Or are the homeless of San Francisco a better reflection of the decency of the global liberal American? Towards a recovery of America's unique, becoming-forgotten solidarity. For the nation yet to come.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It used to be that if you showed up late to check-in for a flight, tired, expecting nothing more than a middle seat, that it could happen that the person at the check-in counter would say, kindly: 'there's still one emergency exit seat still available, would you like me to put you there?' It used to be that no matter what job you showed up to Kinkos with, the high school surfer kid working there would say: 'copy a pork chop? No problem, lemme just see if we can fit it in there, brah'. And it used to be that when you showed up at the rental car agency to pick up a car, the person working would just say: 'check the box for insurance, it doesn't matter, it's probably covered on your credit card'.

Sure, these are examples that reflect a specific kind of privilege, and they aren't completely vanished; but, on the other hand, these types of examples could extend into basically every aspect of life, from the return counter at Walmart, to the grocery store, to working life at Little Caeser's pizza, that together do reveal that something has changed. Because, things aren't this way any more, or, at least, they are increasingly less like this every day. Instead, there's only an emergency seat if you 'booked the premium amenity online ahead of time'; or, 'please fill out your request and wait in line, the next available service member will assess your request'; or: 'please provide your insurance company so that we can verify your insurance, any discrepancy will lead to the assessment of additional fees'.

The United States was always unique among developed Western countries for one specific thing: the solidarity that somehow managed to persist within it, despite the technology and alienation of modern society. On the one hand, critiqued as superficial and artificial civility, the reality, now that it begins to fade in the rear-view mirror, is that that kindness betrayed a basic familiarity among Americans that is increasingly non-existent. Whether it was the voice over the phone listening to the over-billing situation and the understanding 'let me see if there's something I can do about that' attempt to right a corporate wrong; or the person at Circuit City who could care less what the pretense for the return was and was never inclined to care—there used to be a far more pervasive sense of shared fate in the United States than there is now that was the background for respect in the sorts of pervasive interactions that constitute ordinary, everyday American life. There was a citizen solidarity in which micro-social interactions became the opportunity for proving one's essential humanity over and against the corporate and government structures trying to regulate it out of existence.

Today, this is what liberals call fascism. Against the backdrop of an economy that has become, particularly in the post-Financial Crash period, increasingly predatory, the role of workers forced into precarious jobs amidst the multiplication of a hyper elaborated and specified economy has also begun to change. Rather than the space of freedom and the willingness to take the risks of betraying the legalese that circumscribes a job position that always characterized the informality of doing business (at whatever level) in the United States, now what we have is becoming increasingly to resemble other soulless liberal societies already evacuated of any human feeling and meaning. Instead, that precarity of economic position becomes the claim to a uniform, the necessity to take the company line. Perhaps initially out of enforced obligation, it eventually becomes something else: it eventually to be, in fact, a more truthful reflection of the micro-social relationship to reflect it as a corporate-consumer relationship. Anything else is dishonest, or risks a high probability of being naively taken advantage of by likewise opportunistic, predatory consumer. More than this, however, is the way in which responsibility itself on behalf of a corporation becomes itself infused with rights-oriented ideology that ends-up transforming workers' perception of their relationship to customers. No longer does an upset customer deserve sympathy, but their behavior makes a play on their unpaid 'affective labor', or becomes an issue of environmental concern or worker job-security to cost companies money through profligate generosity to customers.

Contemporaneous with this trend is the absolute devolution of consumer behavior. While it was always the case that 'getting one's way' in the context of faceless, abstract corporate behemoths involved a justifiable form of dishonesty and manipulation (they were always trying to get the better end anyway, dishonestly) has today become, perhaps out of necessity, blatant and entitled lying. Whether it is the person endlessly ordering things from Amazon who then clicks the 'broken or mislabeled' return reason so they don't have to pay the return shipping, and who feels no shame even when confronted about it in their own private life; whether its the person trying to check a bicycle in at the check-in counter as a 'mobility assistant technology', who really and truly believes in that moment that that is what it is; whether its the seeing-eye pet dog in the time of COVID; or whether its the myriad ways now that openly talk about how to deceive others about the things they resell as new that have been steamed open and glued shut—consumer behavior has likewise become transformed. Furthermore, it is also the consumer who feels ideologically empowered to make demands on others that would previously have been considered unthinkable petty: 'please take this back and give me another one without this specific type of oil that I have an allergy to'; 'I must sit in the aisle seat on account of my phobia of flying'; 'I must have my dog with me in the restaurant because dogs have the same rights as humans'. The world is full of these kinds of ideologically progressive demands that undermine previous forms of natural solidarity, recasting everything as part of a political project that authorizes these demands.

On both sides of the sorts of social interactions that characterize the everyday life of American society there has occurred a profound change. Those working have become increasingly subsumed within their roles, through necessity in difficult economic times, but also in response to a fundamental disrespect of those they encounter in their work who no longer seem to have a sense of integrity. And those facing those who work in roles that are increasingly corporate, increasingly predatory, increasingly specified to the point that there really is no longer any freedom for non-economic choice that doesn't involve stumbling into over-charges and fees or the throwing-up of hands and paying-up: they have become embittered to the situation, to the disrespect and lack of integrity they face. And, likewise, they then return the favor in increasingly entitled forms of dishonesty and exploitation that tries to recover what was once taken-for-granted luxury of a middle-class American life while simultaneously these entitlements become part of a broader political articulation.

A Tale of Two Homelessnesses

Anyone who has had the good fortune to circumnavigate the entirety of the United States on the road, and who has had the curiosity to really get off the road and into all kinds of bizarre situations, will come away from that experience with a profound understanding of the transformations that are taking place in the country.

Coming out of the Midwest, driving out through Colorado and on towards the border with Utah will begin to see a cultural change they can observe through the National and State Park system. Hollowed-out now, with booking systems, laundry services, vending and hospitality services out-sourced to private companies for profit, Federal and State park officials are reduced to enforcing public park rules on behalf of corporations over-which they have no control. There is a problem with the company's booking system that resulted in your reservation not being properly transferred to a parking post? Well, you can drive down the road a few dozen miles searching for cell-phone service to try to rectify it online through an outsourced call center somewhere, 'but, unfortunately there's not much I can do here for you, it's just the way it is'. It doesn't matter what one feels about the situation, it has been constructed now, partitioned in such a way that there is no accountability in the situation: enforcement and management of the parks (a Federal and State responsibility) is now separated from the provision of services (which is now a corporate entitlement), in many, if not most parks now.

And this liberalization of the park system, has begun to bleed into what has traditionally been unfettered BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land—our 'public lands'. No longer just that vast expanse of land 'right over there' beyond the pay-for-everything carnival of campsites, BLM land has begun to undertake a process of 'improvement', adding pit toilets and stationing 'rangers' (mostly vets) in campers to collect fees for these new 'services'. Under George Bush, these lands were opened-up for further profiteering and this is just one aspect of it, which has led to a displacement of those who use these lands informally further afield from National Parks.

Nevertheless, once one does find them, perhaps for the first time, there in the shadow of Mesa Verde, an entirely other world, another form of American life opens up. Being woken up early 5.30AM by the sound of vehicles slowly crawling out of the dark desert morning, those who have been dispossessed of their middle-class American lives now wake-up, clean-up at their campsites and drive to work at the nearby Walmart. There on those lands, the single car-tracks, dug into ruts when it rains, are home to such variety of life one no longer thinks to exist any longer. It isn't only the working-poor that inhabit these lands and obey their 30-day resettle ordinance, it is also those who find in these public lands an entirely other way of life: a homelessness that is an expression of a becoming-lost originary American Frontier: prospectors still telling tall tales of this or that gold find that the government is preventing access to; of fossil hunters scavenging the land for traces of prehistoric time to resell; of the coastal jade hunter that was once a pro-surfer who lives now on the cliffs around Big Sur who hikes down days after a storm to sift the beaches for washed up jade stone, that polishes and refines it to sell at the local Route 1 gas-station. This is a form of homelessness that becomes its authentic self only when it is out in the open, free and on its own terms, to live or to die¹

Driving out of the desert West and into the coastal California conurbations, the change is immediately apparent. Signs everywhere prohibiting this, that and the other thing. What you can't do on the beach, where you can't camp and sleep. No parking here, no loitering there. No eating or drinking on the BART. Just there, not far from the freedom of the public lands, in the quintessential liberal state: the endless circumscription of life. And there, in the midst of it, another form of homelessness, particular to its context arises.

Part depressing and sad and part perverted and absurd, the public displays of homelessness on the streets of San Francisco have no peer on the face of the earth. One doesn't know what the right response to it is: to donate money, to leave them alone, to be polite and respectful (obviously). 'Surely', one comforts themselves, 'the municipality provides some kinds of services that give anyone who wants it the opportunity to get off the street'. But it is precisely the fact of this regulatory context that produces its brazen public displays of homelessness. In order to be properly homeless in such a context, one must find the freedom—the insanity almost—within the context such that their public displays of lack of concern become the affirmation that they are in fact homeless. So long as one hides in the shadows and corridors defined for them by regulations, they are not in fact homeless: that is a home, albeit a depressing, clinical, bureaucratic one. Freeing oneself of all feelings of shame, to parade in the streets, one becomes who they are as homeless: carefree and whimsical in the public view of others they are 'at home' with in their existential dispossession (for whatever reason) on the street. Homelessness isn't only about a lack of a home: it is more fundamentally about a disconnection from the world, the lack of a position within it, philosophically, ideologically, emotionally. Being inside a house, does not 'solve' homelessness; and so, there on the streets of San Francisco a form of dissociation from liberal life expresses itself as having found a home through its public inscription into a reality it is denied and suppressed from any other authentic form of participation.

The dissociated personalities of the homeless is then further rendered schizophrenic by the liberal citizen that finds in these encounters the opportunity to express their philosophy of tolerance. Displacing responsibility for 'taking care of the situation' into the government, and themselves displaying the decency to tolerate their unfortunate form of economic dispossession, mental illness, or drug addiction, the homeless in San Francisco are rendered totally contingent by the liberal citizen's response to them. Their presence reflects itself like a bubble between two existences across which there is only occasional, coincidental communication. On the one side, the caring, tolerant citizen that wants their tax-money reflected in systems that provide opportunities to these people who is willing and able to withstand the constant affronts to their sense of decency and, on the other side, those who find in precisely those systems and that decency the reason—the impulsion—for the expression of their homelessness, there in the heart of liberal urban society.

The Political Contours of American Liberalization

The intensification of the predatory liberal economy, the perverted form of solidarity it produces between worker and corporation, the dishonesty, distrust and disrespect it breeds among the society that becomes reconfigured as a mirrored blatant, entitled lying exploitation of the consumer is reflected through these two forms of homelessness into the contours of a national political confrontation that is becoming increasingly more clear (and amplified) as it progresses. Because now, under COVID, the predicament of the urban homeless of San Francisco is becoming the predicament of vast swathes of the country through vaccine mandates, passports, and all the other aspects of the newly imposed viral regulatory regime. Now, anyone who refuses to participate in the charade of the COVID narrative is rendered essentially homeless in liberal America. They are explicitly either 'with us or against us': if they want to join us, there are avenues available for a return to civil society (taking the injection, downloading the electronic passport); should they refuse it, they are more than welcome to inhabit the lacunae of society, the refuse space left for them, and to persist in a state of abject exclusion from civil society (and to also continue working and politely serving those who make the decisions, if they want to survive). What form of existence should one then expect for these people?

The homelessness produced by the COVID regime follows the contours of the homelessness that has been being produced by economic displacement for decades now. Within the confines of urban liberal society the exclusion of the unvaccinated and those who refuse the viral regime accentuate their exclusion. Seen now through the windows of bars and restaurants, as the vaccinated indulge in the fruits of their decisions and the enlightened technological wonders their society has bestowed upon them, the unvaccinated appear as abject others living life according to some obscure, alien tune. And, from the perspective of the unvaccinated and those who refuse the regime, their predicament begins to search for new ways of expressing its essential homelessness within its context: posters on public buildings and walls, crazy arguments about hand-sanitizer and masks, public displays of t-shirts and hats, and other seemingly bizarre and brazen behaviors.

And yet, looking at the country objectively, this is clearly not the only form of homelessness available. Drawn now as a conflict between Red and Blue states, states like Florida and Texas provide a means of escape from oppressive COVID regimes and, in so doing, echo the forms of homelessness born of the wide-open spaces of public lands. Migrations out of Blue states and into Red states is only the most obvious contemporary expression of an ongoing response to liberalization taking place in America. This is because the escape from positions of abject, pathetic exclusion within liberal COVID regimes highlights the freedom of open-spaces and the value of the thin regulatory regimes of these Red states that have heretofore been only objects of critique from the left and from liberals (of corporate exploitation, lack of wage protections, no healthcare, exploitation of the environment by fracking and oil companies on public lands). And in this freedom comes a reminder of a more fundamental form of American solidarity that used to exist even within Democratic, liberal, left-leaning states and society.

As the New York Times put it, there really are now two competing claims to what it means to be American: on the one side, the urban liberal elite with its regulated existence everyday becoming more and more predatory and meaningless beyond the forms of enforced moral obligation they produce and upon which they depend; and, on the other side, the freedom from restrictions (on business, on citizens) through which a libertarian mode of life presents itself as a more fundamental claim to the American Frontier history and mythology. Lost now in this division is the way in which both used to exist simultaneously, together; created now is the necessity to make a decision: on what version of America does one stake their claim?

Two Forms of American Personality

The choice, really, isn't so hard to discern. And the path to understanding it lies through one of liberals' more hyperbolic claims: that, in the context of global pharmaceutical authoritarianism and transnational liberal clique formations, it is actually the right-wing that is fascist and on the cusp of consolidating a coup of democracy. To most liberals now, in the comfort and predictability of their urban lives within which sociality is produced through shared information-dense narratives, stepping out onto the Frontier is an understandably unsettling experience. No longer is there anyone else to appeal to, no manager to be called; rather, situations in the absence of information certainty require an entirely other praxis for action. One must understand themselves, what they are capable of, what others are capable of, and, importantly, of the limits of their knowledge and their capability to know these things. More fundamentally, it requires an entirely other ethics for social-life, one based in the total contingency and unpredictability of interaction. Only in such a way of profound self-knowing can one step into an unknown situation and confront it directly, on its own terms as radically contingent and without script. In this way, the 'fascism' liberals see in the Right is the ungovernability of their informal solidarity that acts on impulse according to its circumstances, improvised and off-script.

As so much of society is now rendered an incommunicable no-mans-land within liberal society, so much more of society now depends on the ability of one to adopt this new mode of social interaction. The alternative is what we are seeing now, that the New York Times documented in a recent article here: the increasing need to appeal to authorities to resolve disputes. But since that authority has been hollowed-out, out-sourced, and structured so as to eliminate avenues for accountability, a rising frustration that lashes out and looks for higher levels of authority to appeal to. Thus, the migration of politics from the local to the state to the national. Now every local political dispute enacts a national political debate, just like now any dispute over a mask articulates a Republican-Democrat National politics. In this way, the form of Right-wing solidarity becomes nationalized as States' right to self-determination in which citizens participate as they migrate into these states and seek to live life, for better or worse, 'on their own terms'; and Left-wing solidarity becomes constituted as a trans-global liberal clique formation that, as we've described here in detail, finds its meaning for being in the performance of duties of the responsible enlightened liberal citizen (to turn meteorology reports into political campaigns against climate change, to vaccinate, and to mask).

One is only left to wonder: is the only choice whether the United States' response to this problem of frustration to follow the path of other liberal countries, perhaps that of liberal zombie State Canada (which seeks to suppress such frustrations by ensuring all points of public-facing government and corporations are staffed by the equivalent of Blood Diamond Nigerian child-militias against which no sane, rational refusal is possible)? Or will it, by rejecting this approach, veer into some other unpredictable form of organized, reactionary fascistic response? The choice, by obscuring important distinctions and profound polemics within these bifurcated personalities, becomes caricatured by becoming clear: either become a stammering, socially inept do-gooding rule-following soldier in the Global Democratic Party; or become the shoot-from-the-hip, deregulated, informal solidarity fascist in the Global Fight Against Decency.

Is it possible any longer to recover the informal solidarity that defined American culture for so long (basically coming-apart in the past 20-years)? Did that solidarity in fact just betray the divisions we are seeing today: that it was a tolerated form of anarchic disobedience that, because it served everyone (including liberals who wanted discounts) it was acceptable to all? Is there not, perhaps, behind these exaggerated responses a latent, hidden political potential based in the memory of this receding solidarity, perhaps a kind of libertarian communalism that sees in the flight from over-determined and regulated liberalism only a partial salvation in the deregulated environments to which they flee? A libertarian communalism that recognizes the need for freedom from without forgetting what one needs freedom for².

And finally: does the prospect of climate change invalidate any such attempt to refound a libertarian communalism in the remaining open-spaces of still-remaining public lands in Western states (that would seem to imply further exploitation of the natural environment)? Or is there a way to open-up a new form of conversation about alternative modes of low-carbon existence that can take place on these lands that are themselves a return to even more foundational claims to what is American that have for so long been ignored (as in: Native and Tribal)? This would be a rejection of all terms of the liberal clique movement towards regulation and control over social life that it has fomented and established, particularly during COVID. And it would be a rejection of a sole focus on a technological solution to climate change that has been already begun to reveal itself as just another form of global capitalist consumer exploitation of the environment. Rather, it would be a conversation on radically new terms, in favor of, perhaps, more traditional, anachronistic modes of agricultural subsistence living that themselves could form the basis for heretofore unimagined ways of economic sustainability within liberal conurbations, once their existing relationship to vast untapped lands breaks free of its historical linkage to corporate exploitation and location of a playground for billionaires who have bought-up all the land.

It seems fantastical, all things considered, there's no doubt about that. But one can dream.

Or, as Christopher Nolan outlines in Inception: perhaps it is in the seed of the idea that current structures and ideologies will begin to crumble so that a new world can finally begin to emerge—one we can actually believe in³.

Footnotes