@nimh,
Quote:Too many liberals have chosen to argue (and, judging on their own class background, likely genuinely feel) that 'our side' is the one that identifies with and defends the politicians, policy makers, bureaucrats, intelligence services and other, surely well-intentioned powers that be against that icky, cynical, crude, rabble-rousing populism Trump uses (and, you know, stole key parts of your old electorate with).
It's nice to see that not all progressives are in complete denial, but then you're not an American progressive and so are not likely to have your vision clouded by bitter tears of defeat.
Of course your side identifies with the policy makers, the politicians, the bureaucrats and the technocrats. You're progressives. You believe that with the right experts in place, government can be a benign force, and, actually, the most benign force in the world. Your global leader for the last eight years, early on stated that one of his goals was to make government "cool" again. I'm not sure when it was ever "cool" but Obama was clearly a big believer of a robust government deeply involved in the everyday lives of the citizenry.
Of course this sounds like
Big Brother to people like me, but I understand the allure of the Philosopher King, the Benevolent Dictator, God. The problem with this attraction is that of the three examples two are human and the existence of the one who is not, is denied by a great many who might like to accept divine guidance but can’t rationalize it.
Certainly progressives will argue that they don’t want anything to do with strongmen; that they are democrats, but is the latter actually true?
Perhaps due to their long history and intense experience with strongmen, European progressives are less attracted to such figures than their American cousins, and I believe that the government of the EU strongly suggests that, generally speaking, this is the case
(I don’t think any group of people, regardless of their shared ideology, are completely immune to the allure of the charismatic, dynamic Leader. The circumstances of the moment usually gives rise to such figures and enables those who would normally shrink from a strongman to see the need for flexibility in their worldview. )
You would know a lot better than I, but I certainly can’t identify one individual who is clearly
in charge of the EU and from whom all policy and direction flow. If one member state is materially more powerful economically than the others, that nation’s leader is likely to have the most influence on EU policies (e.g. Angela Merkel), but I would imagine (and again please correct me here if I am off base) that the only EU citizens who have seen Merkel as an autocratic menace tend to be those living in
Have Not states like Greece.
From what I’ve read and based on discussions I’ve had with my friends in the UK, the faceless bureaucrat in Brussels, not Angela Merkel was the
bad guy for Brexit supporters, and this leads me to question whether this, the foremost example of progressive political theory in practice, is all that democratic.
We’ve had numerous arguments, in this forum, on the merits of a system of governance based on pure democracy, so it’s not some inviolable Law of Political Science that democracy is the perfect state of governance. To the degree that the EU is less democratic than other governmental entities, this is not by default, a condemnation, but I do think it’s best to call a spade a spade, and not try to attach popularized political buzzwords like
democratic or
liberal to our favored methods and entities; regardless of how well they apply. Less democracy can be best for the governed, but if they disagree any “less democratic” system is bound to fail or become even less democratic.
As a general rule, the more power an individual or entity has the more wary of them I become. Diffusion of power through a progressive “less democratic” technocracy is one way to address the peril of power concentration, but at the same time it is greatly empowering individuals without corresponding accountability. While each individual might not have the personal power to create drastic impacts on the citizenry, as a network or hive of concentrated power and without the requisite accountability it can be as dangerous (albeit less dynamic) as any autocratic strongman.
You’re also right that not that long ago (certainly within my lifetime) the Left was the anti-establishment “side.” Growing up in the 60’s and 70’s my fellow
radicals and I would never trust the government to the extent that progressives do today, let alone trust it to make highly significant decisions about our lives (e.g. whether or not we needed to go to Vietnam and fight in a war), and we would likely be stunned to look into a Crystal Ball and see the path the Left has followed. Not-with-standing his personal flaws, I truly believe that major segments of Trump’s message (if delivered by someone with a more counter-culture persona) would have deeply resonated with my friends and I.
I am amazed when, in my political discussions with progressive nephews and nieces, I realize how much faith they have placed in their government. It seems to be though that this is not a result of any great benefits they have received (although there are some) from government, but because they are attracted to
Big Government Politicians who simultaneously espouse social positions of which they approve. Usually it’s the social issues that drive their allegiance, and, with the youngest among them, the individual’s level of “coolness.” The American Left may currently be in political disarray, but it would be in a much worse position if it hadn’t been scoring major victories in the Culture Wars over the past 30 years.
