Half a decade on, Brexit and Trump remain shorthand for the rise of right-wing populism and a profound unsettling of liberal democracies. One curious fact is rarely mentioned: the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Remain in 2016 had similar-sounding slogans, which spectacularly failed to resonate with large parts of the electorate: Stronger Together and Stronger in Europe. Evidently, a significant number of citizens felt that they might actually be stronger, or in some other sense better off, by separating. What does that tell us about the fault lines of politics today?
Conventional wisdom has it that cultural divisions now matter most, and that plenty of people feel they have nothing in common with liberal, supposedly globalist elites. Yet that idea is not only empirically dubious; it also uncritically adopts a cultural framing of political conflict that plays into the hands of the right, if not the far right. The divisions that threaten democracies are increasingly economically driven, a development that has been obscured by the rhetorical strategies of a right committed to plutocratic populism.
Democracies today face a double secession. One is that of the most privileged. They are often lumped together under the category of liberal cosmopolitan elites, which is an invective thrown around by populist leaders, but also a term employed by a growing number of pundits and social scientists. This designation is misleading in many ways. While it is true that certain elites are mobile, they are not necessarily cosmopolitan or liberal in any strong moral sense if by cosmopolitan we do not mean folks with the highest frequent flyer status but those committed to the idea that all humans stand in the same moral relation to each other, regardless of borders.
Value commitments are not necessarily related to travel patterns; the worlds most influential cosmopolitan philosopher, Immanuel Kant, never left his hometown Knigsberg. While plenty of wealthy people make a big show of international charity work, one would search in vain for advocates of what in political philosophy might possibly be called genuine global justice. And we should not forget that, in the 1990s and early 2000s, globalisation was justified not by emphasising its beneficial effects on the world but the advantages it would bestow on individual nations.
Economic and administrative elites still follow education and career paths that are distinctly national. My students at Princeton University might go to work for a multinational company and be posted overseas, but they cannot go anywhere they cannot simply decide, for instance, to join the French elite. It is of course flattering for academics and journalists to think that democracys fate is in their hands, and that if only liberal elites somehow cared more for white working-class men in the American Midwest or the north of England, all might be well.
The point is not that cultural elites are not important of course they are. The point is that simplistic divisions of society into anywheres and somewheres famously put forward by David Goodhart in The Road to Somewhere (2017) and endlessly repeated by liberals eager to flaunt their capacity for self-criticism systematically obscure that actual decision-making elites remain far more national and far less liberal than is commonly thought.
[See also:How Raymond Williams redefined culture]
Globalisation has not brought the end of nationalism but opportunities to retreat selectively from society something from which economic and financial elites (again, not particularly liberal in their views) have especially benefited. They appear to be able to dispense with any real dependence on the rest of society (though of course they still rely on police, halfway-usable roads, and so on). With the globalisation of supply chains and trade regimes, workers and consumers do not have to be in the same country, and, as a consequence of the shift away from mass conscript armies, one also does not depend on ones fellow citizens to serve as soldiers.
An openly avowed, though also quite cartoonish, version of this secession of the economically powerful is provided by the Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel. Thiel self-identifies as libertarian (and ended up not only as an adviser to Donald Trump but as one of the figures trying to adorn Trumpism with a philosophy). In a programmatic statement published in 2009, he wrote that in our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called social democracy. He put his hope in some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country. Since, alas, there appear to be few undiscovered countries, Thiel bet on cyberspace, outer space, and, in case none of those spaces work out, seasteading (as in: settling the oceans).
Thiels dismissive remarks about the demos provoked strong reactions in particular, his sentence that since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians have rendered the notion of capitalist democracy into an oxymoron. He later clarified that he did not advocate for disenfranchising citizens. Indeed, the whole point of his thinking was that the demos as such had to be written off as hopeless; the best one could do was to seek distance from ordinary folks or, put differently, secession.
Thiels pining for undiscovered countries corresponds with the sordid reality of transnational accounting tricks. As two distinguished economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman observe, US firms have in 2016 booked more than 20 per cent of their non-US profits in stateless entities shell companies that are incorporated nowhere, and nowhere taxed. In effect, they have found a way to make $100bn in profits on what is essentially another planet.
[See also:Penses by Bryan Magee]
These kinds of secessions are not undertaken by citizens of nowhere (the money does not really end up nowhere); nor does any of this have anything to do with cultural or moral cosmopolitanism, even if right-wing populists, ever ready to wage culture wars, portray things that way. But the populists critique does contain a kernel of truth: some citizens do take themselves out of anything resembling a decent social contract, for instance relying on private tutors and private security for their gated communities. In France, an astonishing 35 per cent of people claim that they have nothing in common with their fellow citizens.
Such a dynamic is not entirely new: writing about French aristocrats, the 18th-century political theorist the Abb Sieyes observed that the privileged actually come to see themselves as another species of man. In 1789, they discovered that they were not (just as some today will eventually discover that there are noundiscovered countries).
The other secession is even less visible. An increasing number of citizens at the lower end of the income spectrum no longer vote or participate in politics in any other way. In large German cities, for instance, the pattern is clear: poorer areas with high unemployment have much higher abstention rates in elections (in the centre of the old industrial metropolis of Essen it is as high as 90 per cent). This de facto self-separation is not based on a conscious programme in the way Thiels space (or spaced-out) fantasies are, and there is no undiscovered country for the worst-off. Tragically, such a secession becomes self-reinforcing: political parties, for the most part, have no reason to care for those who dont care to vote; this in turn strengthens the impression of the poor that theres nothing in it for them when it comes to politics.
***
How does all this relate to the rise of right-wing populism and todays threats to democracy? Like all parties, populist ones offer what the social theorist Pierre Bourdieu once called a vision of divisions: they provide, and promote, an interpretation of societys major political fault lines and then seek to mobilise citizens accordingly. That is not in itself dangerous. Democracy, after all, is about conflict, not consensus, or what James Mattis, Donald Trumps ill-fated secretary of defence, called fundamental friendliness (which, lamenting the lack of political unity in his country, he was sorely missing in the second decade of the 21st century).
The promise of democracy is not that we shall all agree, and it does not require uniformity of principles and habits, as Alexander Hamilton had it. Rather, it is the guarantee that we have a fair chance of fighting for our side politically and then can live with the outcome of the struggle, because we will have another chance in a future election. It is not enough to complain that populists are divisive, for democratic politics is divisive by definition.
The problem is that right-wing populists reduce all conflicts to questions of belonging, and then consider disagreement with their view automatically illegitimate (those who disagree must be traitors; Trumps critics were not so much wrong on merit as, according to his fans, un-American). Populism is not uniquely responsible for polarisation, but it is crucial to understand that its key strategy is polarisation. Right-wing populism seeks to divide polities into homogeneous groups and then insinuates that some groups do not truly belong or are fundamentally illegitimate.
In this world-view, instead of being characterised by cross-cutting identities and interests, politics is simplified and rendered as a picture of one central conflict of existential importance (along the lines of if the wrong side wins, we shall perish). Thus, disquiet about the double secession is channelled by right-wing populists into collective fear or even a moral panic that the country is being taken away from us. In the US in particular, that fear helps to distract from questions of material distribution; what the political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have called plutocratic populism combines relentless culture war with economic positions that are actually deeply unpopular even with conservative voters, but which are continuously obscured by conjuring up threats to the real that is, white, Christian America (or white Christian England, for that matter). While some Republicans speak out for a kind of working-class conservatism just as the Conservative Party has its advocates of red Toryism there is no way that the Republican Party in its present form will implement any such agenda. In this respect, Trump was typical: stoking the feelings of socio-economic-cum-cultural victimhood of his supporters, and then passing a tax cut of which 80 per cent went to the upper 1 per cent. While the jury is still out on Boris Johnsons levelling up agenda, the fact is that One Nation Toryism has also often remained mere talk.
***
Here, then, lies the gravest danger to democracy: in the face of what they perceive as an existential threat, citizens are more willing to condone breaches of democratic principles and the rule of law (it is easier, for instance, to portray judges as enemies of the people). The Yale political scientist Milan Svolik cites a revealing natural experiment in social science to make the point: on the eve of an election in Montana in 2017, the Republican candidate Greg Gianforte body-slammed a Guardian reporter. Plenty of people had already voted by absentee ballot; only those going to the polls on election day by which time three major Montana newspapers had withdrawn their endorsement of Gianforte could directly punish the GOP politician for his behaviour. And what happened? In highly partisan precincts, party loyalty trumped respect for democratic norms. Populists seek to deepen a central division in society and simplify it into a question of whether you are for or against the leader. Thus they make it more difficult for their supporters to put democracy and the rule of law above their partisan interests.
So how should liberals and the left fight back? For one thing, they should resist an uncritical adoption of the anywheres-versus-somewheres frame. Whats more, they should resist the mainstreaming of the far right, or racism lite, that some European social democrats think promises a revival of their electoral fortunes. Some point at Denmark and the mostly symbolic measures adopted by a nominally left-wing party to prove its toughness on immigration and Islamism. But, as the French economist Thomas Piketty and others have shown, most of those who abandoned social democratic parties did not defect to the far right. Instead, since the 1970s, they stopped going to the polls altogether.
Getting people to re-engage in politics is fiendishly difficult. But in their contrasting ways Boris Johnsons former chief advisor Dominic Cummings and the strategists of the Spanish left-wing upstart Podemos proved that it can be done. You can bring citizens to vote who appear to have checked out of the political system entirely, if you offer them an image of their interests and identities that they can recognise. There is Trumps talk of finding votes in the sense of election subversion, but there is also the genuinely democratic practice of finding votes by seeking out those who consider themselves abandoned. And, once again, there is nothing undemocratic about drawing clear lines of conflict: criticising other parties is not the same as calling them illegitimate, populist-style.
Any social democratic programme that seeks to re-engage voters must not be neoliberalism lite, in which deregulation is the default, along with low taxation and disciplining of workers through harsh incentives to accept more or less any job (all policies adopted by Gerhard Schrder, for instance). It must also involve a serious effort to explain which basic interests are shared by those who ceased participating altogether and those who abandoned social democratic parties for Green parties, or even the centre right (in some countries such as Germany).
It is not a mystery what these interests might be: most obviously, functioning national infrastructure and an education system that puts serious resources into helping the worst-off (the vast inequalities of existing systems, where wealthy parents can simply bring in more tutors, was cruelly demonstrated during the pandemic, when even affluent parents faced realities they had never confronted before).
It is not naive to think that Joe Biden might be providing the right model here. He has resisted getting mired in debates about cancelled childrens books, critical race theory, and other topics relentlessly promoted by right-wing culture warriors. Instead, he is making a surprisingly serious effort to address the secession at the top of society, going after tax avoidance. He is even trying to drag countries along which have made tax avoidance a national business model, and, for good measure, he might be able to drag the Thiels, Musks, Bezoses and Bransons of this world back down to earth.
It would be wrong, though, to conclude that liberals must disavow so-called identity politics and leave minorities to their fate (or at least their own devices). The most prominent movements of our time Black Lives Matter and #MeToo are not really about identity in any substantive sense; they are about claiming basic rights which others have long taken for granted. They are also not just about resentment at indignities, as Francis Fukuyama claims as if these were all emotional issues where narcissistic folks should simply pull themselves together. Nor are they just about abstract values, as Adrian Pabst recently charged in these pages. There is nothing abstract about not wanting to be shot by police or be harassed by powerful men.
***
Less obviously, it is also not true that claims by minorities are somehow more likely to lead to polarisation and irresolvable political conflicts. It is conventional wisdom that one can negotiate over material interests more easily than over identity, as trade unions and employers reliably did during the heyday of postwar European social democracy. For many there is also a seemingly self-evident lesson from recent years: if you dont want populist-authoritarian white identity politics, you should shut up about the identity of black and brown people, for otherwise you are simply providing more ammunition for populist race and culture warriors.
Yet identity and interests cannot be so neatly separated. That is true today, and, if we didnt suffer so badly from historical amnesia, we would not claim that things were all that different in the golden age of social democracy. Socialist parties never fought only for wage increases and better working conditions; they also struggled for dignity and collective respect. Think for instance of Red Vienna, made by socialists into a showcase for working-class culture and uplift during the interwar period.
[See also:The West isnt dying its ideas live on in China]
Even when conflicts are about identity, this does not mean that compromise and negotiation are automatically impossible. We do not necessarily all assume that there is an inner, true, unchanging self, as a romantic conception of identity would suggest. People are able to rethink their political commitments and what really matters in both private and collective life; what is regularly ridiculed by the right as woke today is only one example of how political self-perceptions and hence identities can change.
Conversely, it is far from obvious that conflicts over material interests can always be resolved in a rational, amiable manner. We have forgotten to what lengths the owners of concentrated wealth might go to defend themselves from claims to redistribution (and we are not fully aware of what they are already doing today: the political scientist Jeffrey Winters refers to expensive lawyers and accountants specialised in tax avoidance as a powerful wealth defence industry).
One reason why we have forgotten this is that no political leader has seriously tried to take anything from secessionists at the very top; Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Barack Obama were part of a long historical arc of neoliberalism in which some progressive change was possible but the basics of the Reagan-Thatcher revolutions were never seriously questioned. In the United States, the Republican Party has been radicalised in recent years and is bent on undermining democracy through voter suppression and election subversion even though, economically, there hasnt been much of a threat to its backers yet. That is an ominous sign of what reaction a genuine liberal commitment to addressing the double secession might provoke.
Jan-Werner Mller is professor of politics at Princeton University. His most recent book is Democracy Rules (Allen Lane)
Continued here:
Beyond the culture wars - New Statesman
- Floating Cities of the Past and Future | ArchDaily - December 21st, 2022 [December 21st, 2022]
- How the worlds billionaires are paying to escape global disaster - December 14th, 2022 [December 14th, 2022]
- Charter Cities: The Real Reason for Brexit and the Bigger Picture - November 1st, 2022 [November 1st, 2022]
- Free Private Cities with Peter Young - What Bitcoin Did - September 17th, 2022 [September 17th, 2022]
- Raymond Craib: Rich Tech Libertarians Have Fantasies of Escape, but a ... - August 14th, 2022 [August 14th, 2022]
- Peter Thiels Candidates Are More Unabomber Than Tech Bro - Yahoo News UK - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Stream It Or Skip It: 'Love, Death & Robots: Season 3' on Netflix, The Return of David Finchers Adults Only Animation Anthology - Decider - May 21st, 2022 [May 21st, 2022]
- Peter Thiels GOP Makeover - The Bulwark - March 18th, 2022 [March 18th, 2022]
- Freedom as a Preset: Joanne McNeil on Metaverses Past and Present | - Filmmaker Magazine - January 19th, 2022 [January 19th, 2022]
- I rule my own ocean micronation - BBC Future - December 22nd, 2021 [December 22nd, 2021]
- Floating Cities: The Future of Urban Construction | BigRentz - December 17th, 2021 [December 17th, 2021]
- Seasteading book series - Galt's Gulch - November 28th, 2021 [November 28th, 2021]
- The rise of the neoclassical reactionaries - Spectator.co.uk - November 28th, 2021 [November 28th, 2021]
- Thiel Foundation - Wikipedia - October 21st, 2021 [October 21st, 2021]
- How to Start a New Country 1729 - October 21st, 2021 [October 21st, 2021]
- Peter Thiel Embodies Silicon Valley's Conservative Past and Dystopian Future - Jacobin magazine - October 11th, 2021 [October 11th, 2021]
- Discover the hilariously epic failure of a crypto-fueled libertarian cruise - Boing Boing - September 16th, 2021 [September 16th, 2021]
- Five Doomed Attempts at Planetary Colonization - tor.com - September 16th, 2021 [September 16th, 2021]
- Asgardia: What the first space nation in human history wants to create - Market Research Telecast - September 16th, 2021 [September 16th, 2021]
- So You Want to Be an Architect? - Sierra Magazine - September 12th, 2021 [September 12th, 2021]
- The story of the first "cryptocoin cruise ship" is exactly as weird and dumb as all those words imply - The A.V. Club - September 10th, 2021 [September 10th, 2021]
- First Thing: DoJ vows to protect women seeking abortions in Texas - The Guardian - September 10th, 2021 [September 10th, 2021]
- Active Projects | The Seasteading Institute - June 13th, 2021 [June 13th, 2021]
- Seasteading: How Floating Nations Will Restore the ... - June 13th, 2021 [June 13th, 2021]
- Floating Island Project | The Seasteading Institute - June 2nd, 2021 [June 2nd, 2021]
- This is why the Thai navy busted a seasteading American - June 2nd, 2021 [June 2nd, 2021]
- Ocean colonization - Wikipedia - February 22nd, 2021 [February 22nd, 2021]
- 9 Breathtaking City Concepts That Could Be Your Future ... - February 22nd, 2021 [February 22nd, 2021]
- How Do We Regain Trust in Institutions? - The New York Times - January 29th, 2021 [January 29th, 2021]
- The aftermath of Palantir's culture-war IPO - Quartz - October 7th, 2020 [October 7th, 2020]
- Ephemerisle is Burning Man on boats in the Sacramento River Delta - San Francisco Chronicle - July 5th, 2020 [July 5th, 2020]
- Seasteading a vanity project for the rich or the future of humanity? - The Guardian - June 24th, 2020 [June 24th, 2020]
- John Bolton's explosive new book, COVID-19 spikes in these three states and meet Kim Jong Un's enforcer - NBC News - June 24th, 2020 [June 24th, 2020]
- Seasteading | Ocean Builders - December 24th, 2019 [December 24th, 2019]
- Future ahoy: Are you ready to live in a floating city? - San Francisco Chronicle - October 7th, 2019 [October 7th, 2019]
- The Seasteading Institute - Home | Facebook - August 16th, 2017 [August 16th, 2017]
- Peter Thiel - Wikipedia - July 28th, 2017 [July 28th, 2017]
- Floating City Project Wants To Make A "Deregulated" Hub Of Scientific Research - IFLScience - July 28th, 2017 [July 28th, 2017]
- "Unregulated scientific innovation on an isolated island? Sounds like a very bad thing" - Dezeen - July 26th, 2017 [July 26th, 2017]
- The Seasteading Institute's floating cities are designed for unregulated innovation - Dezeen - July 24th, 2017 [July 24th, 2017]
- What does a boat party have to do with reinventing government? Find out at Ephemerisle - Sacramento Bee - July 23rd, 2017 [July 23rd, 2017]
- Auditor-General won't investigate Thiel citizenship - Otago Daily Times - July 18th, 2017 [July 18th, 2017]
- Auditor-General won't be investigating Peter Thiel's NZ citizenship - The National Business Review - July 17th, 2017 [July 17th, 2017]
- Floating City: Will Rising Sea Levels Force People To Move Into Ocean Homes? - International Business Times - July 11th, 2017 [July 11th, 2017]
- The 'seasteading' movement imagines floating cities in the sea - WBFO - July 10th, 2017 [July 10th, 2017]
- The 'seasteading' movement imagines floating cities in the sea - PRI - July 9th, 2017 [July 9th, 2017]
- Jetsons in reality soon? A city in Earth orbit may not be too far away in future - Financial Express - July 8th, 2017 [July 8th, 2017]
- Who is Peter Thiel? | Radio New Zealand News - Radio New Zealand - June 29th, 2017 [June 29th, 2017]
- Living on Earth: PRI's Environmental News Magazine - June 28th, 2017 [June 28th, 2017]
- ZenCash's Robert Viglione Talks Borderless Cryptocurrency and More - Finance Magnates - June 24th, 2017 [June 24th, 2017]
- As sea levels rise, are floating cities the future? - Yale Climate Connections - June 8th, 2017 [June 8th, 2017]
- Libertarians Seek a Home on the High Seas - New Republic - May 30th, 2017 [May 30th, 2017]
- How to build your own country - CNN - May 30th, 2017 [May 30th, 2017]
- Floating island off Tahiti won't harm says environmentalist - Radio New Zealand - May 26th, 2017 [May 26th, 2017]
- Floating island off Tahiti aims to be eco-friendly - Radio New Zealand - May 26th, 2017 [May 26th, 2017]
- Seasteading by Joe Quirk on iBooks - itunes.apple.com - May 22nd, 2017 [May 22nd, 2017]
- Seasteading - bitcointalk.org - May 22nd, 2017 [May 22nd, 2017]
- Facebook, Google greed will lead us to info armageddon - The Reporter - May 20th, 2017 [May 20th, 2017]
- Facebook and Google greed will lead us to information armageddon - NEWS.com.au - May 18th, 2017 [May 18th, 2017]
- New nature books ready for spring | Sports Columns | register ... - Beckley Register-Herald - May 7th, 2017 [May 7th, 2017]
- Real Utopia: The World's First Floating City May Be Built in the Pacific - Sputnik International - April 7th, 2017 [April 7th, 2017]
- A floating techno-libertarian city might be coming to the Pacific - Mashable - April 7th, 2017 [April 7th, 2017]
- 6 Examples Of Billionaires Acting Like Supervillains - Benzinga - April 3rd, 2017 [April 3rd, 2017]
- Editor's Insight: Money-losing ethics, seasteading, Mansfield and more - The National Business Review - April 2nd, 2017 [April 2nd, 2017]
- Faced with rising seas, French Polynesia ponders floating islands - The Guam Daily Post (press release) (registration) - March 21st, 2017 [March 21st, 2017]
- Floating countries of the future - this could be your new home - ABC Online - March 17th, 2017 [March 17th, 2017]
- Imagine a Silicon Valley of the Sea - Bloomberg - March 17th, 2017 [March 17th, 2017]
- This Shipping Route Map Shows Why Floating Cities May Make Sense - Inverse - March 10th, 2017 [March 10th, 2017]
- 'Logan' proves Wolverine is the most libertarian superhero ever - Red Alert Politics - March 6th, 2017 [March 6th, 2017]
- Why French Polynesia Could Have the World's First Floating City - Architectural Digest - February 24th, 2017 [February 24th, 2017]
- Rethinking 21st Century needs - Newsday - February 23rd, 2017 [February 23rd, 2017]
- French Polynesia signs agreement for Floating Island Project - Bizcommunity.com - February 9th, 2017 [February 9th, 2017]
- Could Floating Cities Help Us Adapt to Climate Change? - Triple Pundit (registration) (blog) - February 6th, 2017 [February 6th, 2017]
- Seasteading | Book by Joe Quirk, Patri Friedman | Official ... - January 31st, 2017 [January 31st, 2017]
- Architectural Design Contest | The Seasteading Institute - January 27th, 2017 [January 27th, 2017]
- Tyler Cowen: Ahoy, young libertarian! Seasteading could ... - December 11th, 2016 [December 11th, 2016]
- Live Free or Drown: Floating Utopias on the Cheap | WIRED - September 3rd, 2016 [September 3rd, 2016]
- Seasteading Institute aims to build floating city by 2020 - August 10th, 2016 [August 10th, 2016]
- FAQ | The Seasteading Institute - July 5th, 2016 [July 5th, 2016]
- FAQ | The Seasteading Institute - July 3rd, 2016 [July 3rd, 2016]