I woke up this morning thinking about the type of people who are thrown up by our political systems and put before us for election. I have spent the last few days mulling over the surge of support for Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership bid and that alone would have given me reason enough to put this rant down on paper. But the actual spark came from a member of that monument to democracy, the Bush dynasty.
The mantle of political entitlement has now passed to Jeb and he picks up where his celebrated brother left off by completely misunderstanding the world around him. This week he made a few headlines with his outrage at Obama’s plan to extend overtime coverage to managers earning below $50,440 per year (essentially reducing the possibility of lower salaried workers being forced to work additional hours for no extra pay). Jeb was stunned by this frivolity and, on top of claiming that Americans need to work more hours, not less, he showed his finely tuned economic skills by telling us that this new rule would result in less overtime pay and less wages earned. Sensible members of the human race (and a few economists) were quick to point out the many flaws in this reasoning. First of all, by curbing the exploitation of some managers, employers would be forced to use more workers and/or additional overtime to pay to cover the same workload. The argument that companies would cut salaries to compensate for this new rule is just not credible.
The post-2008 political landscape in Europe has been littered with public discontent and protest. In Spain and Greece this has manifested itself in revolt against the European establishment and a refusal to be bound by the financial practices of the past. In England, immigration has raced to the forefront of the political agenda, while in Scotland and Catalunya nationalism has come to the fore in a way that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago. In France the National Front has eroded support for the rightwing UMP while simultaneously appealing to much of the working class. Even Germany has not been immune to an element of political unrest.
Although the principles underlying these movements may differ greatly, it would be foolish not to wonder if there is a common denominator running through European protest. If history has taught us anything it is that the lines separating socialist uprisings from fascist popularity are not as clear as we may like to think. Political movements often thrive on the charisma of their leaders and their ability to build a narrative that chimes with the misery or discontent of the public. In Germany’s broken socioeconomic structure of the 1920’s it could easily have been the communists who came to power on a wave of popular support instead of the National Socialists. But the Nazis were more adept at political maneuvering and public manipulation. One of the many lessons available from this episode however is that most individuals are not remotely concerned with political ideology. Instead they back parties that offer the best guarantee of personal and collective security. This security can and does take many shapes, but it is the desire to protect one’s self and one’s security that is at the core of electoral and public decision-making. But electoral decisions are also often made with rejection in mind – rejection of the incumbent political force and policies. Under these circumstances, a clear and workable alternative vision matters less, since the public desire to oust those who have led them into darker times will often be sufficient to create political change. This is the predominant theme in modern politics and since voters are often hard pressed to identify the core differences between candidates, a vote for one is largely just a rejection of the other.
But the current wave of demonstrations across Europe is about something greater than electoral choice, it represents a rejection of modern politics. The SNP, UKIP and the Catalan nationalists may promote very different ideals but all try to tap into the disenchantment of voters in the face of globalised, neoliberal politics administered from a distant centre of power. All seek to recapture a real or imaginary notion of local identity from the clutches of external bureaucratic institutions. All offer a vision of the future which appeals to those who want a greater say in shaping their local culture and society. As citizens feel increasingly distant from the centre of power they strive to have a greater say in organising their communities in a way which is consistent with their own beliefs and identity rather than those of policymakers in London, Madrid or Brussels.
With capitalism in the doldrums and a general election nearly upon us it is the season to reflect on how we might manage to convert the neoliberal, market-driven free-for-all of our current society into something we might actually like to live in. Will Hutton set the ball rolling in the Guardian yesterday with a lengthy promotion of his new book, which lays out a new framework for building “smart societies.” Hutton’s critique of the existing order raises some salient points and only those living on the moon over the last generation or three could have failed to notice that “problems in the British economy and society run deep.” He is also right in asserting that, if “there are no networks of reciprocal obligation, and no acknowledgement that human beings associate in a society they can construct, redesign and reform around those principles, then we are all reduced to atomistic consumers and workers – serfs who are no more than notations in the spreadsheets of companies and public bodies alike.”
The problem with Hutton’s analysis, however, is that he still puts business and wealth creation at the heart of society. “The aim of any manifesto for change” says Hutton “must be to create the smartest economy for Britain – it is the only route to prosperity in the decades ahead.” Refining the mechanisms of wealth generation is all very well but surely this should not take precedence over the social and human fabric of the world we live in. Unfortunately, Hutton is a little sketchy on this issue and even though he is adamant that businesses should not solely tools of stock market speculation, he also declares that “companies are organisations of genius, solving problems, innovating and delivering great goods and services.” ICI, GEC and Rolls Royce are all used to show Britain’s great industrial tradition but he conveniently forgets recent allegations of corruption and bribery in the latter.
Over the last few days I’ve been watching the strange debate over vaccinations unfold in the USA. Senator Rand Paul, libertarian and potential Republican Presidential nominee, fired the opening shots by claiming that vaccinations should be voluntary and to make them otherwise is an infringement of the parents’ freedom of choice. This stance is in fact nothing new for Senator Paul who has previously stated his belief – widely discredited by the medical profession – that vaccinations can cause mental disability. Perhaps he is talking from personal experience.
Not to be outdone however is his rival for the Republican nomination, Governor Chris Christie, who was confronted during his bizarre PR trip to London over his comments that there should be “some measure of choice” in whether children are vaccinated against measles and other contagious diseases.
For many of us in Europe it seems incredible that individuals holding such discredited and, some would say, uninformed views would get anywhere near the top of the political tree. (Not that European politicians are necessarily any more sensible, they just hide it better!) It only reinforces the belief that political power is bought rather than earned. However, there are two interesting factors at play in a situation like this. First is the seemingly unbreakable bond between America’s citizens and its Constitution. The Constitution has a mystical, almost religious quality in American life which allows it to maintain a dominant position over any ruling government. The belief and respect for this document cannot be understated and it was interesting to hear that Edward Snowden chose to become the world’s most high-profile whistleblower out of a desire to defend the Constitution. It is revered for its guarantees of individual liberty and the limits it puts on government power and is thus frequently cited by libertarians to support a freedom of choice and action. It is a document that has influenced not only national democracy but has also shaped what it means to be American. Any political reference to individual freedom is thus an appeal to both the Constitution and the heart of American identity.