examples of progressive ideas.
If we think about all the innovative, ingenious, and yes, progressive ways Bitcoin can be used as a tool to solve problems like climate, wealth inequality, equal financial access, and general human freedom, we might wonder why progressives aren’t supportive of hearty growth and use. One way to account for this apparent dissonance is simply that progressives are not always the paragons of progressive ideas.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, progressives do not have an authoritative, epistemic monopoly on what is or is not progressive. Capital “P” Progressivism is a politically engaged identity; progressivism with a lowercase “p” is political in the sense that everything is political and has political implications, but it is not an identity. You don’t have to label yourself as a progressive to believe in and advocate for progressive ideas. Progressive ideas with a lowercase “p” do not require an identity, nor do they provide one. It’s the difference between something closer to a meritocratic marketplace of ideas and a top-down, dictated meritocracy maintained by purity testing.
Also, I think it’s worth questioning how much of Progressive’s economic program is progressive small “p”, in the sense of trying to transcend or transform current entrenched systems, and how much of it is just iteration on a framework in FDR -style, using the same set of tools that created the problems in the first place. In some ways, I think progressives are forever seeking the perfect apotheosis of Rooseveltian politics, tinkering more and more until class relations are perfectly calibrated. I could argue that Republicans are similarly attempting to revive Reaganism, even as the coherence, applicability, and meaning of both of these frameworks become deflated and distorted over time, like a generational game of policy telephone.
I find it telling that the intellectual bogeyman of the right is still Karl Marx. I think it is telling that most of the prominent influences and progenitors of the figureheads of the left – either more traditional, e.g. Joe Biden, or more progressive, e.g. Bernie Sanders – are relics of the earlier 20th century.
Progressives, like Republicans and more traditional Democrats, are seemingly chained to old frameworks, forever digging them for new solutions.
Years ago, when I was in law school, my constitutional law professor began the course by asking us whether we wanted the blue pill or the red pill in constitutional jurisprudence. Those of us who got the reference enthusiastically chose the proverbial red pill, which he was going to give us anyway.
(Source)
The red pill—the truth behind the artifice, according to our professor—was that the US Constitution is an ancient, increasingly unworkable document that was never intended to remain relatively unchanged and religiously observed for centuries. That’s not to say it isn’t useful, historically significant, and fundamentally sound. Most other countries have amended their founding documents at various points, as lived experience changes dramatically over centuries and compels more relevant guidance and renewed covenants, whereas our constitution has remained relatively fixed, especially after the first batch of amendments.
I think being progressive means being willing to think beyond the increasingly dusty set of frameworks we’ve been living with and let our ingenuity lead us down new paths. In this context, I constantly think of Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert Jackson’s admonition that “if the Court does not temper its doctrinal logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact. “
Likewise, with regard to old frameworks and partisan identities that are effectively shortcuts to thinking, doctrinaireism is almost always an impediment to progress.
So I care what Elizabeth Warren and her ilk say about Bitcoin only to the extent that political opinions matter in the short term to the type of regulatory environment we choose to create. But Warren and other progressives don’t get to dictate what is progressive by decree.
For example, there is nothing more progressive than the work being done by people like Troy Cross, Shaun Connell, Daniel Batten, Margot Paez, Nathaniel Harmon and so many others who are using Bitcoin as a tool to deal with climate change. Endorsement or endorsement (or lack thereof) by Progressives does not change this.
To conclude, I think that when we ask why progressives don’t seem to embrace Bitcoin – a technology that is arguably quite small “p” progressive – we’re assuming that progressives will always support progressive ideas. And I think this is simply not true, which is why I will continue to push for what I believe is a growing divide between progressivism and progressivism, especially when it comes to economics and Bitcoin.
Although it may not be progressive, Bitcoin is progressive. This is why, despite a warmer embrace by Republicans, Bitcoin does not belong to them. Classic Republican family values paternalism in the Reagan/Bush style is still paternalism after all – just a different flavor than that of their political counterparts.
Ultimately, I believe the stagnant bipartisanship paradigm in America prevents us from rallying around promising tools—like Bitcoin—to solve our most pressing problems. I think trying to claim Bitcoin for each side of the partisan divide is one of Naval Ravikant’s well-known dumb games that only pay dumb prizes.
In my opinion, it is more useful to pursue progressive values with a lowercase “p”, meaning that which promotes the highest overall quality of life and is not constrained by current systemic norms. This pursuit foregrounds ideas regardless of which partisan identity group feels more attached to them.
This is a guest post by Logan Bolinger. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.
