About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Monday, April 08, 2024


Just Finished Reading: National Populism – The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin (FP: 2018) [315pp] 

When the Soviet Union fell, and History ‘ended’ (or at least it seemed to according to some observers) it was assumed – by many this time – that Liberal Democracy had ‘won’ and that was it. For a while this rather simplistic view of things seemed to hold true. Democracy did indeed spread, and, for a while at least, it looked like Democracies would dominate the planet. But even the most optimist thought that Authoritarian regimes wouldn’t just vanish overnight. North Korea, China and other places would resist democratisation for years, decades, to come, right? What few saw is that the tide of democracy stopped and then turned back. Slowly at first, the numbers of clearly democratic counties actually REDUCED. What was going on? 

The problem, it would seem, was with Liberal Democracy itself. Much had been promised but little seemed to have been delivered except to the vanishingly few at the top of the tree. What little trickle down that actually existed (rather than simply being talked about and talked up) wasn’t anywhere near enough to satisfy those who felt ‘left behind’ by the pro-globalist forces. Something needed to change. As the so-called ‘peace-dividend’ failed to materialise, the housing bubble burst, the rich and shameless received their bailouts and a Pandemic spread across the globe people simply had had enough. It was time for something different, something new or actually something old – strong leaders who could ‘sought things out’ once and for all. With these reactions – against the ‘liberal elites’ - parties that had traditional stayed in the margins or even the shadows began winning seats in parliaments across the globe, from the UK, Europe, Asia and even the bastion of democracy, the USA itself. 

I did have some problems getting ‘into’ this book because, at least at first, I thought the authors were simply apologists for Authoritarianism. But I persevered and actually found the later part of the work much more interesting and even incisive. It’s clear that the present iteration of western Democracy has a problem – actually a number of problems. Sure, some of them have been exaggerated for effect by the Far Right, but there are the real foundations to their criticisms. The present political systems across the west do not accurately represent everyone they’re supposed to. That’s clear enough. The so-called ‘political classes’ have been for too long receding into the distance away from ‘ordinary people’ (a phrase I personally hate) and their concerns and instead of actually listening to their constituents (rather than merely going through the motions) are giving people what they should want, rather than what they actually want – or at very least taking actual desires into account.  

It shouldn’t have but the reaction against democracy has come as quite a shock both to politicians and political commentators in the media. If both groups had been paying more attention to falling voter turnout, increasing numbers of votes cast for ‘fringe’ candidates, street protests, rising acts of violence and a host of other indicators they might not have been. The ‘solution’ for many centrist parties, or even for those already on the centre-right, has been to try to steal the thunder of the more extreme political forces by moving to the right and adopting some of their policies in watered down versions. This is the ‘easier’ of their options and seems to be working at least in the short term. A much tougher option, at least from their perspective, is to make democracy work for everyone – as it should already be working. If Democracy is broken, or at least in need of some level of TLC, then it needs to be fixed rather than abandoned. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of world history knows exactly where growing Authoritarianism leads and its not to a happy place. If Democracy needs saving, which arguably it does, then we need to improve it, to ask the hard questions and be prepared to fix what needs fixing, to ACTUALLY listen to people's concerns, to involve more people more often in previously ‘elitist’ policy. You know, to be more democratic. That, I think, is the way forward to a happier place.  

This was an interesting, if sometimes depressing or disturbing, read and shows us that authoritarianism is, at least in the short term, here to stay. What I can but hope is that, if the right steps are taken, it will move back to the fringes and the shadows where it belongs. But, for the present it's not going anywhere. To understand why you could do worse than start here. A sobering read. Recommended.  

6 comments:

Stephen said...

Authoritarianism is hardly a sole province of the right, and as Rothbard and Kauffman have both noted, the right-wing in America used to be known for its hostility toward concentration. It's not the right wing wanting to lock people up for not using the 'right pronoun', as we're seeing in Canada, and it wasn't the right wing floating ideas of putting the unjabbed in camps back in the days of coronamania. There's certainly merit in unrest rising because not everyone is participating in the west's wealth to the same degree -- one of the reasons I exited the left circa 2011/2012 was realizing how many measures adopted the goverment made things more difficult for working people to rise (occupational licensing, for instance -- fine for doctors but ludicrous for barbers), and then witnessing the abandonment of the working poor for the kind of posturing now derided as woke.

One thing I must admit as a libertarian (or a conservatarian with a confused pedigree) -- however much I love thinking of the works of DC being so gummed-up that it ceases to function, the reality is that most people want the state to do things for them, are happy to ignore the costs, and will embrace a strongman who claims to be able to "cut through the red tape" or whatever.

CyberKitten said...

True, authoritarianism can exist on both ends of the political spectrum... but presently at least in Europe and in the US it mostly seems to reside on the Right side.

Regarding so-called Wokeism... I think its just rather annoying noise. Distracting but not particularly informative, useful or very interesting.

The problem with wanting a 'strongman' to sort things out, cut through red tape and make the trains run on time is that, even in the *rare* instances where they actually accomplish such things they never stop there. If you have real power, with no requirement to actually justify your actions to *anyone*, what are you going to do with it - you give things to your cronies and anyone who will be at least temporarily useful for you. Then you eliminate any potential enemies - real or perceived - then you make yourself and the people close to you as rich as possible - and GOD help anyone who gets in your way. None of that tends to end too well for ALL involved. When the only way to get rid of a tyrant is a bullet in the back of the head, that's they way it'll tend to go. Of course a LOT of other people will die in the process.... but at least the trains ran on time for a year or two....

Stephen said...

True! There's a great political cartoon from the early forties of people opposing FDR, but explaining to him that it's not him they're against when they oppose his expansion of federal power -- it's those who may follow him. Behind FDR is cast a shadow of Hitler. That's one reason libertarians try to warn Dems and Republicans alike against the expansion of power -- even if even powers are given to someone worthy of wielding them, even if powers were invented to smash the other side, eventually the other side will be in power and use it to smash you, or those powers will be given to someone unworthy.

CyberKitten said...

I've seen that FDR gets a *lot* of hate from some quarters, even today! I guess people at the time loved or hated the guy even more? Definitely a President I need to read up on more...

Stephen said...

The New Deal was such a radical departure from traditional Americanism that the conservatism of the 1940s and 1950s was essentially built on organizing opposition to it. It didn't help that he was doing things like trying to pack the courts. I idolized him as a kid and still admire him as a person, though I've grown more and more skeptical of his domestic policies.

CyberKitten said...

I have some New Deal books on my Wish List, I'll see if I can schedule in some purchases soon(ish).