Third way politics are dead. The left needs to be radical again; the incredibly costly belief that you can find a middle ground with fundamentalists, nihilists and robber barons needs to be put to bed.Democrats need to learn from Herman Melville´s Sermon to the Sharks
In Melville’s Moby Dick, Stubb, annoyed by the noise made by a group of sharks that are eating the carcass of a whale that is tied to the side of the boat, asks Fleece to preach to the sharks:
“tell ’em they are welcome to help themselves civilly, and in moderation, but they must keep quiet”
The point of the story, of course, is that it is pointless to preach to the sharks.
Third Way neoliberalism was proposed as a new way forward for the left after the resouding victories of rightwing neoliberals in Britain and the US (Thatcher and Reagan). The new left would keep the “values” of the old, but espouse free market economics. The goal would be a socially progressive society, with a decent social safety net, but also allowing for large concentrations of wealth (and therefore power) in the private sector. Third way neoliberalism can only work if the moneyed elites are somehow restrained; if , for some reason, they resist the temptation of using their wealth to control democracy (by using media to further the agenda, and funding politicians directly), in order to further increase their own power and wealth. As an example, Third Way politicians would like a booming and low-taxed private sector and also a modest social safety net; as if the power of the private sector would not be used to destroy the safety net (in order to lower taxes for, and increase the power of, the private sector). In essence, Third Way politics hinges on tolerating the sharks, and hoping they behave: “tell ’em they are welcome to help themselves civilly, and in moderation, but they must keep quiet”
In 2016, the failure of Third Way politics showed itself to be absolute, irredeemable and complete. The lesson to be learned (and it was foreshadowed by the work of T .Picketty) is that is impossible for democratic, progressive societies to coexist with elites that concentrate enormous amounts of wealth. Third Way politics is a conceptual impossibility; the only possible way forward for the left is to attack the high concentrations of wealth that are a cancer on democracy.
For many hypotheses, experiments under laboratory conditions are impossible in the social sciences. The best a historian or sociologist can hope for, then, is a so-called “natural experiment”, where conditions spontaneouslty approximate those of an experiment. For the social scientist, it is therefore rather fortunate that Barack Obama was such a great politician (eloquent, charismatic, intelligent), and Donald Trump such a transparently disgusting human being. In these near-perfect conditions, third-way neoliberalism failed spectacularly. This means that third way neoliberalism can never win again. Candidate Hillary Clinton was a victim of president Bill Clinton’s policies (much more so than his indiscretions): he aided the processes of capital mobility (globalization), the concetration of wealth, bank deregulation and the erosion of the fairness doctrine in the media. The first three caused the inequality and poor employment that fueled populist anger; the last made it possible for that populist anger to power a transparent con-man like Trump.
The only way forward for the left is true populism: nationalize fossil fuel industries and use them as a transitional energy source, tax financial speculation to the point that it becomes a marginal part of the economy; spend on job-intensive infrastructure to put money in the pockets of the working class; make the minimum wage a living wage, recognize health and education (including higher education), as human rights, de-privatize prisons and water utilities. And yes, the people who profit from all these moral affronts will fight every positive change; it is about time that the left fought back.
Please let me know what you think
Link to the chapter:
https:/mouthhouse.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-sermon-to-the-sharks-in-moby-dick
Yes, the job of Third Way proponents is to manage the decline without breaking the china.
Great metaphor for Dems wagging fingers at Wall Street. lol
You write:
“…it is about time that the left fought back.”
It certainly is!!!
Thank you.
The question remains…can the left take back the Democratic party, or is it now a permanent part of the Deep State, Two Party/Uniparty fix system?
We will know soon enough…
Watch.
AG
In a way, that is unimportant. Before Trump, it was strategically reasonable to compromise and fight for inches; now that is past the point of usefulness. It is time to fight for miles, as a radical resistance. Dems can either get on the bus, on be left behind
Yes, and St Anthony preached to the fishes, too!
I have absolutely no doubt that the triangulation policies of the 90s (which I take to be equivalent with “neo-liberalism”) helped create the new billionaire class, and that this billionaire class has now destroyed the democracy. They cannot be expected to restrain themselves, just as we know that unregulated capitalism must result in financial catastrophe and economic disaster.
So our billionaires must be destroyed as a class for the nation to prosper and advance in a more broad-based manner. Unfortunately, it is far easier to prevent a problem than to solve it once it has been allowed to come into existence. It was a catastrophic error to allow the rise of the new billionaire class and now that they are here, they have us by the throat.
Of course we must remember that there was an intervening period of “conservative” rule (2001-08) which piled further riches into the coffers of the billionaire class—unless we want to call the doctrines of “pure conservatism” ALSO the equivalent of neo-liberalism. But we lose the idea of the “third way” if we equate “conservatism” with “neo-liberalism”, correct? So originally it was thought that some policy difference was being expressed through the terms.
To quibble a bit further, the Dem platform that HRC supposedly ran on was certainly more progressive in terms of policy proposals than prior neo-liberal positions—Sanders had significant influence on the platform. So we have to look beyond the platform to the candidate if we are to accuse the party of neo-liberalism in 2016. Or else a “liberal” platform was soundly rejected by the incompetent white electorate in 2016….
A huge segment of the American electorate has had their brains destroyed by 30+ years of saturation in “conservative” horseshit blatted 24/7 by the corporate media and rightwing noise machine. I am losing my faith in the idea that “the people” have any ability to figure out which policies will (economically) benefit them and which just benefit the plutocrat class. The marketplace of ideas has failed utterly. The rubes appear certain we have a “free market” operating on principles of “competition”, and that’s what makes Murica Greeeaat!
But none of this means that neo-liberalism can succeed ever again, so there has to be some “new” meta-approach. And “Stronger Together” didn’t seem to resonate too well with our incompetent white electorate, haha. So we might as well run “True Populism” up the flagpole, we’re out of other options as far as I can tell–the country surely has no use for, say, a Protect the Planet platform! But would New Populism be any different than the economic ideas of the New Deal?
I completely agree: concentration of wealth is better prevented than remedied. But this is where we are.
Certainly, (and contra Nader, Bernie or Busters, etc), there are important differences between GOP politics and third way liberalism. But, becuase third way politics promotes concentration of wealth and fails to provide a counterpoint to the far right, modern GOP politics can be seen, partially, as a product of third way liberalism.
Yes, Clinton tried to change course slightly in 2016, but the mistakes of the past were already baked in the cake: 1) the erosion of the fairness doctrine; 2) wealth concentration, 3) mistrust of democrats on the part of blue collar workers (not only the white ones, I would say). I would say that Sanders would have been a better candidate; and that, if it was to be Clinton, she should have pushed populism much harder, at the risk of alienating wall street. Although VP selection is largely symbolic, I feel it is retrospectively clear that someone like Warren, Sanders, Brown, Kaptur, etc, would have been much better than the dud that was Kaine.
Not only do democrats need a new narrative, they need to show spine. They have to become a radical opposition, a spoke on the wheels. If they are vichy democrats, the democratic party will, at best, have power regionally
I have to completely agree but HRC was not the candidate to carry forward even a modified or diluted populist message.
When she cashed her first bankster speaking check and tried to keep the content quiet, the jig was up. And the fact that a majority of the press found nothing wrong with the arrangement is just as telling as to what side their bread is buttered.
So asking the public to believe she would seriously endanger the status quo on Wall Street/corporate boardrooms was asking too much. That the loud voices for reform was not asked on the ticket (strategic it may have been), means that the star would not get backed into the corner as to unwanted posistions.
But, she may have pulled if off if she was a better candidate. Which she wasn’t.
R
Oh, HRC screwed up tremendously. If she has a conscience, her actions during this year must be weighing enourmously. Her sins, I think, came from a sense of entitlement “I don’t need to compromise or listen to the electorate, the presidency belongs to me”.
Another enormous culprit in the same vein is Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The world changed through the impact of 9/11, and the dust hasn’t settled yet!
The roots for the Third Way were laid down during the Lubbers years as PM of the Netherlands during the 1980s. See article The Forgotten Center: The State as Neglected Actor in Corporatist Political Economies [Word doc] and the “Wassenaar Accord“.
○ Model makers: Dutch “Polder”
Thank you for the comments and the links.
And, I have to say, OBL succeeded in destroying the US, although the process he set in motion took a while
I would say that, at most, OBL was the catalyst that destroyed the US. The actual destruction of the US was done completely by the US-ians themselves. Our countrymen and women have done it to each other. Nice game. We can not go anywhere new and better until responsibility for the destruction has been recognised and accepted. And right now it is looking as if the giant last step on the path to the limit has been taken on November 8. The Democrats can’t even ‘man up’ to the cowardly incompetence—deceit—of their presidential campaign.
The squishiness of democrats is, indeed, unnerving. Their pro-corporate centrism is mixed up with a lack of balls that certainly puts offmany voters from both the right and the left.
Great point about the destruction of the US. There are many disastrous turning points (Lincoln Assasination, Nixon, Reagan), but perhaps the critical historical variable is that a country cannot become an Empire without ceasing to be a Republic. OBL as catalyst is quite precise.