Thomas Kuhn showed how paradigms – collections of beliefs, assumptions, and “truths” – shape how communities understand their world. Just as scientists clung to an Earth-centered universe until evidence forced a paradigm shift, a society operates within an economic paradigm that persists until its flaws become undeniable.

The underlying paradigm of American capitalism, with its emphasis on radical individualism and dogmatic belief in self-regulating markets, faces mounting challenges it cannot explain away: rising inequality, declining social mobility, accelerating climate change, and biodiversity loss that undermine the conditions for human survival and limit the possibilities for human flourishing. Meanwhile, Nordic societies reflect a different paradigm – one that strikes a practical balance between individual initiative and collective well-being, while embracing the essential role of the state in shaping markets to serve the public interest.

While Kuhn described paradigm shifts without advocacy, I adopt an explicitly normative position: this chapter advocates for a deliberate shift in how Americans conceptualize their economic and social systems. What Kuhn called a paradigm is often described as a societal mindset – as Donella Meadows explains in Thinking in Systems, they represent the same concept of collective beliefs and assumptions that shape how we organize ourselves. Specifically, I argue for transitioning from a hyper-individualistic “Me-Me-Me” paradigm to what I call the “Me-We-Me” paradigm, as Nordic capitalism exemplifies.

The Me-We-Me societal mindset maintains strong individual responsibility while fostering a practical commitment to broader societal well-being, recognizing both the moral imperative of taking responsibility for societal well-being (caring for a stranger’s child) and the practical benefits that flow back to individuals (that child may become the healthcare worker who tends to us in our elder years). Drawing on insights from evolutionary biology, particularly Multilevel Selection (MLS) theory, we’ll examine why Nordic societies consistently lead global measures of societal well-being and how the underlying Me-We-Me paradigm represents a promising direction forward for reshaping American capitalism – one that honors American values of individualism and freedom while pragmatically addressing challenges that individuals cannot efficiently solve alone.

Flight of the Nordic Bumblebee

The Nordic model is often likened to a bumblebee – which, according to conventional wisdom, shouldn’t be able to fly given its body mass relative to wing size. Similarly, critics insist the Nordic model’s comprehensive social programs should be too heavy a tax burden for any economy to sustain.Footnote ¹ Rather than examine the evidence of how the Nordic model succeeds, critics swat it away with ideological charges of socialism – a reflexive denial that exemplifies how thoroughly ideology can trump empirical evidence in American discourse.

However, those who examine the evidence find that efficiency is the “secret” to both the Nordic model and the bumblebee’s flight. The bumblebee does not simply flap its wings up and down. Instead, it traces an elongated motion that creates low-pressure zones above its wings, efficiently generating lift through Bernoulli’s Principle – the same principle that enables modern jets to fly.

Similarly, the Nordic model doesn’t simply tax and inefficiently spend; it carefully orchestrates how resources are collected and deployed. Through functioning democratic institutions, transparency, and systematic data collection, Nordic citizens receive demonstrable value in return for their tax contributions. Tax revenues are invested in essential services like healthcare and education, with effectiveness monitored through continuous assessment and refinement to do more of what works and less of what does not. The Nordic health registries exemplify this systematic approach to efficiency. Tracking population health data since the 1950s, these registries have been described as an “epidemiologist’s dream,” enabling Nordic societies to deliver healthcare with remarkable effectiveness.Footnote ²

Through these efficient societal systems, Nordic societies achieve what critics deemed impossible: collecting taxes to fund efficient universal services that expand individual freedoms.

Nordic capitalism represents the most comprehensive natural experiment disproving neoliberal assumptions. Its sustained success empirically refutes claims about the inherent inefficiency of tax-funded universal programs. Yet because this success contradicts neoliberal theory, many American economists dismiss it with charges of “socialism.”

Evolution and Society: MLS Theory

The concept of society as an organism, while dating back to Aristotle’s Politics and Hobbes’s Leviathan, was largely overshadowed in the twentieth century by reductionist perspectives emphasizing individual components over collective systems. Margaret Thatcher’s assertion, “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families,” exemplifies the view that dominated neoliberal thought with its emphasis on individualism.Footnote ³

MLS theory demonstrates how natural selection operates at multiple levels – both within groups and between groups. A society is a group, and MLS theory shows that societies balancing internal competition with cooperation tend to outperform those that do not. This dual-level selection process explains why cooperative behaviors evolve even when they might initially appear costly to individuals, challenging earlier models that focused solely on individual selection.

David Sloan Wilson and Dag O. Hessen’s application of MLS theory to Nordic societies reveals how institutional structures and cultural norms can promote effective cooperation while maintaining healthy competition. Through universal healthcare, robust social safety nets, and inclusive educational policies, Nordic societies have created environments where cooperative behaviors are incentivized and destructive competition is minimized. These systems reduce the stress and uncertainty that often drive selfish behaviors, fostering collective responsibility while still allowing for individual achievement. The resulting social resilience and consistently high measures of societal well-being provide compelling evidence for MLS theory’s practical application in modern governance.

Empirical Evidence for Group-Level Success

The success of Nordic societies’ evolutionary balance is evident in global performance metrics. As outlined in Chapter 1, they consistently lead virtually every measure of societal well-being – from the SDG Index (where Denmark, Finland, and Sweden rotate the #1 position) to the Democracy Index (claiming five of the top six spots) and the World Happiness Report (with Finland holding the top spot for eight consecutive years). Perhaps most tellingly, Nordic nations claim all five top spots in the Global Social Mobility Index – effectively measuring the American Dream’s promise of opportunity for all – while the US ranks 27th.

This empirical evidence validates MLS theory’s prediction about societal success through balanced competition and cooperation. While biological evolution operates through genetic transmission, socioeconomic systems evolve through institutional and cultural adaptation. In Nordic societies, this evolution manifests through three key mechanisms: institutional selection (effective policies persist and spread), cultural selection (cooperative norms yield better outcomes), and economic selection (efficient resource allocation between individual and collective needs leads to superior performance).

Despite higher taxes and strong labor protections, Nordic companies remain globally competitive precisely because their societies have evolved efficient mechanisms for balancing individual achievement with collective prosperity. Their emphasis on education and continuous skills development ensures individuals can contribute effectively to both personal and societal success, demonstrating how cooperative strategies create more sustainable societies.

American capitalism’s “Me-Me-Me” paradigm dismisses Nordic societies’ success with charges of socialism, assuming their universal services and high taxes must inevitably create inefficiency and reduce freedom. Critics argue these nations “should have long ago collapsed under the weight of public spending.” Yet reality proves otherwise.Footnote ⁴

Nordic citizens understand that the costs of their model in higher income taxes represent investments in the well-being of every individual – investments in essential areas like healthcare, education, and social safety nets. The return on these investments has proven exceptionally high, benefiting the collective “We” and the individual “Me.”

History offers stark warnings about societies that fail to achieve a shared sense of “We.” Abraham Lincoln’s warning that “a house divided against itself cannot stand” resonates today. Without cultivating a shared identity and sense of “We” through systems and norms of decency that encourage mutual benefit among societal members, American society risks dangerous fragmentation. The stakes could not be higher – without such a shift, American capitalism risks collapse, potentially paving the way for a totalitarian system that appeals to humankind’s worst tendencies – selfishness and fear – to pit citizens against one another, undermining freedoms.

Paradigms

In his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn describes paradigms as the underlying assumptions that dictate how research is conducted and interpreted within a scientific community. Paradigms shape what is considered valid knowledge, the methods used to obtain it, and the questions deemed important. When a paradigm is challenged by accumulating anomalies that it cannot explain, a scientific revolution may occur, leading to a paradigm shift. In the Kuhnian sense, a paradigm represents the collective framework of a community’s beliefs, values, and techniques, guiding their understanding of the world and the conduct of their work.

American capitalism operates within a paradigm constructed by neoliberal ideology, a dominant framework that has significantly shaped its economic policies and societal values since the 1980s. This paradigm emphasizes minimal state intervention, deregulation, privatization, and a belief in the efficiency of free markets. Within this framework, profit maximization and individual self-interest are viewed as the primary drivers of economic prosperity and societal well-being. Within such an environment, tendencies toward selfishness can be displayed as a symbol of freedom. Narratives championing Social Darwinism, emphasizing “survival of the fittest,” and celebrations of individualism (“pull yourself up by the bootstraps”) perpetuate a detachment from communal welfare. This heightened individualistic perspective views collective actions skeptically, often interpreting them as restrictions on individual freedom.

However, this focus on extreme individualism and intense competition has led to rising inequalities and sustainability crises, challenging the very foundations of this paradigm. The neoliberal ideology has prioritized short-term gains and individual success over long-term sustainability and collective well-being, creating systemic vulnerabilities and socio-economic disparities.

The Nordic model is born of a Me-We-Me mindset. In this context, individuals – each representing the “Me” – recognize they are integral components of a larger “We” and that each individual “Me” can benefit by cooperating with the “We.” With such a mindset, each Me recognizes that their individual well-being is directly connected to the well-being of the We. The Danish word samfundssind, or societal mind, reflects the Me-We-Me mindset. Samfundssind became a word of frequent use in Denmark during Covid-19. A global pandemic makes clear how individuals depend upon and affect one another – including the fact that individuals can infect one another. Samfundssind emphasizes the connectivity between individuals and reflects an expectation for individuals to take personal responsibility for themselves (each “Me”) and the group at the societal level (the “We”).Footnote ⁵

Darwin acknowledged the significance of cooperation within groups for enhancing their competitive advantage over other groups. In 1871, Darwin wrote: “There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who … were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over other tribes; and this would be natural selection.”Footnote ⁶ This aligns with the contemporary evolutionary theory of MLS, which emphasizes the multitiered nature of evolutionary competition. MLS theory describes how a group that can effectively foster cooperation amongst its individuals where such cooperation is beneficial for the group overall, while still allowing for competition between individuals where such competition is healthy, will outcompete groups unable to cooperate effectively.Footnote ⁷ Wilson emphasizes the importance of understanding and embracing MLS theory within Half-Earth because of the great need for scaled cooperation and coordination at a large scale – the societal and global levels.Footnote ⁸

Societies adept at discerning when and where to encourage cooperation and when and where to encourage competition achieve a competitive advantage globally. Here, the Nordic Model stands out, melding societal-level cooperation with individual-level competition.Footnote ⁹ Foundational structures like universal healthcare and education are examples of cooperation executed at the group level, while individual-level aspirations and freedoms remain intact. Such societies and the individuals within them don’t merely subsist – they flourish, which is the evolutionary explanation for why Nordic societies effectively “outcompete” other societies as measured by their top ratings on so many societal-level measurements.

Paradigms and Purpose

In Thinking in Systems, Donella Meadows explains that systems consist of elements, interconnections, and purpose. While elements (like organs in a body or individuals in society) are easily identified, the interconnections between them are complex and often hidden. Systems nest within larger systems – individuals within societies, healthcare systems within political systems – creating intricate webs of interaction.Footnote ¹⁰

The elements of a system are often easy to identify. The elements are the pieces of a system most readily seen. The human body is a system, and the body’s organs are some of its elements. We can readily see the heart, lungs, brain, and so on. However, understanding the interconnections between the elements of a system is often difficult. The interconnections can be complex and sometimes hidden. We may not easily see how the body’s organs interact. Teams of medical doctors must, at times, come together to discuss a patient’s diagnosis to understand the body as a system with interconnected elements.

Systems can be elements of even larger systems. Society is a system in which every person is an element. A person is, therefore, a system (i.e., the human body is a system), and that person is simultaneously an element of the larger system of people that is society. Furthermore, societies and the people within them build systems that further interact. National healthcare systems interact with the people within societies, and those systems interact with other systems, such as political and ecological systems. The interconnections of systems multiply at a dizzying rate when one considers society as the unit of analysis. Systems thinking helps us more fully consider how a given system works, and how it interacts with other systems and other systems’ many elements.

Purpose of Nordic Systems: Enabling Freedom to Flourish

To illustrate how different mindsets shape freedoms in practice, I will examine two key stakeholder groups in society: parents and corporate employees. These two groups helpfully reveal the practical implications that the Me-Me-Me and Me-We-Me societal mindsets have on individual freedoms.

How to Shift a Mindset?

How can we shift away from the Me-Me-Me mindset? The personal cases above illustrate the human cost of maintaining this paradigm, while history offers compelling examples of successful shifts that required overcoming entrenched resistance to change.

The Progressive Era’s transformation of American capitalism (1890s–1920s) shows how persistent exposure to systemic failures – through muckraking journalism, labor activism, and academic research – gradually shifted public consciousness about the role of government in regulating business. Even more dramatic was Europe’s post-World War II transformation from a continent ravaged by nationalist competition to one defined by unprecedented cooperation. Beginning with the European Coal and Steel Community in the early 1950s, former adversaries chose to bind their economic interests together, leading to the European Union’s creation in 1993. This shift from national competition to regional cooperation produced the longest period of peace in European history (Pax Europaea), demonstrating how the evolution from destructive competition to strategic cooperation can create remarkable stability and shared prosperity. These historical examples suggest that paradigm shifts, while challenging, become possible when societies confront clear evidence of systemic failure while being presented with viable alternatives.

In Thinking in Systems, Meadows offered specific guidance for achieving such transformations: persistently expose the failures of the existing mindset while presenting evidence of successful alternatives – precisely what Nordic capitalism provides. This point aligns with our conclusion in Chapter 1: The US is stuck in a Me-Me-Me-fueled prisoner’s dilemma, and the path forward requires demonstrating how individual interests (Me) are better served through collective action (We). Nordic capitalism provides compelling evidence for this argument.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn described the mindset shift – or paradigm shift in Kuhn’s words – as essential to understanding how widespread societal-level change takes place. Kuhn posited that science does not gradually evolve towards truth as commonly assumed. Instead, science and our collective understanding of the world reside within a paradigm that includes our assumptions about how the world works. A scientific revolution occurs when the shortcomings of the existing paradigm become so evident – the flaws of the relied-upon theories and assumptions are so apparent – and a new paradigm can better explain the world. The shift to an alternative paradigm is inherently revolutionary, as those benefiting from the existing paradigm typically resist change that might diminish their power.

Meadows draws upon Kuhn’s description of how a paradigm shift comes about to advise how to bring about a mindset shift when needed:

Therein lies a prescription for bringing about a mindset shift from Me-Me-Me to Me-We-Me. The Me-Me-Me mindset is failing so many people in the US. The problems of the Me-Me-Me mindset have become too conspicuous to ignore. Far too many do not feel freedom in the so-called Land of the Free. The American Dream is more myth than reality for many. The Me-We-Me mindset commonplace across the Nordics demonstrates that a different mindset can bring about positive change.

Achieving this mindset shift requires transforming the very language through which society understands itself. As Lakoff and Johnson demonstrate, commonly invoked expressions and metaphors both reflect and shape a society’s collective mindset.Footnote ³⁰ US citizens must actively work to replace expressions and metaphors associated with the Me-Me-Me mindset with those illuminating how collective action can enhance individual freedom.

The leaky bucket metaphor, rooted in the Me-Me-Me mindset, suggests that taxes collected to fund universal programs inevitably result in significant inefficiencies. Nordic capitalism demonstrates the opposite: efficient universal systems that ensure all children have access to quality childcare, healthcare, and education while providing parents with paid leave. Far from leaking, these systems efficiently convert tax revenue into expanded individual freedoms.

While many in the US embrace narratives of the “self-made man” and prescribe “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” to others, these expressions reflect and reinforce the Me-Me-Me mindset by obscuring the support systems – from family wealth to public infrastructure – that enable individual success. Donald Trump’s characterization of substantial family financial assistance as merely a “small loan” exemplifies how the Me-Me-Me mindset leads individuals to downplay collective support.Footnote ³¹ American society’s celebration of supposedly self-made billionaires further entrenches this mindset by presenting individual achievement as disconnected from societal infrastructure and collective investment.

Me-Me-Me on the Global Stage: America First

The Me-Me-Me mindset operates beyond the societal level and can manifest dangerously in international policy. This scaling becomes particularly concerning when it shapes isolationist foreign policy, as demonstrated by the US’s formal rejection of the UN SDGs in March 2025.

By characterizing globally agreed-upon objectives like gender equality (SDG #5 “Gender Equality”) and climate action (SDG #13 “Climate Action”) as threats to US interests and declaring, “We must care first and foremost for our own,” American leadership demonstrated the Me-Me-Me mindset applied to international relations.Footnote ³² This isolationist approach proves particularly dangerous as global challenges like climate change and biodiversity loss fundamentally require international cooperation – problems that cannot be solved through individual or national-level action alone.

The Me-Me-Me mindset applied to foreign policy ultimately weakens the US by isolating the nation from crucial allies and partnerships. Programs like Fulbright, born of the smoldering embers of World War II with the mission “to increase mutual understanding and support friendly and peaceful relations between the people of the United States and the people of other countries,” demonstrate a more effective approach.Footnote ³³ Through decades of academic exchanges and person-to-person diplomacy, such programs have built enduring alliances by fostering mutual respect and understanding that make nations less likely to wage war against one another. As a Fulbright scholar who first experienced Nordic societies through this program and who has since led thousands of American MBA students to the Nordic nations, I’ve witnessed how expanding the sense of “We” beyond national borders – engaging with allies in a spirit of mutual respect and shared purpose – creates stronger partnerships that enhance US security and prosperity.

The “America First” ideology has historical roots in 1940s isolationism, which ended abruptly when the attack on Pearl Harbor demonstrated the US’s inextricable connection to global affairs. As JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon warned in his 2025 letter to shareholders, “America First” cannot mean “America alone.” He notes that if Europe’s economic weakness leads to fragmentation, individual nations will be forced to seek their own relationships for security, potentially drawing them closer to Russia for energy and China for trade, ultimately undermining American interests.Footnote ³⁴

The Nordic approach offers a striking counter-example to this self-defeating isolation, demonstrating how the Me-We-Me paradigm can successfully scale to international relations. Nordic countries understand that participating in the collective “We” of international cooperation – whether through climate agreements, security partnerships, or trade pacts – ultimately enhances national prosperity. For instance, their leadership in international climate agreements has simultaneously advanced global environmental goals while securing their position as pioneers in green technology markets.

The danger of scaling Me-Me-Me thinking to international relations becomes clear: It leaves nations isolated and vulnerable precisely when global challenges demand coordination.

Parting Reflections

Evolutionary science demonstrates that societies balancing cooperation with competition outperform those fixated solely on self-interest. Nordic capitalism exemplifies this through the Me-We-Me mindset, creating systems that expand individual freedoms through collective investment – including universal healthcare and education.

The US needs not abandon its cultural narratives to embrace this paradigm shift. These narratives should be central to the transformation. By deeply re-examining ideals like the “American Dream” and the “Land of the Free” and insisting these aspirations become reality for all Americans, these concepts can be reimagined through a Me-We-Me lens. Just as Grundtvig revitalized Danish narratives of a glorious past to inspire a sense of “We” that built Denmark’s modern prosperity, Americans can draw on their shared stories to foster collective action and renewed unity. Although political gridlock hinders national cooperation in the US, plentiful opportunities exist for cooperative efforts at a more local level, including states and cities, which align with the scale of Nordic systems to serve populations of several million.

As global challenges like climate change reveal the limitations of hyper-individualism, the Me-We-Me paradigm offers a practical path forward – one that honors individual freedom while enabling the cooperation required to address systemic threats.

Humanity stands at a defining crossroads. Our actions – or inactions – over the next two decades will determine whether future generations have the freedom to flourish or struggle to survive in a world increasingly defined by conflict over dwindling resources.

E. O. Wilson warned, “We are needlessly turning the gold we inherited from our forebearers into straw, and for that we will be despised by our descendants.”Footnote ¹ His caution underscores the urgency of this moment. Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity’s consumption has soared – from modest use of Earth’s annual regenerative capacity before 1800 to exhausting a whole planet’s worth by 1980. By 2030, we are on track to consume the resources of two Earths annually (Chapter 2).

Earth is humanity’s endowment. Sustainability requires living off the Earth’s annual interest – not depleting its principal. Today’s overconsumption erodes the Earth’s principal and with it, the freedom of future generations.

Capitalism warrants both praise for its achievements and scrutiny for its harmful unintended consequences. Its remarkable efficiency has propelled recent generations to consumption and quality of life levels unimaginable before the Industrial Revolution. In the whole of human history, across some 10,000 generations, it is only in the last 10, the most recent 0.1 percent, that humanity has experienced the levels of material prosperity associated with modern life – a development directly shaped by the rise of capitalism.

However, capitalism’s incredible efficiency has also led to the rapid depletion of Earth’s natural resources, pushing beyond the planet’s annual regenerative capacity and breaching planetary boundaries. Capitalism fails to differentiate between sustainable consumption – akin to living off the interest of Earth’s endowment – and unsustainable exploitation, akin to depleting the endowment’s principal.

Capitalism, like fire, can be harnessed for immense benefit – or cause great harm. Just as we control fire for warmth and cooking while guarding against wildfires, we must direct capitalism toward a worthy purpose.

Democratic societies possess the capacity to discern between sustainable and unsustainable practices and implement the policies needed to advance sustainability. When a society’s citizens are informed by science and well versed in critical thinking, when power is sufficiently distributed throughout society, and when democratic institutions operate with good governance, they can implement policies that incentivize sustainable practices while penalizing unsustainable ones. Thus, a robust democracy is crucial for capitalism to function optimally. In contrast, oligarchic capitalism concentrates power in few hands, enabling influential interests to steer policies toward their own benefit while undermining sustainable development.

Democratic capitalism emerges as the most promising path forward because it aligns market efficiency with democratic oversight to serve long-term public goals. It provides markets with the clear purpose they need: advancing sustainable development. Arthur Okun aptly noted, “Capitalism and democracy are really a most improbable mixture. Maybe that is why they need one another.”Footnote ²

No region has blended capitalism and democracy more successfully than the Nordics. Therefore, I contend that Nordic capitalism offers invaluable lessons for realizing sustainable capitalism.

Ten Lessons from Nordic Capitalism

Nordic capitalism can serve as a North Star for realizing sustainable capitalism, offering general direction while acknowledging that each society must chart its own specific path. The journey toward a sustainable version of capitalism will require tailored approaches based on individual contexts. Realizing sustainable capitalism in the US will differ from the Nordics, but inspiration and valuable examples can undoubtedly be drawn.

To complement the ten lessons that follow, the core ideas from this book are distilled into a set of guiding principles – “The Manifesto of Nordic Capitalism” – included in Appendix B.

Again, we must acknowledge the limitations of Nordic capitalism. It is imperfect, yet it offers meaningful lessons. Like Polaris, the North Star — which wobbles in the night sky but nonetheless provides valuable direction — Nordic capitalism can serve as a guide despite its shortcomings.

The following ten lessons from Nordic capitalism provide critical insights for transforming American capitalism. These lessons are effectively a culmination of the “so what?” of the book, to borrow a note from Miles Davis. They begin with arguably the most fundamental lesson: confronting denial.

Lesson 1: Denial – Get Over It

Denial is a fundamental barrier to progress. Cognitive dissonance helps explain why individuals and societies often reject uncomfortable truths rather than confront them.Footnote ³ Combined with what sociologists call “systems justification theory,” this psychological mechanism leads individuals and organizations to defend the status quo even when it contradicts their stated values. From climate change to structural inequality, this resistance in the form of denial prevents collective action.Footnote ⁴

Two steps can help overcome such denial.

Step 2: Accept That Multiple Truths Can Exist at Once

We often deny uncomfortable truths because they seem to threaten other truths we hold dear. But truth is not a zero-sum game. Multiple things can be true at once.

My great-great-grandparents Knut and Anne Strand worked hard after arriving in the US from Norway in 1861. My family and I have also worked hard. We are justified to feel pride in the middle-class lives we have built. But it is also true that Knut Strand was given land through the Homestead Act of 1862 – land taken by force from Native Americans. That land provided a base of opportunity for future generations, including me. I can acknowledge that the same history that helped my family build a middle-class life came with costs borne by others.

These truths can coexist. Yet many Americans seem to believe that acknowledging systemic injustice somehow erases the value of individual effort. Denying one truth to protect another is still denial.

In 2021, in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis, Minnesota, I wrote a LinkedIn post that went viral. In it, I juxtaposed two historical truths: Truth #1 – Leave It to Beaver premiered on October 4, 1957, portraying an idealized American dream; Truth #2 – one month earlier, on September 4, 1957, fifteen-year-old Elizabeth Eckford faced extreme racist hostility for simply trying to attend school in Little Rock, Arkansas. I paired these events with the imagery shown in Figure 10.1.Footnote ⁶ I wrote, “I increasingly hear disingenuous rhetoric that to teach about the historical facts of America is to somehow teach white children not to love themselves. I believe the exact opposite. I believe that truth and love go hand in hand. I can teach my white children to love themselves while also teaching them these historical truths of America. We can build a better future together for ALL Americans by facing our truths and deciding, together, the kind of American society we desire to build.”

Figure 10.1(a)Long description

Image taken in the 1950s, which is a posed studio portrait of a smiling white family of four. The father stands behind the seated mother. Two sons, one older and standing, the other younger and seated, are smiling. All are dressed in formal 1950s clothing.

Source: CBS Photo Archive, Promotional Portrait for Leave It to Beaver, c. 1957, Getty Images, accessed October 1, 2021, https://shorturl.at/YxLIK. Used with permission. Bettmann, Elizabeth Eckford at Little Rock Crisis, September 6, 1957, Getty Images, accessed September 2025, https://shorturl.at/mYb9Q. Used with permission.

Figure 10.1(b)Long description

Image taken from the 1950s illustrate a teenage Black girl walks while holding schoolbooks, dressed in a checkered skirt and blouse. She is surrounded by a crowd of white individuals, some of whom appear hostile or angry. One white woman is visibly yelling behind her. Military personnel in helmets are present in the background.

Figure 10.1 Two Truths, One Nation: America, 1957.

My LinkedIn post struck a nerve. A chorus of commenters rushed to defend Truth #1 while denying Truth #2, often misappropriating Martin Luther King Jr.’s words about judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. King called it a dream because it was not yet a reality in America. His own children, and children like Elizabeth Eckford, were not judged by the content of their character – they were judged by the color of their skin. Acknowledging that reality is necessary to move toward solving the problems at hand.

Denial may offer comfort in the short run, but it’s a terrible way to solve real problems.

Consider the reality of climate change and the widespread denial about it that continues to shape American discourse. Truth #1: My generation, and the generation before me, has benefited immensely from technological advancements and consumption. Truth #2: Since about 1980, we are exceeding planetary boundaries, undermining future generations’ ability to meet their needs. Charles Koch, among others, has spent decades promoting Truth #1 while denying Truth #2 – an evasion younger generations can no longer afford. As one sixteen-year-old student wrote when joining Greta Thunberg’s climate strike, “We strike because they will be dead while we are living in the chaos they left behind.”Footnote ⁷

Overcoming denial begins with recognizing that truth is not a threat but a starting point. Progress depends on acknowledging complexity and uncomfortable realities rather than retreating into denial. In a pluralistic society, this means approaching opposing views with humility, curiosity, and critical thinking.

Lesson 2: Establish Universally Subsidized Childcare

Nordic societies prioritize public investments in children. The Nordic commitment to “the good childhood” is reflected in their public investment levels: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway spend $23,000–$29,000 annually per child – compared to the OECD average of $14,000 and just $500 in the US.

Since pioneering universal childcare subsidies in the 1960s and 1970s, Nordic nations have built comprehensive systems that support both child development and workforce participation. Denmark’s model, where families pay no more than 25 percent of childcare costs through age ten, shows how universal support can simultaneously advance child well-being, gender equality, and economic productivity.Footnote ¹⁴

Nordic investments in child welfare advance multiple SDGs through an integrated approach: they ensure inclusive, equitable education from early childhood (SDG #4 “Quality Education”); enable mothers’ workforce participation and economic independence (SDG #5 “Gender Equality”); promote sustainable economic growth through increased labor participation (SDG #8 “Decent Work and Economic Growth”); minimize early childhood development disparities across socioeconomic groups (SDG #10 “Reduced Inequalities”); and support family health through reduced stress and improved work–life balance (SDG #3 “Good Health and Well-Being”).

Adopting universally subsidized childcare in the US would significantly reduce childcare costs and address socioeconomic challenges. US experts like Caitlyn Collins highlight multiple benefits, including reduced childcare costs for low to middle-income families who need it most, improved workforce participation that addresses gender and racial disparities, and enhanced political durability through universality.Footnote ¹⁵ The government’s role in managing universally subsidized childcare is primarily limited to tax collection and subsidy distribution, thereby sidestepping common concerns in the US about public sector operational inefficiency.

States in the US competing to attract workers and businesses might recognize the competitive advantage of universally subsidized childcare. Utah claims to be the “most family-friendly state.” Still, it faces high childcare costs that burden its working parents, much like the rest of the US.Footnote ¹⁶ Utah established the Office of Families in 2022 to explore effective childcare policies.Footnote ¹⁷ By addressing its high childcare costs through such proven policies as universal subsidized childcare, Utah could set a precedent showing other states how family-friendly policies are a component of a business-friendly environment.

The US business community could emerge as a critical ally. Businesses are severely impacted by losing productive workers and absenteeism due to inaccessible childcare. The 2024 BCG Report titled Childcare Benefits More than Pay for Themselves at US Companies encourages companies to assume childcare costs for their employees, assessing the benefits from a productive workforce far outweigh childcare costs.Footnote ¹⁸ However, tethering additional social services to employment could increase labor market rigidity. Moreover, small and medium-sized businesses might struggle to absorb these high costs. The US faces a decision whether to treat childcare as another employment benefit funded by companies or follow the Nordic example. US business leaders can champion the cause of universal subsidized childcare as good for business because it frees businesses to focus on what they do best: Business.

Furthermore, subsidized childcare could help bridge societal divides in the US. By bringing together parents from diverse backgrounds, childcare facilities can foster community, trust, and mutual understanding. They can become places where Americans participate in a common project: ensuring the well-being of our children. In doing so, these spaces help cultivate a stronger sense of “We” through recognition that our children’s future is a shared responsibility.Footnote ¹⁹

Lesson 3: Ensure Universal Access to Quality Education Rooted in Critical Thinking

The prosperity enjoyed by modern-day Nordic societies results from “generations of phenomenal educational policy,” as David Brooks wrote.Footnote ²⁰ Even when the Nordics were among Europe’s poorest nations in the mid 1800s, they invested in education, and their investments paid great returns. Economic historian Peter Lindert asserts that the world’s most significant error in social policy has been the underfunding of mass education. In his book Making Social Spending Work, Lindert demonstrates that societies flourish when they invest in their children through access to good quality education for all.Footnote ²¹

Nordic societies have consistently valued providing good quality education for the many over elite education for a select few. Grundtvig-inspired folk schools have emphasized an education accessible to all citizens, initially attending to the many peasants of society rather than the few elites.

Furthermore, universally subsidized early childhood education ensures that every child in the Nordics has access to good-quality preschool independent of the circumstances of the family in which they are born. Research indicates that universal early education supports equal opportunities by increasing children’s noncognitive capabilities in less-advantaged homes and communities. At the other end of childhood, tuition at Nordic universities is paid through taxes collected, ensuring that the decision to pursue tertiary education is one of individual level aspirations, not one of considerations of family wealth and whether one’s parents can afford it, or whether one can take on student loan debt.

The Nordic secret to education is consistent with the powerful Grundtvig quote repeated in this book, “In wealth, we have come far, when few have too much and few too little” (Chapter 4). Folk schools address learners’ real problems while expanding their worldview. At the time of Grundtvig’s original folk schools in Denmark, practical problems related to cultivating the land and tending to livestock. Solutions were proposed, such as how to operate best and coordinate the farm’s activities beyond a single farm, leading to the establishment of cooperatives according to democratic principles. This coordination rose above the ideas of Me to considerations of We. Individual farmers, cooperating at a scale that afforded them more power, realized greater freedom to control their destinies through the cooperatives.

Nordic educational success is not the result of a commitment to exceptionalism – like trying to establish little Harvards across the Nordic nations – but rather a commitment to simply making education consistently good for most everyone. In doing so, the seemingly mundane good at the individual level sums up to the exceptionally good at the societal level with a heightened degree of opportunity for more people – regular people – to realize their full potential. “Everyday life is quite ordinary” in a Finnish school, remarked Pentti Moilanen when explaining why Finnish schools are number one in global education rankings.Footnote ²² If one expects to see that their exceptional results arise from hyper-intense school days with long hours and many tests, one will be surprised. Finnish schools assign less homework and engage children in creative play. Children are regularly outdoors in nature, even in rain or snow, contributing to their healthy development, well-being, and positive environmental attitudes and values.Footnote ²³ Classrooms are open and airy. All children receive free, high-quality school meals as a public service. Teachers are amongst the most respected members of society and have significant freedom within their classrooms.

Most critically, Nordic education is fundamentally rooted in critical thinking – a vital bulwark against the threats of tyranny and erosion of democracy. Nordic schools emphasize developing critical thinking skills, encouraging students to question assumptions, evaluate evidence, and identify logical fallacies. This focus on critical thinking has proven particularly valuable in the social media age. Finland leads the world in media literacy, with other Nordics close behind. Nordic citizens’ heightened ability to identify misinformation, verify sources before sharing claims, and think critically about media content demonstrates how educational emphasis on analytical skills creates more resilient democracies.

The importance of critical thinking in education cannot be overstated in an era where democracies face unprecedented threats from both external and internal forces. As Timothy Snyder emphasizes in On Tyranny, would-be autocrats are fundamentally bullshitters – in the Harry Frankfurt sense of the word – who construct their own versions of reality to suit immediate selfish needs and force that version of truth upon society. The best defense against tyrants and their attempts to manipulate truth is a population well-versed in critical thinking, capable of identifying logical fallacies and demanding evidence for claims.Footnote ²⁴

The stark contrast between Nordic and US performance in media literacy rankings reveals the consequences of different approaches to education. While Nordic citizens are more likely to verify sources and think critically about information, the US’s comparatively poor performance in these assessments manifests in concerning ways. When faced with misinformation or potential foreign interference in democratic processes, societies with strong critical thinking capabilities are far better equipped to maintain democratic resilience.

Thomas Jefferson forcefully emphasized that an educated citizenry, practiced in skepticism and critical thinking, is required for democracy’s survival. “It wasn’t enough,” Carl Sagan noted of Jefferson’s view, “to enshrine some rights in a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. The people had to be educated and they had to practice their skepticism and their education.”Footnote ²⁵ In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt further argue that beyond constitutional structures, democracies need the “guardrails” of cultural norms to remain stable, including a reverence for truth and critical thinking that do not tolerate bullshitting or widespread lying as means of amassing power in society.Footnote ²⁶

The Nordics’ commitment to universal access to quality education rooted in critical thinking equips their societies to tackle threats to democracy and guard against the rise of authoritarian leaders.

Lesson 4: Where the Markets Fail, Establish Efficient Universal Systems (and Keep Improving Them)

Friedman exemplified the unwavering faith in markets to solve any problem, declaring, “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”Footnote ²⁷ Equating the mere questioning of markets with a “lack of belief in freedom” is a hallmark of neoliberal ideology.

Market failures in healthcare delivery systems directly constrain individual freedoms and human potential. This is starkly illustrated in the US, where approximately four million children lack healthcare access – a sharp contrast to Nordic nations where universal healthcare is guaranteed. The US system’s structural deficiencies manifest in multiple ways: coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, byzantine administrative processes that burden both providers and patients, and the persistent uncertainty of coverage even for insured individuals. These systemic failures represent not merely inconveniences, but fundamental constraints on individual liberty and social welfare. The frequent inability to determine coverage eligibility prior to treatment and the prevalence of unexpected medical bills exemplify how market failures in healthcare create barriers to both access and planning that particularly impact society’s most vulnerable members.

Markets fail for access to healthcare, and in so many other domains, including education, access to daycare, paid parental leaves, and addressing mounting challenges of environmental degradation.

Nordic societies have adopted a pragmatic approach to using markets where they work, and opt for something else when they do not. Nordic citizens vote on which objectives to pursue (e.g., healthcare, childcare, education), how much tax revenue must be collected to support such objectives, and then commit to building efficient systems to achieve them. Anu Partanen reminds us, “This is not the rich paying for the poor. This is about the middle class paying for itself.”Footnote ²⁸

The Nordic approach demonstrates how societies can move beyond ideological battles over markets versus state intervention to focus instead on what actually works. While US policy debates often remain trapped in Cold War-era dichotomies between “free markets” and “big government,” Nordic societies have developed what Klein and Thompson describe in Abundance as systems that move beyond artificial scarcity, where public investment and market mechanisms work in concert to expand possibilities.Footnote ²⁹ The result is reliable, efficient outcomes that expand both individual and collective prosperity.

A prevailing narrative propagated by neoliberalism has portrayed the poor as exploiting the affluent and unworthy of public support. This framing reduces poverty to personal failure and has often carried racial undertones. Ronald Reagan helped popularize the “Welfare Queen” myth, and since the mid 1960s, women of color have been cast in this role, portrayed as freeloaders and con artists.Footnote ³⁰

“There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning,” remarked Warren Buffett. Buffett tabulated taxes paid by everyone in his office versus income; he paid far less in taxes as a fraction of income than anyone else, including secretaries and clerks. “How can this be fair?” Buffett asked.Footnote ³¹ Not only is it unfair, but it’s also inefficient. Nordic societies build efficient, universally available systems as a reliable default option, and the successes speak for themselves. Everybody benefits when markets are used where they work well but not dogmatically clung to where they do not.

Nordic nations also demonstrate a commitment to continuously improving universal systems. In recognition that mothers took far more parental leave than fathers, in 1993, Norway was the first country to allocate a four‐week leave for fathers with a “use it or lose it” policy to encourage gender equality. Sweden followed Norway’s lead, implementing a “daddy month in 1995.”Footnote ³² Denmark, Iceland, and Finland would follow suit with dedicated paid parental leave time for fathers to encourage greater equality among genders.

Lesson 5: Expand Positive Freedoms for All (Not Just Negative Freedoms for the Powerful Few)

Throughout its history, the US has focused primarily on expanding freedoms in terms that Isaiah Berlin would characterize as “negative freedom,” freedom from something. The expansion of negative freedom is often a matter of power, and the US’s most powerful individuals and families enjoy extraordinary freedoms (Chapter 7).

Expanding negative freedom includes freedom from paying taxes. “Only the little people pay taxes,” Leona Helmsley, an infamously wealthy US businessperson convicted of tax evasion in the 1980s, once said. A culture of tax avoidance by the powerful has been increasingly normalized and legalized. During a 2016 presidential debate, Donald Trump was accused of not paying taxes. He replied, “That makes me smart.”Footnote ³³ Today, the US’s billionaires and largest corporations routinely pay little to no taxes.Footnote ³⁴

In the Nordics, freedom is more often considered in terms Berlin characterizes as “positive freedom,” the freedom to do something. Positive freedom includes access to good education, childcare, paid parental leaves, and healthcare. It is represented by “freedom to roam,” where everyone can access land whether or not they own it; they can forage mushrooms and berries, set up camp, and light a campfire (Chapter 4).Footnote ³⁵

With the continued US march toward oligarchy and away from democracy, the expansion of negative freedoms for powerful individuals will continue. Increasingly, democracy is framed as the enemy in the US that limits the freedoms of the powerful, a trend that must be reversed. The US can directly learn from the experiences of the Nordics to build a society where most everyone has the freedom to thrive.

Lesson 6: Celebrate Stewards and Ostracize Extractors

We should celebrate the stewards who work in harmony with the Earth and cooperate with other people. Conversely, we should ostracize the extractors who attempt to dominate the Earth’s resources and other people.

Stewards commit themselves to expand the freedoms of others – current and future generations – while extractors focus on expanding their own freedom, frequently at the cost of others’ freedoms. Stewards demonstrate humility and leverage their positions of power to further disperse power across society in a manner more consistent with democratic ideals. Extractors leverage their positions of power to extract what they can in their quest for more. Stewards assume a role as lobbyists for society and future generations. Extractors assume a role as lobbyists for themselves.

Stewards are more likely to rise into the upper echelons of power in Nordic societies than in US society. Longtime CEOs Mads Øvlisen of Novo Nordisk and Mads Nipper of Ørsted embody the sort of stewards commonly found atop Nordic-based organizations (Chapter 6). Exalting the stewards into positions of power is critical to maintaining the strength of Nordic democracies, as democracy demands a culture of stewardship.

In the US, corporate stewards like Patagonia’s founder Yvon Chouinard are often seen as anomalies. When Chouinard transferred his billion-dollar company to a trust and nonprofit dedicated to environmental protection in 2022, the move was celebrated but regarded as an exceptional act rather than a template for responsible business leadership.Footnote ³⁶

However, Chouinard’s approach has been commonplace in Denmark. “Chouinard’s Donation of Patagonia Is Big and Bold, But Not New,” reads the title of a subsequent Forbes article. The article describes how Danish corporations, including Carlsberg, Novo Nordisk, and Rambøll, had founders who had donated their companies (or majority voting shares) to a corresponding enterprise foundation (Chapter 6). The article reads, “While this approach may seem novel in the US, it has been deployed for decades in Scandinavia. It’s demonstrated that billionaires can give away their companies and continue to generate considerable profits, while also contributing substantially to social and environmental causes.”Footnote ³⁷

Chouinard has set a precedent for other US billionaires and company founders to follow his stewardship lead and help normalize a culture of celebrating stewards and ostracizing extractors.

Lesson 7: Pursue Smart Policies and Good Governance (Stop Fighting about “Big” versus “Small” Government)

American political discourse remains constrained by a Cold War-era dichotomy between “big” and “small” government – a false choice deliberately stoked by Reagan and neoliberals to equate any State involvement with Soviet socialism. “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem,” proclaimed Reagan in his inaugural address in 1981.Footnote ³⁸

This anti-tax, anti-government ideology is reflected in Milton Friedman’s categorical declaration: “I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.”Footnote ³⁹

Such absolutist positions represent a fundamental barrier to realizing sustainable capitalism, which requires strategic deployment of both market mechanisms and democratic processes including effective tax policies. Carbon taxes can internalize environmental externalities, establishing markets to drive sustainable innovation. Similarly, income taxes to fund universal systems education and subsidized childcare represent democratic investments in society’s collective capacity (Lesson 2).

Efforts must be redirected from inherently fighting government to instead fighting for smart policies and good governance.

Nordic business leaders engage in discussions to shape smart policies and commitment to good governance that better ensures a healthy society. The Nordic business community has wielded its power to champion the policies and practices that resulted in the Nordic model. Universal healthcare, education, services for children, good wages secured for everyone through effective unions and collective bargaining arrangements, and sensible environmental policies are all hallmarks of Nordic societies for which the Nordic business community has advocated from the late 1800s to today.

Lesson 8: Cooperation Is Strength

How we discuss the world – as fundamentally cooperative or competitive – shapes our expectations and often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Lakoff and Johnson demonstrate in Metaphors We Live By (Chapter 9), the metaphors we use shape our deepest patterns of thought and action. When individuals and organizations view each other primarily as competitors, it encourages a zero-sum mentality that sees the world as an arena of conflict (Chapter 6). Yet addressing contemporary global challenges requires cooperation at a global scale.

No nation to date has achieved good social outcomes while staying within its fair share of planetary boundaries.Footnote ⁵⁰ The path forward requires unprecedented cooperation across societies to reimagine how we can achieve human well-being while respecting planetary boundaries. An overemphasis on competition and growth as ends in themselves obscures the fundamental interdependence of social, environmental, and economic systems. What’s needed instead is a narrative that recognizes cooperation as the cornerstone of long-term business success and societal flourishing.

The Nordic tripartite model involves ongoing structured cooperation among labor unions, employers, and the state. This model supports high wages and robust social security without the need for minimum wage laws, promoting shared prosperity and equitable power distribution (Chapters 1 and 3). For example, Denmark’s approach to implementing a carbon tax on agriculture exemplifies how democratic processes can lead to pragmatic, cooperative solutions that align with SDG #1: “Partnerships for the Goals.”

Leadership in the Nordics involves a high degree of consensus-seeking and power delegation. This leadership style is crucial for addressing the SDGs as it fosters a culture where every employee’s voice matters, enhancing cooperation within organizations (Chapter 5). Leadership is understood as a dynamic process involving all, rather than a static position held by a few.

At the company level, the ‘Nordic cooperative advantage’ is evident where businesses create value through ongoing stakeholder cooperation, significantly impacting sustainability outcomes. These firms stand out in global sustainability rankings, showcasing the effectiveness of their cooperative approaches in addressing complex global challenges like those posed by the SDGs (Chapter 6).

Nordic capitalism balances competition with cooperation, harnessing the benefits of competition to drive efficiencies and innovation where advantageous, while preventing competition from undermining social welfare.

Moving away from competitive narratives that glorify extractive behaviors towards cooperative strategies like those seen in the Nordic model can guide the US and other nations towards more sustainable and equitable systems. This transformation is necessary to effectively tackle collective challenges reflected by the SDGs – complex problems that require broad collaborative efforts.

Lesson 9: Democratic Capitalism Must Supplant Oligarchic Capitalism

Democracy is weakening in the US. The 2020 Global Democracy Index characterizes the US as a “flawed democracy.”Footnote ⁵¹ Oligarchic capitalism, as it is now experienced in the US, creates conditions that erode democratic principles as economic power concentrates in the hands of a small elite with outsized influence over political, legal, and cultural systems. This concentration of wealth distorts democratic processes, enabling a narrow segment of society to shape public policy, control media narratives, and fund political campaigns to advance their interests. Public accountability weakens, pluralism declines, and power becomes increasingly insulated from democratic scrutiny and oversight.

Conspicuous efforts to consolidate power through gerrymandering and voter suppression have become increasingly routine. Even more sinister, election positions at the state, county, and township levels are being weaponized with systemic “efforts to inject partisanship into under-the-radar election jobs.” At the same time, election administration at the state, county, and township levels is being politicized through coordinated attempts to inject partisanship into roles that were once largely nonpartisan.Footnote ⁵² In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt warn, “American democracy is not as exceptional as we sometimes believe. There’s nothing in our Constitution or our culture to immunize against democratic breakdown.”Footnote ⁵³

Lesson 10: Embrace the Me-We-Me Mindset – Expanding Individual Freedoms through Efficient Universal Systems

The Me-We-Me mindset represents a fundamental paradigm shift essential for realizing sustainable capitalism. The Me-We-Me mindset embraces the view that individual and societal prosperity are mutually reinforcing forces.

As demonstrated throughout this book, the Me-We-Me mindset manifests across multiple levels of society: in individual leadership through cooperative consensus-building rather than dominance, in company operations through stakeholder engagement and the “Nordic cooperative advantage,” and at the societal level through universal systems that expand individual freedoms through collective investment. These manifestations, explored in earlier chapters, reveal how the Me-We-Me mindset shapes Nordic leadership, business, and social policy approaches.

While also rooted in a reverence for individualism, the Me-We-Me mindset starkly contrasts the Me-Me-Me mindset of modern American capitalism, where selfishness has become dangerously conflated with freedom. This conflation represents perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy and capitalism, as individuals increasingly view taking responsibility for society’s collective welfare as an attack on individual freedom. This mindset creates a destructive paradox: in pursuing absolute individual freedom by rejecting collective responsibility, people ultimately diminish their freedoms and those of future generations. A society that cannot act collectively to address shared challenges – from climate change to education to healthcare – cannot sustain the conditions necessary for individual liberty to flourish.

The Nordic experience demonstrates how the Me-We-Me mindset can be cultivated through institutional structures and cultural norms. Universal access to education emphasizing critical thinking and civic responsibility creates citizens capable of seeing beyond narrow self-interest. Democratic processes give stakeholders real voice in decisions and foster trust in collective action. Business leadership focused on long-term stewardship rather than short-term extraction demonstrates how individual and collective prosperity can align. Perhaps most importantly, social systems that expand individual freedoms through collective investment provide concrete evidence that the Me-We-Me approach works.

Children and future generations stand at the heart of this mindset shift. The Nordic commitment to children’s well-being reflects a profound understanding that individual freedom is enhanced, not diminished, by collective investment in the next generation. This offers a powerful starting point for building broader support for Me-We-Me approaches, as concern for children’s welfare transcends political divides. When we invest in systems ensuring every child’s ability to flourish – regardless of the circumstances of their birth – we create the foundation for a society where both individual and collective freedom can thrive. In such a society, the American Dream can become the reality for far more people.

The Me-We-Me mindset represents a paradigm shift away from extraction toward sustainability and stewardship, emphasizing the systems approach needed to address collective challenges. The Nordics demonstrate this mindset in action. A subset of US leaders have embraced a stewardship approach that reflects the Me-We-Me mindset. They have leveraged their platforms as business leaders, seeing themselves as lobbyists for society first, and their companies second.

This vision is not new. Over a century ago, Frederick Winslow Taylor – the father of scientific management – argued that the goal of management should be to secure “the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee” (Chapter 3). Around the same time, Swedish Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson, in his famous “People’s Home” speech, laid the moral foundation for Nordic capitalism by insisting that workers must not be treated as “rented creatures,” valued only as inputs (Chapter 4). While the US largely abandoned Taylor’s balanced ideal in favor of shareholder primacy, the Nordics institutionalized a stakeholder vision, designing a society in which prosperity and dignity could be shared.

Adopting a Me-We-Me mindset constructively directs us toward higher-order considerations of building the good society. “We should measure the prosperity of the nation not by the number of millionaires, but by the absence of poverty; the prevalence of health; the efficiency of the public schools; and the number of people who can, do read worthwhile books,” remarked W. E. B. DuBois.Footnote ⁶² DuBois was describing the good society, using terms little different than those of Denmark’s Grundtvig and a society rooted in Bildung, as evidenced by the modern-day Nordics (Chapter 4).

DuBois was highly critical of capitalism and was sympathetic to socialist causes. For DuBois and other self-described socialists, capitalism did not deliver a good society. In a letter to Coretta Scott, Martin Luther King Jr. remarked,

King advocated for the US to adopt a variety of democratic socialism.

In the face of capitalism’s critiques, “the Nordic model of capitalism achieves virtually everything that contemporary democratic socialists say we should want,” as Lane Kenworthy describes in his 2022 book, Would Democratic Socialism Be Better?.Footnote ⁶⁴ The fundamental critiques many socialists have about capitalism are more often critiques about American capitalism and the ills resulting from a hyper-individualistic Me-Me-Me mindset.Footnote ⁶⁵ Insofar as US capitalists perceive the rise of self-described socialists as a threat to capitalism, embracing a Me-We-Me mindset and a more Nordic-style variety of capitalism represents an excellent opportunity to “save capitalism” in the US.

Parting Reflections

Mounting sustainability crises, growing inequalities, and the continued erosion of democratic institutions reveal the profound limitations of American capitalism. The consequences of our collective action – or inaction – will profoundly impact the well-being and freedom of future generations.

History shows that moments of crisis create opportunities to mobilize action. As Milton Friedman noted, “Only a crisis produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.”Footnote ⁶⁶ Nearly a century ago, Childs’ Sweden: The Middle Way sparked American interest in Nordic approaches following the Great Depression.

Today, Nordic capitalism can guide what will become the next version of American capitalism. The neoliberal ideas that were lying around because of Milton Friedman and his Mont Pelerin colleagues shaped the responses to the crises of the 1970s. Nordic capitalism offers lessons that can help inform the next version of American capitalism. While no nation has yet achieved full sustainability within planetary boundaries, the Nordics’ strong democratic institutions and proven success in achieving progress in many of the SDGs position Nordic capitalism well to serve as a guiding North Star.

Nordic capitalism demonstrates how business success and societal prosperity reinforce each other. People cooperate through democratic processes to build efficient universal systems that expand positive freedoms for all members of Nordic societies – the freedom to access healthcare, education, and other essential services (Chapter 7) – all of which is generally supported by the Nordic business community. Through these efficient systems, individual and collective flourishing become mutually reinforcing. As The Economist succinctly assessed, “Nordics show that countries can balance a business-friendly environment with strong safety nets.”Footnote ⁶⁷

The mounting failures of American capitalism’s “Me-Me-Me” mindset – where selfishness has come to be dangerously mistaken for freedom – reflect what Kuhn might recognize as conditions ripe for a paradigm shift. The “Me-We-Me” mindset at the heart of Nordic capitalism offers a compelling alternative: a paradigm in which individual and societal flourishing reinforce one another.

Evolutionary science also helps explain the need for a paradigm shift. Multilevel Selection theory illuminates how societies that balance individual competition with group cooperation create conditions that support both societal and individual prosperity. Nordic capitalism exemplifies this balance, resulting in societies achieving higher levels of collective well-being. Realizing such a balance requires structures and cultural norms that foster cooperation and consensus-building alongside healthy competition. The Triangle of Tensions (Chapter 2) depicts how negotiating between the efficiency, equality, and sustainability dimensions demands strong consensus-building skills. Nordic societies use democratic processes and stakeholder engagement to strike a balance.

In this light, democracy emerges as the essential mechanism through which free societies build consensus and coordinate cooperative actions for shared benefit. As challenges like climate change and healthcare access demonstrate, individual well-being increasingly depends upon efficient collective solutions – a practical reality that Nordic societies have long recognized. Capitalism and democracy work better together through a well-functioning, democratically accountable state. Okun wisely noted, “a democratic capitalist society will keep searching for better ways of drawing the boundary lines between the domain of rights [democracy] and the domain of dollars [capitalism],” and the task is never complete.Footnote ⁶⁸

A well-functioning, democratically accountable state is necessary for realizing sustainable capitalism to effectively coordinate the “visible hand” of the state and the “invisible hand” of the market.Footnote ⁶⁹ These fundamental forces must work hand in hand in democratic capitalism, as Nordic capitalism demonstrates. However, the entrenched rhetoric of neoliberalism has created a self-fulfilling prophecy: As state capacity diminishes, it reinforces beliefs about government inefficiency, justifying further reductions in the state’s role – a core tenet of the neoliberal ideology.Footnote ⁷⁰ Nordic citizens, by contrast, have demanded and secured an efficient, democratically accountable state – strengthening both their democracy and capitalism.

The ideals and mythology of the US can be leveraged to make the American Dream a reality for more people, both current and future generations. The Land of the Free is a powerful narrative, and the transformation from Me-Me-Me to Me-We-Me embodies America’s founding principle E pluribus unum – “Out of many, one” – where individual success and collective prosperity reinforce rather than oppose each other. American society need not invent new stories about itself; it must do the hard work to turn its existing stories into reality. Just as Grundtvig transformed Nordic mythologies into practical steps of self-improvement through folk schools and cooperative movements rooted in democratic ideals, so too must the US transform its powerful folklore into concrete actions that expand freedom and prosperity for all Americans.

Looking at the Nordics can be like holding up a mirror to American society, reflecting back truths that can be uncomfortable for many Americans to confront. An honest gaze into the mirror reveals an American society that falls short of its cherished myths and proclaimed ideals about freedom and democracy. Americans face a choice: they can examine their reflection and commit to improving the imperfections they see, or stare down at the ground in denial, insisting that the US is uniquely free and that to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic.

Learning from Nordic capitalism requires courage to move beyond complacency and denial and to look up with curiosity and hope. Nordic capitalism shows that an alternative to the American version of capitalism rooted in neoliberalism exists and by most measures performs better. Grounded in democratic principles and practices, Nordic capitalism serves as a guiding light in a time of disorientation and division. It is time to move past the Cold War era claim that Nordic societies are “socialist” and recognize that their comparatively strong performances are the outcome of a well functioning form of democratic capitalism.

Like the North Star, Polaris, Nordic capitalism offers direction rather than a fixed prescription. Polaris wobbles in the night sky, a reminder that even the best benchmarks are imperfect, yet it still offers valuable guidance. Nordic capitalism provides guidance and a solid foundation from which to realize sustainable capitalism, if we choose to look up.