Let’s Go Back To a Future

Benjamin Tallis in conversation with Damian Boeselager

In a political landscape increasingly marked by division and stagnation, Volt Europa stands out as a rare source of excitement, offering something refreshingly different: a pan-European movement led by motivated and competent young leaders who dare to articulate a bold, positive vision for the future and, crucially, a pragmatic path to achieve it. While outdated hierarchies, rigid ideologies, and naive approaches undermine many parties claiming progressive values, Volt Europa embodies an idealistic yet practical alternative for a generation that has yet to find true political representation. Volt’s approach defines a new radical-center vision focused on reforming Europe and preparing for a better future.

Founded in 2017, Volt Europa is a transnational political movement committed to a united and empowered Europe. Born to respond to rising nationalism and Brexit, Volt champions progressive policies addressing climate change, economic inequality, and democratic reform.

In 2019, co-founder Damian Boeselager became Volt’s first Member of the European Parliament, marking the beginning of its influence on European politics. By 2024, Volt had grown to five members in the European Parliament, reflecting its steady rise as a political force. Active in over 30 countries, Volt has participated in local, national, and European elections, uniting national chapters under a shared vision for a sustainable, inclusive, and collaborative Europe.

Dr. Benjamin Tallis is an expert in European security, strategy and foreign policy and is the Director of the Democratic Strategy Initiative, a Berlin think tank. He is the author of books including To Ukraine with Love (2022) and Turning Point (2024), as well as numerous influential articles and policy reports. He has advised European governments and the EU on security policy and served as a Senior Research Fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). The title of this issue comes from one of his essays.

Both Damian Boeselager and Benjamin Tallis are recurring guests on DUST, recognised as two of the brightest minds with a centrist approach shaping the discourse on progressive politics. For this occasion, we brought them together for the first time to discuss what ‘uncancelling the future’ means in today’s world.

Damian Boeselager – ‘Uncancelling the Future’ is this issue’s title, which also aligns closely with Volt’s mission and is a topic you’ve written about extensively.

Benjamin Tallis – The central vision of a positive, progressive future—where tomorrow is better than today, and the next generation thrives more than the current one—was a driving force in European politics for 150 to 200 years. This optimism began to wane in the late 1970s in Western Europe, resurfaced briefly in 1989 with the apparent triumph of our system, and took a near-fatal blow in 2008 during the global economic crisis. Since then, hope for a brighter future has faded for many, and politics has increasingly turned towards decline, fatalism, and even despair.

When people stop believing in progress, they ask, “What’s the point in investing in the future?” or “Why cling onto a universal vision of progress?” Instead, they retreat into narrow self-preservation, looking out only for themselves and those like them. This attitude becomes self-fulfilling and ultimately self-defeating.

While often pretending to be ‘realism’, fatalism offers a lazy, irresponsible escape. It’s the comfortable position of cynics who claim, “What can we do anyway?” and it’s what makes people choose not to try. These cynics, often visible in public discourse, thrive by parasitising liberal values without contributing to them. They perpetuate a culture of resignation and decline, feeding off liberal ideals while adding nothing of substance, which I find deeply problematic.

Our challenge—both domestically and internationally—is to restore a compelling and hopeful vision of the future. This vision needs to address political, economic, environmental, and technological dimensions in a way that inspires people again. That’s what we’re working on building—a vision of progress that feels real, achievable, and worth fighting for.

D.B. – When we started Volt in 2016, driven to counter the new wave of populism following Brexit and Trump’s victory, it became clear that the progressive narratives of the political landscape were no longer holding.

They rested on the fragile assumption that stability was guaranteed or at least enduring. But it wasn’t, and populist movements recognised this change, shaping it to fit their nativist vision—blaming others, retreating to the ‘good old days’, and clinging to an imagined truth rooted in nostalgia.

The winning narratives of growth and progress for the future hold up until the fall of the Berlin Wall. After that, with no competing systems, we entered what some called ‘the end of history’, and things just flattened out. This flattening was especially apparent in Germany. Merkel, for example, became famous for having no clear vision for the future—a trait that is now proving to have significant negative consequences. Her successor has even less charisma and essentially follows the same ‘do-nothing’ approach. But we know this status quo isn’t sustainable.

When I think about the future, I see two possibilities. Either things fall apart—leading to a rise in nationalism, autocracy, nativism, and tribalism—or society evolves into something new. I believe it’s our duty to create and champion this new vision collectively. For me, at the moment, the real challenge isn’t the far-right populists but the lethargic middle—the people paralysed by fear, worried about decline, and unsure whether it’s worth investing in change.

The next few years in Europe will be challenging—economically, socially, and in terms of security. This stress will either serve as a catalyst for creating something new or push people further into apathy. And yes, you can say ‘apathetic’. That growing apathy makes it much easier for strong, often right-wing voices to take over.

But the future hasn’t been decided on yet, and that’s the key. As long as we recognise that we have agency, we can still shift the trajectory. The task is urgent, though. We need to wake up and take action before the window closes.

B.T. – Exactly. Reclaiming and embracing agency is half the battle because people have been conditioned to believe there’s nothing they can do. The narrative is pervasive: These are faceless global forces stacked against us; it’s out of our hands. In Germany, this learned helplessness is partly a product of the Scholz-Merkel-Schröder era. During this time, while riding the ‘end of history’ wave, people were told that all the big decisions had already been made. This politically de-skilled them and stripped away their belief in their ability to act meaningfully.

The political economy that emerged after 1989, when neoliberalism, rather than other forms of liberalism, became dominant, created an endless present—one that lacks a future or a past. It naturalises false economic laws, treating them as immutable truths, and once that mindset takes hold, where do you go? At its core, this approach denies a future. It traps us in stagnation, in a present that feels eternal and unchanging.

This is particularly evident in the politics of that period. In a rapidly changing world, politicians’ emphasis on stability has become stagnant. This left them—and the system they upheld—utterly unprepared to address the challenges we face today. The result is a political culture incapable of meeting those multifaceted crises you described so well.

Regaining agency is essential to breaking out of this stagnation. But the question is: Where does agency come from? It’s similar to when people talk about political will—they say, We need political will, but where does that actually come from? It either arises from deeply held values and inspiration or a calculated pursuit of specific interests that compels action.

The challenge today is that we’re confronted with so many overlapping crises—economic, social, environmental—that even well-intentioned politicians feel overwhelmed. It’s a paralysis born of complexity. But as William James said, You don’t do brave things because you have brave feelings; you get brave feelings when you do brave things. This insight is critical. Action generates courage, not the other way around. And to act effectively, you need strategy—which, in effect, provides the immaterial infrastructure of courage and will.

This is why we need to focus on strategy, move forward and reclaim the future from this endless present.

D.B. – What I believe is that that agency lies within parties. The far-right has recognised this and leveraged it effectively, understanding that in party democracies, true power resides in the parties themselves.

One big reason for today’s stagnation is the common belief that political parties aren’t vehicles for real change anymore. This has let the far right grow stronger, the centre struggling with a lack of fresh talent, and pushed progressives to focus on protests and activism instead of directly getting involved in and shaping political parties. I recently read that the party membership has reportedly halved since the 1980s. This says a lot.

The second issue is narratives. Even if people join parties, we need a compelling story to draw them in. The far-right narrative is simple and effective: Outsiders are causing our decline, so we must return to a nativist agenda. It’s racist, but it resonates because it’s emotionally powerful and easy to grasp.

What’s our story? It can’t be Stay calm, accept lower living standards, and adapt to climate change. That’s not inspiring—it feeds into fear and uncertainty. We need a story that’s ambitious, hopeful, and bold. For me, it has to be a European story. It should say, Yes, Europe can be a beacon of hope, an example for the world, a strong economy, and a resilient society built on our unique social-liberal model. This model, with its emphasis on positive freedoms, stands in contrast to the neoliberalism that has dominated for so long. It’s something worth fighting for, and it’s something people can believe in.

The challenge is to improve our ability to tell this story convincingly. We also need to make political parties more attractive—more fun, even—so people want to engage with them. That’s what I think we need to work on.

B.T. – Indeed. The challenge is turning big ideas into actionable change within political parties and amongst leaders who can make it happen. To succeed, we need a clear theory of change—not virtue signalling, preaching to the choir, or engaging in feel-good actions that achieve nothing.

Since 1989, the incentives for pursuing a career in politics have changed. During the Cold War, geopolitics was everything. The competition wasn’t just about nuclear weapons—it was about living standards, social housing, and showing that we had something better to offer. We had to be at our best to win, and many of our best people served in government or politics. After 1989, the focus shifted. The best talent no longer went into politics because the ‘big game’ moved elsewhere—into business or global organisations. Many of the heavy hitters were evacuated from domestic politics.

Now, with the stakes so high and clear, this might change. We can draw talent back. There needs to be a reason to invest time and effort—a sense that this is the fight of our lives. But simply defending a broken status quo isn’t enough. We need to address those flaws head-on and show that change is possible—to renew the pursuit of progress and victory, to give something to strive for.

D.B. – The core question I’m wrestling with is this: how do we get people to be daring and open to innovation in a climate of uncertainty? What you and I are suggesting is a fundamental restructuring—a pivot, in startup terms—towards new fields, policies, and economic structures that make us future-friendly. This is crucial but not appealing.

The politics of stagnation thrive on protecting the familiar, like job security and company stability. We need to flip this mindset. We need to embrace uncertainty and actively bet on new opportunities. This requires a shift toward future investment—rethinking not just the economy but the role of government itself.

Governments must be bold, not merely managing Europe’s decline but creating and pursuing forward-looking strategies. This demands strong leadership and radical reforms. For example, drastically lowering income taxes while raising inheritance taxes to signal that innovation and work will be rewarded while maintaining the status quo—such as passing wealth passively from one generation to the next—is not inherently productive.

These bold shifts are needed but require leadership willing to make directional changes that go against entrenched interests. Too often, politicians are tied to outdated paradigms, prioritising the short-term demands of existing industries over long-term transformation. Breaking free from this cycle is the only way to address stagnation and build a future-ready society.

B.T. – Yeah, I totally agree. The point about inheritance tax is spot on. It will upset some powerful people, but we’ve got to have the courage to push it through. If we don’t, we’ll just keep reinforcing bad habits and structural advantages for those already at the top. Every generation needs a fresh shot at ambition and opportunity.

D.B. – I believe the key is framing. Too often, when inheritance tax is discussed, wealthy individuals dismiss it as social envy. That’s the wrong lens. This debate should focus on creating a system that encourages innovation and fairness.

Right now, much of the tax burden falls on middle- and high-income earners, while the wealthiest—who often don’t rely on income—contribute far less.

This imbalance is often misunderstood. In progressive circles, there’s a lot of focus on raising taxes on high incomes, but if you understand how wealth actually works, you would know this approach is counterproductive. The wealthy don’t rely on income—they hold wealth. A better approach would be to lower income taxes across the board to boost work and productivity while ensuring those with significant wealth contribute fairly to public finances.

It’s all about framing. If inheritance tax is presented not as an attack on wealth but as a way to unlock work and innovation potential while creating a fairer system, even those affected might be more open to it.

B.T. – I completely agree. Those with entrenched wealth, rather than high-income earners, often fear competition and work to maintain their embedded advantages. Framing the inheritance tax debate around competitiveness could resonate with high-income earners. It’s about reviving the drive for innovation and growth, which benefits everyone, not just preserving the status quo.

On the other hand, the focus should be on government efficiency. It’s not about opposing social spending but about spending strategically. Simply transferring money to keep people afloat is wasteful. The focus should be on investing in inclusion—helping people grow, thrive, and live with dignity. What we need is an enabling state, one that facilitates opportunities and drives progress, rather than a transfer state that just patches over systemic problems. This is a critical part of the debate Europe is missing.

But it’s also important to see the differences within Europe, too. In the North and East, the dynamics are different. Take Poland, for example—the Draghi report didn’t resonate there because it wasn’t tailored to their context. They said This doesn’t apply to us; these aren’t our issues.

Or look at the Baltic States—innovation-driven societies with lower tax bases, high growth, advanced technological development, and efficient bureaucracies.

Why aren’t we learning from those leaders in Europe? Why aren’t we adapting their strategies to the broader European context? That’s what we should be asking.

D.B. – Countries like Estonia, with a population of around 1.3 million, are incredibly agile. Their government operates efficiently, with ministries consolidated into small teams, which allows them to adapt quickly and foster a digital economy.

The Nordics also have structural advantages, like capital-backed pension schemes or, in Norway’s case, a massive sovereign wealth fund. These provide significant capital for innovation and venture investments, making it easier to build future-ready economies.

B.T. – I agree, but I also see a different attitude towards liberal democracies in the Baltic States. There’s a distinct perspective there, shaped by a within-living-memory understanding of what it means to lose freedom, live under tyranny, and fight for liberation. This lived experience has fostered a deep commitment to the idea that liberal democracy, at its best, is worth fighting for and striving to maintain.

Marko Mihkelson, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Estonian Parliament, captured this well on our podcast last year when he said, Freedom is a duty. To live up to that duty, there are specific responsibilities: investing in security and defence, embracing innovation, and actively living the principles of freedom. This aligns with a broader concept of positive freedom that seems to resonate in the Baltic region, even against the backdrop of the region’s economic rhetoric, often focused on negative freedoms.

This conversation is largely absent in Western Europe. The sense of duty toward freedom and the active effort to maintain and innovate within a liberal democratic framework are not commonly discussed or emphasised in those contexts. Europe could learn from this perspective.

D.B. – It’s also true that in parts of the East, there’s a troubling shift towards strongman politics and authoritarianism, particularly in Slovakia, Hungary, and, to some extent, Poland. Liberal democracy in these countries faces unique challenges shaped by their historical experiences, economic struggles, and a growing fascination with autocratic alternatives.

B.T. – I’d push back on that a bit because it’s interesting how similar phenomena are perceived differently depending on the region. When far-right tendencies emerge in Central and Eastern Europe, they’re often framed as problems inherent to the region. But when the same happens in Western Europe, it’s treated as an aberration or deviation from the norm.

Take the far-right in the Netherlands or parties like the BSW in Germany, whose policies are close to Poland’s Law and Justice Party, except worse because they’re openly pro-Putin. This double standard reflects an enduring ‘iron curtain of the mind’ regarding how we view the East.

This isn’t to dismiss the very real challenges in Central and Eastern Europe. However, equally troubling dynamics are present in Western Europe. Look at Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and others. These movements are just as dangerous, yet they’re rarely scrutinised with the same intensity. Both regions face similar threats, and we need to recognise this without defaulting to outdated biases.

D.B. – The trend is definitely universal. Through Volt, I get insights from various countries. I can see a widespread rise of nationalist, autocratic tendencies all over the map, often with a worrying inclination towards endorsing Putin.

We might have a bias towards scrutinising the East more harshly, I can see that. But this is clearly a universal problem that transcends regions. It’s something all democracies need to address collectively.

B.T. – Yes, I think this is worth exploring further because it highlights the ongoing reluctance to learn from the East, even when there are clear successes in areas like reducing bureaucracy and fostering innovation—Estonia being a prime example. This resistance is evident not only in domestic European politics but also in NATO dynamics.

Take NATO’s recent political moves: the reemergence of the old quad—US, UK, France, and Germany—at a time when Poland has clearly established itself as a defence leader in Europe. Despite Poland’s significant role, they were excluded from key meetings. Sure, Tusk then didn’t invite Scholz to the Warsaw meeting, which was warranted, given Germany’s laggard status on European defence, but the exclusion of Poland while it is leading reveals deeper biases.

On the other hand, we do see some progress, with the recent appointments of Kaja Kallas, the former Prime Minister of Estonia, as the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Andrius Kubilius as the EU’s first Defense and Space Commissioner, marking significant steps toward integrating strong Central and Eastern European perspectives into the EU’s leadership. But there’s still an entrenched idea that Europe is—or should be—led by the old powers, despite this being an increasingly outdated belief and often out of touch with the innovation happening elsewhere in Europe.

D.B. – On this subject, Ukraine, especially in terms of defence, provides a fascinating case study in innovation. They’re not held back by existing interests and manage to innovate on the go. For instance, their state app [DIIA] integrates everything: you can take photos of tanks for analysis, monitor noise overnight to detect missiles or drones, manage your ID, complete state exams, and even do schooling—all within one system. It’s a remarkable example of innovation under pressure.

This highlights the gap we face. While the East offers valuable lessons, I’m not sure all their approaches will translate effectively to every country. However, the urgency to turn things around and modernise is clear. These examples demonstrate what’s possible when innovation is prioritised.

B.T. – Absolutely. This ties directly to the idea of Neo-Idealism and developing it as an approach to grand strategy for liberal democracies. The key is making it consistent across social, economic, security, and defence policies, as well as innovation. The challenge is that we’re not there yet, and progress requires drawing on interdisciplinary knowledge and making bold, systemic changes.

You mentioned the Ukrainian Diia app, which is light years ahead of anything Germany has. When Ukrainian refugees arrived in Berlin, they were shocked by how outdated and inefficient the systems were. Instead of learning from Ukraine’s digital advancements, there’s still condescension—talking down to Ukraine about whether they can handle military technologies, for example.

Meaningful change requires acknowledging the scale of transformation needed. This brings us back to the start of the discussion: without a credible vision for the future, why would people commit to change? Bernd Ulrich captured this well in his image of Scholz as a man standing in the rain with his closed umbrella, saying, I’m not going to change, and you don’t have to either. It’s reassuring for those who fear change won’t lead to improvement, but it’s precisely the mindset we need to overcome.

D.B. – We always seem to wait for a crisis before making real changes. Why can’t we build a system that encourages constant innovation without needing a disaster to push us? One idea I’ve been thinking about is whether we could formalise a process of regular review and innovation in our governance structures.

For instance, what if our Constitution included a framework for systematic reviews—not for the core principles, but for more operational aspects? Imagine an article requiring less critical elements to be reviewed every 15 years. This rolling process could help keep institutions adaptable without sacrificing stability.

And it doesn’t have to stop at the Constitution. What if we created incentives for experimentation and innovation at other levels of governance? By normalising a system where new ideas are tried, tested, and adapted, we could shift from reactive change to proactive growth. If we’re serious about tackling future challenges, this structural shift could be effective.

B.T. – Adding a set review clause to the Constitution is a good idea, and the European Union could really benefit from it, too. The assumption that every step of European integration has been perfect or that stepping back would destroy the whole project just doesn’t hold up. A rolling review process could bring much-needed reflection and recalibration, which would be hugely beneficial.

The resistance to this usually comes from fear—people without better alternatives or who are afraid to compete cling to the status quo, even when it’s clearly not working. Legal mechanisms and institutional tweaks can help kickstart change, but they’re not enough on their own. What’s really needed is political will and a sense of purpose—a clear vision and strategy to push these reforms forward.

D.B. – Let me share a specific challenge we’re facing. As Volt, we are running in the German election this February amidst significant uncertainty following the collapse of the government—something that has only happened once or twice in recent history. We don’t have an extreme agenda; we aim to be pragmatic and innovation-friendly, but we face scepticism.

The current mood is one of fear and uncertainty, where people prioritise stability and tend to vote conservatively. But we know that the solutions Germany needs right now require systemic change—not radical, but meaningful and forward-thinking measures. How do we bring this vision to people who are afraid of change and looking for reassurance in uncertain times?

B.T. – That’s a great question. I think there are two key approaches. First, challenge people directly: Are you satisfied with this? Is this the Germany you want? Is this enough? This is what Volt has already been doing, as with the ‘Sei kein Arschloch’ [Don’t be an asshole] campaign poster urging people not to vote for the far-right or anti-democratic parties, which showed you’re willing to push boundaries. Build on that—frame stability as stagnation, as death. Stability, in the current context, equals decline. Keep using striking imagery and slogans to drive the point home. Then, pivot to your message of revival: It’s time to get Germany working again.

Germany has shown its ability to reinvent itself—by rebuilding after 1945 and transforming from 1945 to 1989. But now it’s stuck, coasting on past successes. We’re living in what could be called a nepo baby society, cruising on the reinvention of earlier generations. It’s time to push past that inertia and move forward.

How do you sell this? Be bold. Say it clearly: This isn’t working. Germany isn’t working. Stagnation is death and stability won’t get us anywhere. Then, don’t be afraid to focus on a vision centered around security, prosperity, and freedom.

Germany is facing existential threats, and it needs to get ready to win—whether in Ukraine or at home. Winning isn’t something to fear. It’s about being ready to compete, rebuild, and strengthen Germany. The economy needs to be rebooted to make Germany competitive again. Most people already know the current system isn’t sustainable; show them a clear path forward. Freedom ties it all together—it’s the foundation that allows for security and prosperity, and it’s what Germany must double down on to thrive.

This alignment of security, prosperity, and freedom creates a bold, clear agenda—but you need a clear plan to achieve that. If you have it, you can own this message and present the leadership the people are searching for.

D.B. – That’s really insightful, thanks. I have another question and it cuts to the heart of a challenge not just for Volt but for many modern political movements: balancing efficiency with internal democracy. Within Volt, we aim to deliver high-quality results through participatory processes, and while this is a matter of process design, it does present a real tension.

The terminology we often use—doers, makers, innovators, risk-takers—attracts people who thrive on building new things and achieving fast results. These are exactly the kinds of people we need more of in politics. But when they enter the democratic, participatory environment of a party assembly, they can feel constrained. Suddenly, they’re one voice among 500, and the pace of decision-making doesn’t match their instincts for action.

The risk is that they step back, choosing to support from the sidelines rather than staying active in the party. This is a major loss, especially when these people bring the energy and innovation necessary to drive change. So, how do we keep them engaged and help them thrive within a system that doesn’t naturally align with their character?

B.T. – I think you will not love this answer, but it’s fundamentally a question of leadership, not process design. It’s about you and others at the top of the party actively promoting the right people and their ideas. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, not all opinions are equal. Some ideas are simply bad, and leadership means having the confidence to say, Thanks, but no, this is the direction we’re taking.

Being overly focused on formal inclusivity or equality can derail genuine progress. Rigid formalism doesn’t achieve true inclusion; it misses the point entirely. True inclusion comes from embodying the spirit of equality and inclusion in your leadership and trusting your ability to back the right ideas and adjudicate between them.

Reclaiming agency as a leader means not recognising every piece of criticism as valid and not hedging against every possibility. Instead, you must stay focused on the bigger picture, knowing you’re driving in the right direction. Living up to the principles of equality and inclusion doesn’t mean bending to every procedural demand; it means ensuring those values come through in your policies and outcomes.

This is the same issue with co-leadership structures—in some parties, there always have to be two leaders, usually one male and one female. Leadership requires clarity, decisiveness, and clear responsibility. As the saying goes, I’ve never seen a dog with two heads.

D.B. – I follow your point, and I agree with most of it, but I believe the issue of formal inclusivity and co-leadership is more complex. I’ve learned the hard way why this is necessary. Even in our young movement, the sign-up rate between men and women is significantly imbalanced, as is the share of speaking time. There’s still a deeply ingrained culture where men feel more entitled to political spaces than women. Acknowledging this requires active counterbalancing. It may seem imperfect or counterintuitive, but the solutions can’t be perfect when the situation is inherently unbalanced.

I agree that leadership is about reclaiming agency with a strong vision. But how do you break that vision down for people? I’ve been reflecting on the analysis of Trump and Kamala Harris in the last US election. Many argue that progressive leaders often focus on internal ideological debates while neglecting the real concerns of citizens. This ties to our earlier conversation—people feel deeply uncertain about their economic future because there’s no clear vision for where the economy is headed. How do you effectively communicate that vision to their fears and realities?

B.T. – I can give you an example. Despite good intentions, the BMW Foundation’s slogan, “future-proofing society,” conveys that the future is something to fear rather than embrace. To give confidence, instead, we should shift the focus to equipping people with the skills and tools they need to navigate a rapidly changing world of work and allowing them to face the future with confidence—as an opportunity.

This strategy isn’t about undignified handouts but about investing in infrastructure, education, and skills that allow people to master technology and shape their own futures. Rebuilding and providing access to training sends a clear message: We’ll help build the house, but it’s up to you to make it a home.

Solutions must also be context-specific, addressing the unique needs of communities and industries. By assessing economic strengths and weaknesses, we can double down on what works and address vulnerabilities. This approach combines systemic investment with individual empowerment, giving people hope and agency to thrive in the future.

D.B. – But now the question is, in a society where a large portion of the population is ageing and less inclined to adapt, does the demographic reality hinder the possibility of embracing transformative shifts?

B.T. – While the younger generation seems open to adapting to new technologies and becoming agile in their use, are they truly more open to broader, transformative change? Based on principles and intuition, I’m not convinced that openness to change is generationally clear-cut.

The question, essentially, is: When did modernism die? When did the modernist drive for the future fade away? If we consider the older generations now, many were part of or experienced modernist movements earlier in their lives—some of the most radical generations we’ve seen.

So, is this shift simply a function of age? Or are these same people now advocating for a return to what once was, while seeking to reboot elements of the past? I think they perceive a deep disillusionment with the failure to deliver on modernist promises. Perhaps they really want a return of that spirit—but they don’t see the chance of it so they cling to the inadequate status quo.

D.B. – Maybe the answer lies in reconnecting with the innovative spirit they experienced during those ‘good old days’ of industrial and social innovation. It’s not about regressing or dismantling progress—like the notion of “cutting down the windmills,” as Friedrich Merz suggests—but rather about drawing inspiration from that forward-thinking mindset. It’s about going back, not to repeat the past, but to reignite the same spirit of creativity and progress that defined it.

B.T. – Exactly, that’s the point—let’s go back to a future. Let’s return to a time when we had a future and reclaim that vision. It’s about recovering the drive for innovation and progress rather than retreating into an imagined past. That’s what separates this idea from slogans like “Take Back Control” or “Make America Great Again.” It’s not about nostalgia or restoring a mythical version of a particular past but about rediscovering the spirit of a time when people believed in their future and worked to shape it. It’s about uncanceling the future. And that is a winning strategy.