I read in The Economist, in an article called “Will Europe’s Green parties be the new leaders of the political left?“, a helpful way to view contemporary political polarization. Here’s the section:
If I’m understanding correctly, the reason that the far-left and far-right are becoming popular is because both are founded on these “post-materialist values”.
I understand that postmaterialism emerged in the 1970s to help explain the self-actualization of the younger generation, who valued personal experience and happiness over economics (because they could afford to). It just had never occurred to me that such values were the foundation of thought for the current political edges. The far-right is post-materialistic in that they value nationalism and homogeneous culture above material considerations. The far-left values environmentalism (Europe) or personal identity (America) above material considerations.
It does make sense. The conflict between Marxism and liberalism marked the 20th century. I had always thought of the two philosophies as diametrically opposed. At the same time, I teach that there are historically two forms of liberalism: the political (Locke, Jefferson, et. al.) and the economic (i.e. free trade). In contemporary times, it is possible to see globalism as the updated form of economic liberalism. But what is the updated form of political liberalism?
It’s not what is called “neo-liberalism”, obviously — that is also primarily economic, and retro because it brings back the initial forms of liberal capitalism that treated workers like dirt and believed in a nasty form of natural selection that sacrificed humanity.
There’s a gap here that is neither right nor left, but is more basic. I’ve said for years (to anyone who would listen) that if liberal democracy is to survive, it needs to come up with a damn good argument as to why it’s the best system. It’s rested on its laurels for fall too long, to the point where during my own lifetime it was just assumed as best, the system that other nations would implement if they could just get more advanced. It’s time to think like Jefferson and, as he said about the Declaration of Independence, “place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent”. If liberalism is materialistic, someone better justify what materialism is important. If democracy is good, someone must tell us why.
In the absence of a proper, cogent, meaningful, and plain argument for liberal democracy, the fringes have more space. And these fringes don’t even acknowledge arguments for liberal democracy or Marxism, because both are based on materialism.
Certainly Tr*&p voters know want material things (jobs, money). Tr*&p’s government is not only reneging on its promises to provide material prosperity, it is actively making the finances of poorer people worse, and yet his supporters won’t hear a word against him even as he steals their food. That can only mean that a deeper philosophy is at play which is post-material. The wall (as a symbol of these values) matters more than food and money.
That may seem strange except for a 2011 study by Suzanne Mettler of Cornell University. I’ve been thinking about it for years. In 2008, 1,400 people were asked whether they had ever used a government social program. 57% said no. Of those, 94% had. They’d received food stamps, social security benefits, unemployment compensation, student loans, etc. This gave me the idea that many people do not understand the role of government at all, much less how they benefit from it. It may seem illogical that people would, for example, push for budget cuts to programs that benefit them (the original focus of Mettler’s study). But it makes more sense if the problem is principle rather than facts.
This post-material focus also helps explain the tendency, noted in this piece in the Washington Post, for people to believe untrue things. It’s confirmation bias gone amok. The woman in the story believes the “fake news” about the two women in red because it “was true to what she knew of their character”. The overall idea is far more important than the actual facts because it’s the principle that matters, rather than what happened. Facts carry the taint of the material.
So if Emilie van Haute is right (and I suspect she is, since she’s studied this stuff for years), there is no way to get everyone back together and stop the polarizing forces that are at play. It might be better to acknowledge the deep attachments people have to things other than money and goods, and work from there.
