There have been various articles recently about crises in the two philosophies represented by dominant political parties in developed countries since 1945, or even since 1918. I decided to think about how much I believed these doomsayers, why they might be right or wrong, and what might happen in the future.
From 1945-2000, in most developed nations, there were two dominant political parties, one of which could be described as conservative, and the other socialist. In the USA, the socialist party was much less progressive than elsewhere. Most places had a centrist party, occasionally sharing power. Places with proportional voting systems had a higher number of viable parties, representing a few specialised interests and a few shades of conservatism or socialism, but the two blocs plus close clones dominated power and retained vote shares of 80% or more.
The degree to which this has changed depends on how proportional the voting system is. In places used to many parties such as the Netherlands, the number of viable parties has only grown fractionally, but the ones associated with socialism and conservatism have seen reduced vote shares. Spain and Germany might be the most representative of the trends. In both places, two plus a few pieces have fractured into five or six, with the traditional two losing dominance. In the USA, Australia and the UK, the two historical parties have retained power, but vote shares are slipping and the internal coalitions within each party are fraying. It is fair to argue that only the advantages of incumbency have prevented a mass splintering there as well.
What is wrong with socialism and conservatism? Each has its own sorry story, and in my opinion each deserves its fate.
Socialism came to prominence after 1900 as a philosophy of resistance, specifically in the field of work. Workers deserved fair conditions regulated by the state, with a goal of reducing the power, often inherited, of the class owning most capital. Towards the same goal of a society of more equality of opportunity, socialists succeeded in growing the range of services provided publicly for all, such as education and much healthcare, with the obvious trade off of higher taxes.
One problem with socialism is always that it seems to start from a position of envy and resentment, and that its passion seems to come more from depriving the privileged than building up the rest. Hence high progressive taxes are presented as a goal or lead policy, rather than as necessary funding for the real goals.
Then came a series of chinks in the power of socialism. The collapse of communism showed that state control is no panacea and that people ostensibly working for common people can be as corrupt as anybody else. Socialists advocated trade unions as a sound means to balance the rights of workers with employers, but stayed wedded to those unions as they abused power, protected insiders and blocked progress, even as mass industrial employment declined in importance. As globalisation created investors as a crucial stakeholder, many of the weapons of socialism were blunted, and those regimes that denied that reality failed dismally. A breed of socialists such as Blair and Schröder accepted that reality and did some good but splintered their internal coalitions as a result, as did others prepared to prop up conservative led governments. The urban, doctrinaire branch of socialism, often pacifist and pro immigrant, lost touch with the regular working families they claimed to represent. Wedded to unions, socialists were slow to embrace important issues such as the environment and flexible education. Some socialists, such as Hollande, became impotent when in power, with no practical solutions compatible with both global finance and their own interest groups.
It is hard to see a way forward for socialism, even though its goals remain as noble as ever in an age of rising inequality. Socialists can seem from another era, with outdated talk of nationalisation and bashing the rich. They can still win with charismatic leaders and propitious circumstances, such as recently in Spain, but in power their room for manoeuvre is often limited by the threats from mobile capital and internal luddite interests.
But if things look bad for socialists, they may be worse for conservatives, for they have been invaded from within.
Conservatism is a bit harder to define than socialism. Maybe a good start is the word moderation. The Economist, natural conservatives appalled by its recent demise, tried to craft a defence of conservatism a few weeks ago. There were references to common sense, established science and respect for evidence, avoiding bleeding edges, and respect for institutions like a civil service, churches, universities, lawyers, business leaders, the military and even monarchy. It all read very smug and “Daddy knows best”, and helped me to understand its demise. I certainly wouldn’t want much to do with a party that embodies all of that paternalism.
Before 1979, many conservatives “did a Blair”, and accepted the validity of the socialist agenda, only modifying its pace of implementation. Then Thatcher and Reagan gave conservatism a harder edge, advocating a smaller state, strong business and markets, and individual responsibility. This can initially be argued as a necessary correction to a nanny and union dominated state created by socialists. But since then conservatives have simply kept their foot hard down on that pedal, even as inequality and hardship multiplied, and while lurching to failure even on their own terms of economic growth. We were left with greed, smug paternalism, social denial and failed economics.
This ugly cocktail could still win elections, especially as its few beneficiaries could increasingly buy up media and politicians, but was obviously running out of steam. This can explain the embrace of racist nationalism in some countries, together with opportunism such as loss of fiscal discipline and vilification of elites. Conservatives have always put power first and principles second, but now the naked need for power has jettisoned many of the most important principles. This is a crisis indeed, and one with no sign of an exit door, given the complete absence of any genuine agenda that a majority could support, and the insatiable demands from global capital that pays to control its representatives.
I believe we might be starting to see an endgame for these twin crises, with France the forerunner, and the recent European elections also a signal. Greens have finally become mainstream, and have learned to combine practical environmental policies with the less doctrinaire aspects of socialism (improved affordable public services, humanism) and conservatism (data driven approaches, markets with regulation). Meanwhile, most of the rest of the electorate is open to a message driven by fear of immigrants and resentment of elites. Instead of class against class we now have agile against rooted.
The labels will be different in different countries. The speed of realignment will also vary, notably because of the degree of incumbency advantage and how easy it is for big money to poison debate. But the change is real and accelerating. The greens in Germany have been credible for years and might lead the next government. Macron versus Le Pen fits the new model. The Spanish socialists have moved closer to the green ideal. In the US, Italy, Hungary and the UK the conservatives have been defeated, either from within or without, by nationalists. Also in the UK, the most recent bi-election saw a pact between greens, liberals and others defeat the new nationalists.
It is often a fools game to predict a major realignment of global politics, such are the advantages of incumbents and establishments. But we might just be witnessing such a moment now. It is just possible that socialism and true conservatism might really be dead and deader. I might shed one small tear for one, and none at all for the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment