The Anti-Social Contract

Chicago, Illinois and the Failures of Modern Progressivism

Thomas Cole, The Course of Empire: Destruction (1836)

Chicago and Illinois are in trouble. You know it. I know it. Your neighbors know it. Yet, somehow, it’s considered rude, bordering on sacrilege, to acknowledge in polite company. Best to sweep this inconvenient truth under the rug. To obscure it behind a façade of inspiring lakefront imagery.

But just open your eyes. Our problems are as ubiquitous as they are obvious. Rising crime, unsustainable debt, economic malaise, failing schools, dilapidated infrastructure, population loss. Each a fraying thread in a bleak tapestry of urban blight. 

There’s no need to rehash any of this in detail. Nor is it necessary to discuss “root causes.” We know them: decades of poor governance punctuated by recent years of incompetence and recklessness.

Our slow-motion train wreck is speeding towards its inevitable crash. Residents and businesses who can leave and haven’t, soon will; increasing the strain on city and state finances, leading to an accelerating deterioration of basic services, all while placing an unconscionable tax burden on those who remain. 

So what’s going on here? Beyond the inept leadership and its foreseeable consequences. What’s really going on? What are the implications of a literal “failed state” and - more confoundingly - why do residents not only tolerate these conditions, but continue voting for those who nurture them? 

Without question, the political class in Chicago and Illinois has flunked its most basic task. At its essence, the purpose of any government is to overcome collective action problems. To secure for its subjects what they are unable or unwilling to secure for themselves. But here, in a sardonic twist, rather than solving collective action problems, our city and state are meting out collective punishments. Worsening the size and scope of our already considerable challenges.

Consequently, our elected officials have broken the “Social Contract.” The implicit agreement between citizens and their government, under which individuals surrender some autonomy in return for the preservation of social order. Worthy heirs to the philosophical tradition of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, current city and state leaders are not.

Some might be so bold as to ask: “We have sacrificed our liberties and tax dollars in return for what exactly?” The answer is clear in its silence.

In classical political theory, a government’s breach of the social contract is grounds for its dismissal, as the breach undermines its legitimacy. Nevertheless, here, the powers in place only become more entrenched. Remarkably, we have willingly accepted the imposition of draconian terms under an anti-social contract. Victorious in a coup against common sense.

Again, the key question is “why?” Why support those whose grand bargain with the public has resulted in disarray? What has driven us into such delirium?

Our charted course is indicative of ideological decay. The disastrous effects of a once constructive worldview that degenerated on society’s fringe. Manipulated by pseudo-intellectuals and usurped by leftist elite, it has provided refuge to an unanchored body politic adrift in a seemingly endless sea of despair. Refuge in a seductive psychology, advancing under the guise of positivity. Alluring those gripped by grudge, outrage and guilt, yet finding equally receptive admirers amongst both naive and faux altruists. Alas, that refuge was but a mirage. The anchor came with shackles, trapping us beneath a rising tide of radical progressivism. 

Without a doubt, there are many intelligent, kind and caring individuals identifying as progressive. People who are good souls, striving to do good things. However, for all the potential good, the contemporary progressive movement increasingly fails to appreciate how the world really works; and that the second-order effects of implementing its priorities undermine its fanciful first-order intentions. Leaving chaos and devastation in their wake. 

Regrettably, much of what remains of the progressive movement’s initial merit has been co-opted by the masses for purposes antithetical to its origins. For most of its history, progressivism focused on protecting and expanding civil liberties, not functionally curtailing them while undermining socioeconomic stability.

Progressivism today is no longer an ideology seeking human improvement for its own sake, but is rooted in resentment. Pursuing retribution to right perceived wrongs - where only maligned groups benefit. As such, it is inherently divisive and ill-suited to addressing our urgent and shared needs.

Moreover, in a dark turn, progressivism has ditched its former optimism to embrace grievance and victimization as a means to cope with life's intrinsic obstacles. Instead of its adherents focusing on alleviating their own suffering (real or imagined), they channel their energy towards eradicating the sources of original sin: systemic “inequities.”

Rather than seek personal growth, the movement’s devotees seek to gain via the destruction of concocted harms: capitalism, the justice system, law enforcement, conventional energy, economic development, traditional education, history, identity, etc… 

When you oversimplify complexities down to systemic faults, tearing the system down without serious thought as to what will replace it has a certain, revolutionary appeal. An exciting, albeit futile cause for those in search of broader purpose or influence. After all, mustn't whatever comes after the fall be better than what preceded it?

No. 

Sadly, in attempting to shatter the foundations of functional society - of modern civilization itself - progressives fail to appreciate that they are undermining any prospects for improving the lives of those for whom they “fight,” including their own. We should aspire to be equally prosperous; not miserable. 

Historically, doctrines premised on victimization and grievance lead to eventual ruin. Often violent, total and irrecoverable. In this regard, is the dire condition of Chicago and Illinois that surprising? 

Whether intentional or not, today’s far-left progressive activists and politicians (along with their ascendant democratic socialist brethren)¹ risk compounding their immense damage. 

Though the difficulties confronting us are vast and complicated, the framework for resolving them is straightforward. Given our fiscal constraints, the city and state literally cannot afford to provide adequate services, as mandatory expenses such as funding pension liabilities and servicing interest payments consume much of the budget. Failing to appreciate the costs of their policies, which have to be paid by someone, the progressive answer is simply to borrow and tax more. As if we haven’t tried… 

In reality, putting Chicago and Illinois on a sustainable path requires attracting more people and businesses to expand the revenue base, which in turn necessitates improving public safety and making this a more competitive and desirable place to live, visit and invest in. A fact far too many here forget is that there are 49 other states. If we’re among the least compelling because of our unwavering commitment to an extreme version of the progressive cause, what equity does that ultimately achieve, other than equitable misery? 

Progressive leaders and voters might benefit from reflecting on what’s more important: amassing power for power’s sake, or governing in a manner that improves the long-term outlook for their constituents. The former, they have mastered; the latter, they have mangled.

Unfortunately, a pivot to sensible policy-making seems far-fetched with the current cast of characters at the helm and their committed sympathizers across the city and state. Instead, we are left needlessly struggling under the constraints of a defunct ideology that is long on promises but short on practicality; more concerned with virtue signaling than achieving anything actually virtuous. An anti-social movement that is fitting for our anti-social contract.

The imperative for those of us left here who are inclined towards pragmatic and independent thinking is to convince our dogmatic friends that the most viable strategy for achieving their aims - of alleviating suffering and improving the opportunity set for all - is through growing the proverbial pie. Not by taking from their neighbors’ plates. 

Pro-public safety, pro-fiscal sanity, pro-business are all progressive. Meaning that such principles contribute to ensuring the necessary social and economic circumstances under which genuine advancement of the human condition is possible. Thus, dutifully upholding the social contract, rather than frivolously trying to engineer new social constructs, is far likelier to achieve the quintessential outcomes that the progressive movement understandably sought in the past. 

We all want to progress and prosper. To enjoy better living standards and secure a better future for our children. In that regard, there is common ground between fellow residents of different political and ideological stripes. The point of contention - and it’s a big one - is how to achieve it. 

Restoring our future is not an insurmountable challenge; only a hard one. One that requires reorienting public policy and discourse away from the empty illusions of a progressive promised land and towards rational governance based on real world facts and objectivity. An honest style of leadership that remedies our broken social contract by delivering benefits that are both tangible and durable. This is no small order. Let’s hope we are up to the challenge, as it’s no exaggeration to say that the future of the city and state are at stake.

-Stuart Loren (February 2023)

---

1. While the above piece focused on the broader modern progressive movement, the rising tide of democratic socialism in Chicago and across the country is equally problematic and destructive - if not more so. Accordingly, I wanted to add a brief critique: 

Democratic socialism is an extraordinary misnomer. Socialism and democracy are incompatible.

No, Nordic countries aren’t socialist democracies. They are democratic capitalists with higher taxes that support more public services. Every true attempt at socialism has led to oppression, suffering, death and despair. Socialism undermines democracy rather than enhances it.

When you remove the motive for profit, people don't voluntarily work. Ignorant of history and lacking in common sense, today’s socialists don’t understand that socialism only “works” – and works poorly - via central planning, coercion and fear.

In that regard, socialism is just as true to the authoritarian spirit which its proponents decry in response to the policies and reasoned criticism they detest. 

Further, socialism is an inherently lazy and malevolent ideology. It favors redistribution over hard work. Conformity over creativity. Control over freedom. Illusions over actuality.

The promise of “free” goods and services leaves out inconvenient questions of where they come from and who provides them. And at what cost.

Finally, socialism is morally corrupt, and its followers logically incoherent. Aside from ignoring socialism’s terrible human rights track record, today’s socialists seem to think that the world has no ethical order worth protecting other than their own.

The real world involves real tradeoffs. Socialists and their progressive sympathizers have conflated clear demarcations between right and wrong, growth and stagnation, prosperity and suffering, with utopian but unfeasible notions of social and economic justice.

Sadly, but predictably, in advocating for radical policies - ranging from public safety to public spending – today’s socialists and their far-left supporters threaten to make society worse off as a whole, creating greater injustices than those they seek to ameliorate.

In the process of attempting to make lives better for themselves, today’s new-age socialists threaten to make life worse for almost everyone else as they seek to destroy our system of governance, economics and rule of law without any viable replacement but mere slogans and chic t-shirts.