One of the secular trends in European (and global) politics in recent decades has been the gradual erosion in the influence of social democratic parties and a rise in centre right parties promoting market led globalisation and austerity policies. The more recent backlash against globalisation and austerity has not resulted in a swing back to social democratic parties, but rather in a swing even further right as exemplified by Trump, Brexit, and the rise of far right nationalist parties in Europe.
There may be many reasons for this:
- The collapse of the Soviet Union and thus of any fear conservative elites might have had of Bolshevik revolutions at home. Social democracy was a price they had been prepared to pay in the wake of the devastation of World War II and in order to stave of unrest at home. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Reagan and Thatcher could lead the way in busting unions and liberalising markets with relative impunity.
- The subsequent co-option of many social democratic parties by neo-liberal and neo-conservative market liberalisation, globalisation, austerity, and militaristic ideologies as exemplified by “third way” Blairism, Clintonian triangulation, and the “me too” adoption of hard-line economic and social policies by social democratic parties competing with conservative parties for the “centre ground” in a vain attempt to attain Government majorities. It became harder and harder for progressives to support parties whose policies were becoming indistinguishable from conservative parties.
- Meanwhile globalisation dramatically increased inequality in western societies with almost all the incremental wealth created in the last few decades going to the top 1%. Unions in the private sector could be cowed by the threat of their members’ jobs being shipped overseas and workers in increasingly precarious and marginalised zero hours employments came to resent the relatively secure, well paid, and pensioned employments in the Public sector and the Unions and their social democratic masters who were increasingly seen as their representatives.
- There may also have been generational factors at play: the idealistic young socialist or progressive generation of leaders fighting conservative elites on issues such as civil rights, the Vietnam war, Apartheid,the welfare state and ecological responsibility gradually became older and more conservative and were co-opted by the elites they had grown up fighting. In the recent US elections, what had been relatively progressive Democrats came to be seen as representing the elite because of their close ties with Wall street, globalisation, and liberalisation of markets.
So what grounds do we have for believing that social democratic style politics may make something of a comeback in the next few years?
Firstly, the sheer incompetence, recklessness and extremism of Trump, May, Le Pen, and other far right leaders may cause even relatively conservative voters to look around for safer and more moderate leaders to provide an alternative. The post war settlement which had given rise to an American dominated world order and the EU in Europe is now seen as being threatened with extremely uncertain consequences.
We seem to be heading back toward a “robber baron” era of capitalism where there are almost no checks on the activities of billionaires and global corporates with nation states competing against each other to do their bidding. The complete fraud that is Trumpism and Brexit may take some time to become clear to many voters, but when it comes, the backlash could be severe. And when it comes, that backlash will be looking to a new set of leaders rather than re-heated social democrats from previous generations. Sanders may well look tame compared to the new generation of younger leaders who might now emerge.
Secondly, even the old social democrats had some real achievements which are now under threat. The New Deal, the Great Society, public education and the welfare states within Europe as well as the EU itself are now threatened by Trump and Brexit. Having been on the defensive for so long as these achievements were gradually whittled away, progressive leaders may find the public mood becoming much more receptive to strong and socially progressive state interventions in the economy.
Fine Gael lost out badly in the Irish general Election last year because they proposed tax cuts rather than the increases in public expenditure the public wanted. It is not lost on people that the much poorer Ireland of the 1960’s was able to provide social housing to those who needed it, whilst today’s much richer market economy apparently is not.
Whilst running as an Independent, Macron could well win the French Presidential election running on a fairly orthodox pro-EU, centrist and moderate political programme. Schultz may well do the same for the SPD in Germany, although I would expect Merkel to hang on to the Chancellorship by remaining leader of the largest party. However all three might well run on a virulently anti-Trump and anti-Brexit platform arguing that the EU must be defended against Trump’s attempts to undermine it and that the UK must be excluded from all the benefits of the EU if it is not prepared to pay for them.
Up to now EU leaders have remained largely quiet on how they see the post Brexit relationship with the UK developing, arguing that Article 50 has not yet been triggered and that they don’t yet know what the UK is going to look for. Accordingly the discourse on Brexit to date has been very one sided with the UK setting out it’s stall and with only cursory responses from the EU. However the Brexit negotiations could become central to the French, Dutch and German elections with very hard line positions being adopted and with Schultz and Macron to the fore in demanding that the EU protect itself from a devaluing, de-regulating and tax competing UK.
The Brexit negotiations could get ugly, but it could also give the EU, and social democrats in particular, some of their old Mojo back. The warmongering, corporatist, nationalist, and fascistic tendencies exhibited by Trump and the Brexiteers makes it easy for social democrats to define themselves as progressives without even having to stray too far from the centre of the political spectrum. Whether it will be a last hurrah or the beginning of a new dawn remains to be seen, but I could see Trump losing the mid-terms badly and the UK being shocked by the hostility they will face in Europe. We haven’t even seen the beginnings of the fight back yet.
Good summary of how things have unrolled.
Curious, do you think Italy will allow itself to be “Greeked” or exit the euro?
I don’t have a good read on Italian politics, which is partly why I don’t mention it above. Something has to give – between the German obsession with export and financial surpluses and endemic Italian deficits – and Italian Euro exit may well be a consequence. I remain hopeful that someone, somewhere, will teach Germans basic arithmetic so that they come to understand that German surpluses are just as much the problem as Italian deficits. The Brexit crisis at least has the merit of keeping the Euro down, thus buying time for the Italian economy to recover. Whether it will or not…
The Italian economy is sinking fast. Austerity is creating another Greece.
Italians are very opposed to exiting the Euro:
They might be even more opposed in an actual vote, because the way the treaties are written, exiting the Euro requires exiting the EU, which is an even less popular action.
Even the Greeks were largely opposed to leaving the Euro, and overwhelmingly opposed to leaving the EU. Remember that in many countries, including Portugal, Spain and Greece, there are brutal dictatorships well within living memory. I’ve seen polls (although I can’t find links) that it’s a fairly conscious decision – they are fully willing to endure a German hegemony and economic straits to protect against a return of the dictators. The modern Germans, for all their paranoia about inflation and budget deficits and the harm that inflicts on Euro members, are at least firmly committed to an open society.
That’s a lot of the reason they got “Greeked” – the EU essentially holds all the cards, because even the most harshly treated countries generally don’t want to leave. IIRC only in the UK and one other northern country is there any substantial support for leaving the EU. The only thing that could trigger leave movements in most EU countries is a relatively benign Brexit, which is looking unlikely at the moment.
Slight disagreement here, which you corrected below. The Third Way was a foolhardy deception of the public. As economics turned sour, the far right stepped in the created fissure between Wall Street and Main Street. More …
“One of the secular trends in European (and global) politics in recent decades has
been the gradual erosion in the influence of social democratic parties and a rise
in centre right parties promoting market led globalisation and austerity policies.”
One must discern cause and effect.
Social Democrats in a number of EU nations turned to the third way … liberalisation of economic market principles as seen after the Margareth Thatcher years, compounded by Reagonomics. In Holland we had PM Wim Kok, in the UK Tony Blair and even under Bill Clinton who made crucial policy decisions for free trade with NAFTA (globalisation) and the Glass-Steagall Act to broaden the risk taking of banks.
After the 2000 collapse of the Internet bubble, the initiated global war on terror after 9/11 and the financial collapse of 2007-2009 worsened by banking fraud – mortgage securities and bank swaps.
Making war across the globe against Muslim states – see my diary on making NATO relevant again.
Islamophobia and right-wing parties rode the wave of anti-terror policy of Israel, the US and under Obama a very compliant European states of the NATO pact. The UK was always at the forefront alongside with the USA … see my diary about the Atlantic Bridge.
It’s all so very predictable once you manage to stick to the basic decisions made in the capitals of western powers. Propaganda and fake news will make it much more difficult for the occasional citizen following the political warfare inside the government.
○ From Too Big to Fail to Too Costly to Comply
○ Misjudging Risk: Causes of the Systemetic Banking Crisis in Ireland
Austerity policy across Europe increased income inequality and concern of its citizens. A gap in trust has been used by most political parties to replace responsible leadership by opportunism, or worse case … populism and nationalism combined with xenophobia. The EU is more divided between Rumsfeld’s New Europe and the nations that founded the EU and try to live by its principles. See the signs of Greece debt level and the extended austerity measures – This could be Greece’s last chance to save itself.
Again, I’m not quite sure how or where we disagree. It has been a colossal failure of social democratic politics that they have not been able to take advantage of the numerous crises, collapses and swindles involved in relatively unregulated capitalism to stage a comeback and that instead, Trump, who embodies many of those failings, should have succeeded in capitalising on them. Theories of ideological capture and everyone thinking they all can win the lottery come to mind… Social democrats think his narcissism, impetuousity, recklessness, misogyny, racism, authoritarianism and sexual predatory nature are weaknesses. His supporters seem to think they are strengths…
Mostly I’d agree, but I think the Third Way types mostly believed their proposed economic policies. When the crisis of 2008 discredited deregulation dogma, the politicians and academics mostly moved away from it. The business Third Way-ers weren’t willing to, and so we’ve pretty much seen the Third Way movement collapse.
Certainly true for Tony Blair’s Labor party and also for Dutch PM Wim Kok, at the time leader of the PvdA, Labor party. The Socialists in France under Hollande have struggled, but he himself may be mostly to blame
Most of the centrist-left parties have evolved into centrist-right with adjusted programs on austerity policy, questions about EU HQ in Brussels and policy for migrants flowing into the European Union. Pensions, welfare for the elderly and health insurance have faced cuts. A solidarity gap has developed between young people at the start of their earnings career and the older generation persevering on pensions.
The party of Geert Wilders with its simple program of anti-immigration and xenophobia has been quite succesful and right-wing parties have adepted their policy … further to the right.
I mentioned, but did not elaborate on the Dutch general election next month because I don’t know enough about Dutch politics. How do you see Brexit influencing the outcome?
○ Pope Francis Revolution – Europe’s Destiny Is Multicultural
A thoughtful piece. I would add a couple of things to it:
Given this last point it is perhaps not surprising to see the nationalist right take up some of the social democratic rhetoric. One can think of it this way:
Capitalist vs. Socialist
Nationalism vs Globalism
We see all over the world how the decline in the nation state has complicated the previous political discussion.
Excellent comment. Socialists used to have a global vision – witness the Socialist International – but it has been all to easy for capitalists to destroy this through a combination of nationalism, xenophobia and war. The reality is you cannot regulate Global capitalism at a national level – especially if you are a relatively small state like Ireland. So the emergence of a semi-global institution like the EU and some international standards and conventions is our only hope.
It is interesting that Trump has recognised this and overturned decades of US support for the EU as he knows the US (or rather US Capitalists) can cut much more favourable deals if it can isolate individual EU members through Brexit and other exits… This is war by another name and represents an existential crisis for the EU and social democrats in particular. My question is whether the are up for the fight.
A larger country could reign in the capitalists, by being anti-free trade, almost autarkic. Not an option for a country like Ireland, of course. But that’s very against current economic dogma, and even if you don’t subscribe to that there would be genuine costs involved, as well as a lot of transition costs. For large diverse entities like the EU or the USA I think it would be a net benefit to the average person even though the total GDP would be lower. Where the line between “worth it” and “too hard” lies is unclear.
Trade Deals, esp the ones with private courts. Supra-national courts. A post-Westphalian world, as it is put.
From comments today at NC: “Trump actually is attacking two of its foundational elements–free trade and unlimited capital mobility. Not only is Trump violating neoliberal theory, he also is clashing with the most basic way Wall Street cannibalizes us. Without the free movement of capital, assisted by trade deals, financial elites and their corporate partners would not be able to slash labor costs, destroy unions and siphon off wealth into their own pockets.”
There is a cultural component here that is also worth mentioning.
For a generation Wall Street was viewed as sort of a lesser evil. The banks after all don’t pollute and don’t break unions directly. Elites gravitated toward them in the 70’s and 80’s, and adopted some of the language.
In addition, the culture wars of the 70’s and 80’s created a gap between the working class union types and people who thought of themselves as liberals. But it was and is a peculiar type of liberalism – one that defines itself in terms of tolerance. This created a tendency to be predisposed to portions of the neo-liberal agenda on things like trade.
I described this gap when I wrote here about what I saw at the convention – because it really is a significant gulf.
Christopher Lasch saw this happening in his last two books: the True and Only Heaven and The Revolt of the Elites: And the Betrayal of Democracy.
Wikipedia summarizes the later book as follows:
Written in ’94 it gets to some of the tension Frank describes in What’s the Matter with Kansas. It actually does a reasonably good job of predicting Trump.
What is globalism? Is it the globalization of labor rights, consumer rights, environmental rights, or corporate rights?
It has come to mean only the last of these 4, but I attribute that to the success of corporations in framing the issue. If its only corporate rights, then I too am not a globalist.
Absolutely. The pacific Islander who’s island is going to be swallowed up by rising sea levels has no right to sue corporations who contributed to global warming. Ditto the African farmer suffering from drought. A US Union has no right to sue a US corporation for outsourcing work to Indonesian workers working under conditions that violate US labour laws.
TTIP would have given US corporations the right to sue the Irish government for introducing a no fracking law for loss of profits if they had previous prospected for oil and gas in an area where they claimed those rights. And the case would have been heard not in an Irish Court, but in a pseudo-international commercial court set up under the Treaty and manned, for all we know, by Judges in a revolving door with corporate careers.
Globalisation means corporations superseding Sovereign rights of Nations and then claiming extra-territoriality when it come to siphoning off and repatriating profits. It means they can play off one nation against another and cherry pick and plunder resources where they please. The one thing it does not mean is global governance as a means of reigning in those corporations and their tax dodging ways.
Excellent hypotheses on the causes, especially 1 and 2 (which go together). During a good chunk of the 20th century, the battle was between whether or not a centrally planned economy could outperform a laissez faire one, which it couldn’t once the economy moved to consumer durables and past steel and cement. At that time, the capitalist world had to pretend to care about the poor in fear of labor uprisings.
It mostly worked (especially in Europe) except for disenfranchised groups, and liberal parties started concentrating on these groups (especially in America). Again, it worked (the orange guy notwithstanding).
But then the Berlin wall fell so nobody had to pretend to care about the poor. And it became harder to find new disenfranchised groups. Meanwhile, the powered learned how to use language to frame issues their way, and people failed to question it. I think the next step is using big data to propagate these frames.
We’re already there. That’s what fake news as clickbait is all about.
As always, much appreciated. I’ve been trying to keep as much of an eye on how things are going on the Continent as time permits. Will be following election results in the Netherlands, France, and Germany with great interest.