Look, I know it's terribly unoriginal to comment that Howard Schultz sort of libertarianism lite is the general ideology of our ruling class, or that the reason it never catches on is that no one else shares it.
But I do think it should be added that our ruling class holds this ideology out of a sincere and honest conviction that it is what is best for the country and keeps trying to sell libertarianism lite in the belief it is really what is needed.
I don't think our ruling class are hardcore economic royalists, but they are lite economic royalists. They accept the legitimacy of Social Security and Medicare, but believe that major cuts are necessary to preserve these programs. They accept the income tax and at least some economic regulation, but generally believe that minimal constraints on profit-making are what best benefits the economy. And they see social conservatism as simple bigotry.
Ruling classes everywhere have a remarkable skill for confusing their power and privilege for the common good. When industrial capitalism rules, the ruling class convinces itself that whatever raises profits highest is in the common good. Rising tide lifts all boats and so forth. In a democracy, this requires going one step further and believing that the people must be with you because how could they be so benighted as to disagree. (This is common to partisans all across the spectrum).
What gets comparatively little attention, because our ruling class regards it as outside all reasonable bounds, is the opposite ideology -- economically liberal but socially conservative. A sizable share of our population fits into this category, but our ruling elite considers it to be completely out of bounds. A significant part of Donald Trump's appeal was that he spoke to this ideology, although once in power he quickly turned out to be just another economic royalist. (To point out that Trump is no true social conservative is like pointing out that his skin and hair are fake -- obvious to all but the most truly indoctrinated).
The best description I have heard of this excluded combination is Christian Democrat. Christian Democracy is a positive expression of the economic liberal/social conservative combination that respects democratic institutions and norms and the rule of law. It may resist immigration as a threat to social cohesion without demonizing immigrants. Confronted with a flood of refugees, Christian Democracy might reject as a false dichotomy the choice between indiscriminate admission and leaving them to their fate, seeking instead for creative third options.
One might even speculate that it was the lack of any political space for the Christian Democratic outlook in the U.S. that drove potential adherents to demagogues like Trump. Although it is also true that the Christian Democrats are in decline all across Europe, with devastating effects on freedom and democracy.
Third parties in the United States are hopeless causes doomed to failure as such, but often useful in pushing the main parties in their direction. Certainly there are those who speculate that Howard Schultz' proposed run is mostly an attempt to pressure Democrats in an economically conservative direction. And what of a Christian Democratic third party? Unlike a libertarian-lite third party, an economically liberal/socially conservative candidate would have real appeal to a significant portion of the population. Might such a candidate push the Republicans away from their economic royalism and find humanitarian alternatives to the current deadlock on immigration? Obviously such a candidate would not appeal to people who want to celebrate hatred as "authenticity." But the authoritarians will always be with us. We can only hope to keep them in check.
No comments:
Post a Comment