Hey friends, welcome back to Think Bitcoin™ for issue #38. Special welcome to the new subscribers. I’m glad you’re here. As always, if you have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out. You can also find me on Twitter (@TheWhyOfFI) and connect with me on LinkedIn.
In this issue:
Long Reads: Bitcoin, Progressivism, and Empty Partisan Signifiers
Content Round-Up: 1 podcast, 1 Twitter thread, 1 video
As always, if you find this newsletter interesting or useful, please share it with others who might find it interesting or useful, too!
Long Reads
Bitcoin, Progressivism, and Empty Partisan Signifiers
This week I want to talk a little bit more about a topic that is becoming increasingly front-of-mind, particularly within the current regulatory environment for Bitcoin and digital assets, generally. If you’ve been a reader of this newsletter for some time you’re certainly aware that I think Bitcoin, though harmonious with purportedly Progressive ideas, ultimately transcends the ossified two-party paradigm we have in U.S. politics.
Nevertheless, it’s obvious that skepticism from the politically left-leaning cohort, specifically Progressives, remains acute and intractable. So what’s the problem here? Why do folks who identify politically as Progressives vilify Bitcoin, a technology that credibly addresses many of their professed concerns and priorities? It’s a vexing question, and it has been examined by a number of Bitcoiners who have come to the space from the Left (myself included). And yes, as I’ve written about before, there is certainly an element of over-trusting the machinery (and overestimating the competence) of the state and misunderstanding how money works. But, the more I think about it, I think there are some other things going on, too, that are discussed a little less, and I want to put some of those thoughts on the table.
First, I think it’s useful to articulate some definitions, since “Progressive” connotes different ideas to different people. So let’s begin by distinguishing between progressivism and Progressivism. While it probably seems like these two concepts are or should be quite similar, if not identical, with the latter just being the politically formalized advancement and advocacy of the former, their real-time divergence is an obvious issue.
So let’s start with progressive. What does this mean? I would argue that it ultimately refers to prioritizing the improvement of aggregate quality of life, and a willingness to modify or transcend existing systems to do so. Which is to say the ideas and the ideals drive the bus, and whichever tools are most useful are the ones most readily utilized. I’m aware that this is a bit squishy, but I think that’s part of the point. Personally, I would argue that quality of life requires and demands the preservation and maintenance of a certain degree of sovereignty. I would also argue that quality of life is not (or at least doesn’t have to be) a zero-sum closed system in which 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 wholly different. I think this has evolved, like all political affiliations in America, into an identity, primarily, and one the defines itself mostly by contrast to what it is not. In the same way that Republicans have drifted from conservatism and Democrats have drifted from liberalism, Progressives have drifted from progressivism.
Whereas no one expects Republicans or Democrats to necessarily operate with an uncorrupted philosophical coherence and/or moral consistency, I think there are many who do sort of expect Progressives to act in that manner. However, like both Republicans and Democrats more broadly, I would argue Progressives have, in fact, drifted from some of the first principles that putatively underpin their ideology. That this type of drift seems inescapable in our politics is, I think, an argument for trying to break through and move beyond our old partisan paradigms. But I digress.
In sum, progressive ≠ Progressive. Sometimes it does. But it is certainly not true that Progressives are inherently or invariably the exemplars of progressive ideas.
So, if we think about all of the innovative, ingenious, and yes progressive ways in which Bitcoin can be used as a tool to address issues like the climate, wealth inequality, equal financial access, and general human freedom, we might wonder why Progressives aren’t heartily endorsing its growth and use. And one way of accounting for this seeming dissonance is simply that Progressives are not always the paragons of progressive ideas.
In fact, Progressives do not, contrary to common cultural belief, have an authoritative, epistemic monopoly on what is or is not progressive. Capital ‘P’ Progressivism is a politically committed identity; lowercase ‘p’ progressivism is political in the sense that everything is political and has political implications, but it’s not an identity. You do not have to label yourself as a Progressive to believe in and advocate for progressive ideas. Lowercase ‘p’ progressive ideas do not require an identity, nor do they bestow one. It’s the difference between something closer to a meritocratic marketplace of ideas and top-down, dictated meritocracy via purity testing.
Moreover, I think it’s worth questioning how much of the Progressives’ economic program is lowercase ‘p’ progressive, in the sense that it is seeking to transcend or transmute current entrenched systems, and how much of it is just iteration on an FDR-style framework, utilizing 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 policy, tinkering more and more extensively until class conditions are calibrated perfectly. I could argue that Republicans similarly attempt to resuscitate Reaganism, though in both cases the coherence, applicability, and meaning of these frameworks get emptied out and distorted over time, like a generational game of policy telephone.
It’s telling, I think, that the intellectual bogeyman of the Right (and touchstone of the Left) is still, in 2022, Marx. I think it’s telling that most salient influences and forefathers of the figureheads of the Left, whether more traditional (e.g. Biden) or more Progressive (e.g. Bernie) are relics of the earlier twentieth century like LBJ, FDR, and, in the case of Bernie, Eugene V. Debs.
Progressives, like Republicans and more traditional Democrats, are seemingly shackled to old frameworks, mining them eternally for new solutions.
Years ago, when I was in law school, my constitutional law professor began his course by asking us if we wanted the blue pill or the red pill of constitutional jurisprudence. Those of us who got the reference of course enthusiastically opted for the proverbial red pill, which he was going to administer to us anyway.
The red pill, the truth behind the artifice per our professor, was that the U.S. Constitution is an old, increasingly inapplicable document, never meant to remain comparatively unchanged and religiously adhered to for centuries. Which isn’t to say it’s not useful, historically momentous, and foundationally solid. It’s just to say, compared to other countries, most of whom have modified founding documents at various points, as lived experience dramatically changes over the course of centuries and compels more relevant guidance and renewed compacts, ours has remained relatively fixed, particularly after the initial flurry of amendments.
I think being progressive means being willing to think beyond the increasingly dusty set of frameworks we’ve been living with and allowing our ingenuity to lead us down new paths. In this context I am constantly thinking of Justice Robert Jackson’s admonition that “there is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Similarly, with respect to old frameworks and to partisan identities that are effectively shortcuts to thinking, doctrinairism is almost always an inhibition to progress.
So I care what Elizabeth Warren and Dick Durbin say about Bitcoin only insofar as political perceptions matter in the short-term for the type of regulatory environment we choose to create. But they (Warren, Durbin, et al.) do not get to dictate what is progressive by decree. There is nothing more progressive, for example, than the work being done by folks like Troy Cross, Shaun Connell, Daniel Batten, Margot Paez, Level39, Nathaniel Harmon, and so many others who are using Bitcoin as a tool for addressing climate change. Approval or endorsement from Progressives (or the lack thereof) does not change this.
So, to conclude, I think when we ask why Progressives don’t seem to take to Bitcoin, which is inarguably pretty lowercase ‘p’ progressive, we are presupposing that Progressives will always endorse progressive ideas. And I think this is simply not true, which is why I want to continue to press on what I think is a growing distinction between Progressivism and progressivism, particularly as relates to economics and Bitcoin.
Though it may not be Progressive, Bitcoin is progressive. And this is why, despite a warmer embrace from Republicans, Bitcoin does not belong to them, either. Classically Republican, Reagan/Bush-style family-values paternalism is, after all, still paternalism. Just a different flavor than that of their political counterparts.
Ultimately, I think the stagnating two-party paradigm in America is precluding us from coalescing around promising tools, like Bitcoin, to address our most pressing issues. And I think trying to claim Bitcoin for either side of the partisan divide is, long-term, one of Naval Ravikant’s proverbial stupid games that yield only stupid prizes.
More useful, in my opinion, is pursuing what’s lowercase ‘p’ progressive, meaning that which advances the highest aggregate quality of life and is not constrained by current systemic norms. This pursuit foregrounds ideas, regardless of which partisan identity group feels more affinity for them.
Content Round-Up
1. “From Bernie to Bitcoin With Logan Bolinger,” an episode of the Progressive Bitcoiner podcast with yours truly. Pertinent to my thoughts above, Mark and I discussed the intersection of progressivism and Bitcoin, the fraught issue of trust within our current monetary system, human fallibility as a single point of failure, and more.
2. This Twitter thread from Daniel Batten:
3. “Bitcoin and Taxable Events,” an episode of The Bitcoin Source with CJ the Smart Guy, a CPA who recently wrapped up an educational tour with Najah Roberts. Shout out to Dawdu Amantanah, Bitcoin writer and host of the show (and check out the other episodes, too). I really enjoyed this conversation between CJ and Dawdu. CJ is full of knowledge and insights on the issue of Bitcoin’s tax treatment and entrepreneurship, generally. He points out and explains a much less-discussed issue that is inhibiting a more widespread embrace of Bitcoin on corporate balance sheets, which is the tax treatment as an intangible asset. Once this accounting standard is changed, CJ argues, is when Bitcoin adoption by corporations will accelerate rapidly.
As always, thanks for reading! If you enjoyed it or found it useful, share this newsletter widely and freely!
“Civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.” -H.G. Wells
See you in two weeks,
Logan
SUPPORT
Send bitcoin to my Strike
SOCIAL
DISCLAIMER: I am not investment advisor and this is not investment advice. This is not, nor is it intended to be, a recommendation to buy or sell any security or digital asset. Nothing in this newsletter should be interpreted as a solicitation, a recommendation, or advice to buy or sell any security or digital asset. Nothing in this newsletter should be considered legal advice of any kind. This newsletter exists for educational and informational purposes only. Do your own research before making any investment decisions.
© Copyright Logan Bolinger, Think Bitcoin LLC