Extremism is the Problem

Every time there is a vile extremist attack which the perpetrators claim to be a response to some feature they denounce, there is a tendency to jump in and defend that feature as sacrosanct.  

So, if the extremists rant about a cartoon or a book that has so offended them that they set off to kill the people responsible, the public reaction is filled with the championing of free speech, the freedom to offend, the freedom to express whatever one wishes to express, and so on.  If the extremists attribute their violent attacks on a place of worship to their disgust with certain religious practice, we will hear that there must be absolute religious freedom, no limit on what people can do in the name of their faith, etc. Or if the extremists have set off explosions at some business facility because it was used for commercial purpose which has ‘undesirable’ consequences, there will be an outcry that corporate freedom must be protected, and nothing can justify any interference with the work of free enterprise.

There are two things wrong with this type of reaction. First of all, it takes the public focus away from the real issue – how to tackle extremist behaviour.  We can debate what is and what is not offensive with certain text or picture, the merits of a particular religious custom, or the acceptability of certain corporate activity.  But regardless of those debates, the central point is that extremist behaviour cannot be tolerated and must be stopped. What we are concerned with here is the threatening, injuring, and taking of others’ lives when those people have not in any objective sense, intentionally threatened, injured or taken anyone else’s lives. It is a serious deflection to get bogged down about where the line should be drawn in terms of possible provocation of extremist behaviour, because nothing can justify extremist behaviour, and reference to provocation is irrelevant when the priority is for potential perpetrators to be watched and actual offenders prevented from harming others again [Note 1].

Secondly, the tendency to regard ‘absolute freedom’ for expression, religion, business, or anything else for that matter, as a riposte to extremist behaviour is misguided. Imagine someone shouts the nastiest abuse at their children repeatedly, and an extremist shoots him dead. Should the response be that we should recognise the absolute freedom for parents to express themselves to their children? Or after an extremist runs over a person who has been giving out leaflets stating how drinking bleach can improve health, should that lead to a championing of the absolute freedom to give ‘medical’ advice?  The last thing society needs after a terrible extremist attack is the promotion of a false notion of ‘absolute freedom’ which can then be invoked to justify the spreading of lies, hatred, discrimination, pollution, and other forms of harm.

We should not forget that a distorted conception of freedom has dangerous affinity with extremists’ conviction that they are free to do whatever they believe is right.

--

Note 1: How to prevent re-offending through incarceration, restitution, rehabilitation, etc is a separate issue to consider.

Economics: a timeline to remember

1920s

After the First World War, Europe’s economy was devastated. The world looked to the US for recovery, but from 1921 to 1933, three successive Republican presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover) chose to privilege the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else. Corporate bosses paid less and less in tax while their exploitation of workers went unchecked. Even as the productivity of workers in manufacturing went up by 32% (1923-1929), their pay only increased by 8%, while company profits rose 62%. By 1929, 0.1% of Americans controlled 34% of all savings, and 80% of the population had no savings at all.

1930s

Corporate profiteers kept pushing prices up, and as wages lagged further and further behind, people were driven to borrowing more than ever. Many were also enticed to gamble by buying shares which appeared to be a quick way of making money. But by the early 1930s, vast numbers could not afford to pay back their loans, consumer demand plummeted, and share prices began to spiral down – the Great Depression had arrived.  

The British economist, John M. Keynes, diagnosed the problem as one which could only be solved by a sustainable boost to demand – in other words, not by individual borrowing, but by the government investing national funds (via public projects and services) into resources for individuals who could then buy goods and services which would in turn create jobs to sustain consumption and generate tax revenue to replenish national funds. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the US demonstrated how Keynes’ approach would work in practice in reviving the economy.  He also backed the Glass–Steagall Act (1933) which introduced regulations to prevent irresponsible lending by financial institutions that might lead to a banking crisis.

1940s

The UK was in a dire economic position after the Second World War. Labour won power under Clement Attlee and adopted the Keynesian approach that prioritised investment in supporting the general population and reviving the economy. With the creation of the NHS, a large-scale house building programme, and provision of social security, the standards of living began to climb significantly.

1950s-1960s

The Keynesian consensus in the US and the UK continued to improve their economic performance.  After Labour returned to office under Harold Wilson in 1964, its support for technical education and development of infrastructure helped to turn the record balance of payment deficit of £800 million under the Conservatives into a healthy surplus.

1970s-1990s

The Arab-Israeli War of 1973 led to a global oil crisis and disrupted the economies in many countries. New Right advocates such as Thatcher and Reagan took the opportunity to reject Keynesian ideas and pushed the neoliberal agenda of tougher controls over worker unions, drastic cuts to public services, and extensive deregulation of business practices. In 1986, Thatcher’s Conservative government deregulated the financial sector – opening the door to irresponsible lending that would jeopardise personal savings. This was followed by US Republicans who secured the passing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act of 1999 to similarly remove cautious restraints on banks and investment firms.

2000s

Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown followed Keynesian approaches again and their investment in education, health, policing led to notable rise in prosperity, the highest satisfaction rate with the NHS, and reduction in crime levels. But neither they nor Democrat President Clinton in the US, reversed the Conservative/Republican-led financial deregulation which still allowed merged financial institutions to lend irresponsibly and risk ordinary savers losing all their money, and in 2008, that caused the financial crisis.

2010s-2020s

In the UK, the Conservatives pretended the global financial crisis was caused by Labour’s public spending when it was actually brought about by the neoliberal deregulation introduced by the political right. Gaining power in 2010, they pushed aside the Keynesian approach and imposed austerity that kept wages low, cut public services severely, pushed more people into poverty, and drove the economy further into recession. Weakened by Brexit, the UK under the Conservatives was further hit by the Covid pandemic and the wider cost of living crisis, and without any coherent strategy to revive the economy in line with Keynesian thinking, the country is trapped by rising inflation, falling wages, widespread hunger, business collapses, and decimated public services.

For the last 100 years, the Conservatives have been the party of economic incompetence.

--

For more details, see Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle, by Henry Tam: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Power-Inequalities-progressive-struggle/dp/1499144636

Tax Cuts Q&A

[Conservative politicians can’t stop talking about ‘tax cuts’. But rarely are they pressed to explain why it’s the be all and end all of their politics.  Perhaps something like the internal Q&A briefing we have for those seeking to stand as a Tory or Republican candidate may illuminate the matter]

Q: Why must I say ‘tax cuts’ at least three times at every interview?

A: People love hearing ‘tax cuts’. The more you say it, the more you’re liked.

Q: But then I have to explain public service cuts, won’t I?

A: Absolutely not. Don’t say a word about the public service cuts that will come with tax cuts. If people think you’re going to cut the health service, the police, education, housing, and all the rest, you’d be in trouble.

Q: What if someone brings it up? We cut taxes, we have less money to fund public services, public services will end up with more cuts.

A: If an interviewer does bring it up, do this – frown, look disdainful and ask rhetorically “are you yet another leftie sympathiser?”

Q: What if they brush that aside and keep pressing about the public service cuts that would result from tax cuts.

A: Then switch to this ‘full of self-confidence’ look, and say “On the contrary, tax cuts would generate more revenue, and there’d be more money for public services.”

Q: So I can promise tax cuts and more funds for public services.

A: Under no circumstance should you say that. The chance is that we would want to cut public services. Read your background papers, our tax cuts don’t generally help the economy, just our rich supporters. Things don’t trickle down. When it suits us, we would say that public finances are tight, and we must act responsibly and cut wasteful public services.

Q: And ‘wasteful’ is a code for essential public services, while our subsidies to big corporations will continue?

A: That is correct.  Furthermore, as soon as you mention public finances being in a difficult position, it’s your chance to go on about tax cuts again. Tax cuts will revive the economy.

Q: But actually tax cuts won’t revive the economy, will they?

A: Not the tax cuts we have in mind. If we cut taxes for the poorest, and increase taxes for the richest, that might help, but let’s face it, we’re going to do precisely the opposite.

Q: So, when inflation is going up, and many people on low to average income just can’t afford even the basic necessities in the face of rising prices, we will bring in tax cuts in the name of driving up spending power – but wouldn’t that push inflation up even more?

A: Just say something like “our monetarist-fiscal approach will ensure inflation is brought under control”. Nobody will have a clue what that means. We certainly don’t.

Q: Why don’t we increase public sector pay? That would nudge up private sector pay as well, and people won’t be left in such dire circumstances not being able to buy the things they desperately need.

A: First of all, we don’t want to help public sector workers. The worse things get for the public sector, the more excuse we have for cutting it. Second of all, the last thing we want is pressure on the private sector to pay the low earners more. For heaven’s sake, our main donors back us because we’re always poised to help them enrich themselves while keeping their workers’ pay as low as they can get away with.

Q: I probably should just keep going on about tax cuts and not get into any real discussion about our policies?

A: You’ve got it.

Pluralism, Not Relativism

Many people rightly support pluralism, but without due care quite a few have ended up promoting relativism.

And is that bad? Consider this.

Pluralism means that we accept there are different ways to explore problems, experience diverse forms of living, try out options in response to changing circumstances.

Relativism means that any solution put forward, every way we might treat one another, and whatever proposal offered to deal with the issues we face, is as equally valid as any other.

Pluralists believe we cannot dogmatically declare there is only one unquestionable source of information or a single set of customs by which everyone must live their lives.  We need to explore and experiment, criticise and compare, and see what we can learn from the results of diverse pursuits in science, culture, and politics.

Relativists, on the other hand, are adamant that regardless of what have been found, there is nothing to choose between different responses to questions about causal relations, moral requirements, or policy efficacy. However incompatible they are to each other, contrary to the available evidence, or inherently incoherent, every view is correct in its own right.

While pluralism enables people to follow diverse paths – provided they do not harm others – relativism leads us to the dubious position of standing back from criticising, let alone preventing, any behaviour even though it is damaging other people’s lives.  The problem here is that flawed reasoning can take us from embracing all harmless ways to seek answers in life, to passing no judgement on anything regardless of the harm it is causing.

For example, we should test out different scientific hypotheses rather than simply claim we somehow know which is correct; we should let people follow diverse religious practices to connect with their sense of the divine; and we should be open-minded in considering the merits of a variety of policies to improve community relations. However, it makes no sense to pretend that a hypothesis which has failed every test is as valid as one which has been confirmed by nearly all experiments; a practice that calls for taking others’ lives cannot be tolerated in the name of religious freedom; and any policy involving the promotion of hatred and violence against vulnerable groups cannot be regarded as a viable option for increasing social harmony.

Some argue that it comes down to the interpretation of the evidence.  But is there to be no differentiation between sound and untenable interpretations? What if someone maintains that what others see as a failed experiment is a case of them being deceived by the devil, or the apparent suffering of a child is actually a sign of ‘god’ welcoming the child into heaven.  What this tells us is that we must have objective means to assess what we experience.  We must openly test and cross-check our respective records and observations, and arrive at conclusions that stand up to shared scrutiny.  If any experience can just be interpreted in any way that someone wants to, and that is declared valid beyond all criticism, then we would be at the end of all possible discussion.

The ‘Strongmen’ Delusion

There was a time in the 1990s when, following the end of Soviet rule and the South African apartheid regime, there was widespread hope that the authoritarianism personified by the likes of Hitler and Stalin had become a thing of the past.  But that optimism proved short-lived.

In the West, the Watergate experience of holding US President Nixon to account for breaking the law has given way to Republicans backing Trump in undermining the electoral system and instigating the storming of the Capitol. In the East, China’s decision to avoid a repeat of Mao by sharing out the top power positions was nullified by the Communist Party’s acceptance of Xi Jinping’s moves to concentrate power in himself. In Russia, Gorbachev’s attempts to move towards open democratic rule have been firmly reversed by Putin. The collapse of dictatorships in many other parts of the world during the 1990s has been succeeded by a return to power of numerous right-wing authoritarians.

Many indicators point to a resurgence of ‘Strongmen’ politics. A survey in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential elections found that over a third of voters (Democrats as well as Republicans) said that “being a strong leader was the most important quality when picking a president” – doubled the level for the 2012 elections (Easley, 2016). A study by the Hansard Society reported that over half of the British voters questioned wanted "a strong leader willing to break the rules," with 42% of them going so far as to believe that “many of the country's problems could be dealt with more effectively if the government didn't have to worry so much about votes in Parliament” (John, 2019). Significant electoral gains by authoritarian nationalist politicians in Europe, and victories for the likes of Modi, Duterte, Bolsonaro, confirm the trend of a global expansion of illiberal political control (Repucci & Slipowitz, 2022).

Is this trend irreversible? One thing we must remember is that authoritarians are adept at fooling people, but not for long. Their inherent traits of seeking to dominate others for their personal gains irrespective of the harm to others are inevitably exposed. They all divert vast sums of public money to benefit themselves, use state security to intimidate opposition, prefer to keep a small clique of wealthy elite on side while ignoring the plight of the masses, waste public funds on vanity projects, stir up animosity against vulnerable scapegoats, undermine judicial independence, and subvert electoral arrangements to suit their own ambitions.  After they have won power, their callousness and incompetence invariably increase public suffering.  The problem is that after a few decades, later generations forget what happened before, and too many fall for the lies and pseudo-patriotism again.

To halt the spread of authoritarianism, we must constantly remind people of its false promises and calamitous consequences. Furthermore, we should recognise that strong leadership is important when people need assurance that effective actions would be taken, and it ought to be provided in a form that legitimately inspires confidence, rather than through the rhetorical trickery offered by the authoritarian ‘strongmen’ type.

Researchers from London Business School (Hemant Kakkar and Niro Sivanathan) examined the preferences of 140,000 people in 69 countries over the last two decades, and found that loss of job security and increasing economic hardships tend to lead more people to seek out leaders who give the impression that they would do whatever it takes to get things done (Ferris, 2018). With economic problems worsening, it must not be left to bullish charlatans to present themselves as the only ‘strong’ leaders around.  Progressive politicians have to step up and show the public their passion, determination, and focus in getting everyone to a better tomorrow.

After all, the greatest political leaders who have delivered substantial and lasting improvements to people’s lives in the most challenging of times – think of F. D. Roosevelt, Clement Attlee – are far from meek and hesitant. Others threw the wildest accusations against them, denounced them relentlessly, but they were bold in their vision, and formidable in driving through the necessary changes. The strength they showed is the real strength we now need.

--

References:

Easley, Cameron (2016) ‘Voters Want a Strong Leader More Than Anything Else, Exit Poll Shows’, Morning Consult (November 8) . https://morningconsult.com/2016/11/08/voters-want-strong-leader-anything-else-exit-poll-shows/

Ferris, Robert (2018) ‘Why voters might be choosing dominant, authoritarian leaders around the world’, CNBC (June 12) . https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/why-voters-might-be-choosing-dominant-authoritarian-leaders-around-the-world.html

John, Tara (2019) ‘More than half of UK voters want 'strong, rule-breaking' leader, says survey’, CNN (April 8) . https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/08/uk/hansard-strong-leader-brexit-poll-gbr-intl/index.html

Repucci, S. and Slipowitz, A. (2022) ‘The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule’, Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule

Politics & the Need for Belonging

Progressives tend to have a common frustration – policies which on any objective analysis would improve people’s quality of life end up time and time again being sidelined because more voters give their support to politicians who reject those policies. Worst of all, what those anti-progressive politicians offer instead are actions that would cause greater harm and suffering for most people.

Repeatedly we see charlatans elected on the basis of their rhetoric about helping people take back control, regain their freedom, become great again – when in practice they invariably prioritise the use of legislative power and public resources to help corporate collaborators, and undermine services for the common good and cut support for those in need.

Right-leaning media and manipulation of social media play their part in political deception, but the deeper question is why large number of people are so susceptible to such lies.

At the heart of the matter is the need for belonging.

We all want to belong to something larger than ourselves – a set of mutually supportive relationships with family and friends; a group with shared interests, expertise, concerns; or a set of connections derived from common customs, beliefs, nationality. When people find themselves cut off from these, they tend to become more driven than ever to find something else that would include them as “one of their own”.

Since the 1980s, the rise of market individualism – encapsulated by phrases such as “there is no such thing as society” and “greed is good” – has led to large scale disruption of social connections. Actively supported by Thatcher, Reagan and other champions of the New Right, profiteering became the overriding force in takeovers, asset stripping, mass redundancies, with worker unions drastically weakened, and public infrastructure for collective protection privatised or dismantled.

Hit by rapid changes and constant economic uncertainties, more and more families came under mounting strain, schools were turned into training centres for corporate fodder, the workplace seized to be a source of social bonds, and communities were shattered by corporate decisions which served owners who lived far away with no concern for the socio-economic devastation they left behind.

Over the last few decades, as increasing number of people yearn to find substitutes for the connections that have been lost, the New Right has taken their celebration of egoism to the next level – now their mantra is Don’t let anyone get in your way of getting what you want, namely, the GOOD OLD DAYS. The ‘good old days’, it turns out, means a time when every man (yes, man) is free to do whatever it takes to pursue HIS dream, without any government getting in his way with taxes, immigrants taking away his livelihood, unions obstructing his employment choices, women demanding their rights, or ‘deviants’ trampling all over sacred traditions.

This ‘Good Old Days’ shtick – in its MAGA, Brexit, or other guises – has proven to be extremely attractive for a lot of people, making them feel that for all the important things they have lost, they have gained the precious status of belonging to a group who will stand together for a return to the time when a man can freely blame and insult whomever he wants.

The only way to help people get out of this fog of lies and misdirection, is to show them that there is something genuinely meaningful and valuable that they can be a part of – a community wherein they will be respected as they respect others, given a helping hand if they need one as they are ready to lend a hand to those in need, and able to attain a far better quality of life for themselves and their families than if people were left to the mercy of powerful exploiters.

Who Helps Wins

Progressive politicians keep bemoaning the challenges they face. The Right get more money to generate publicity, have no compunction with pumping out fake news, are devious with deploying misleading claims, and can always count on media moguls happy to divert public frustration towards a multitude of scapegoats. In response, progressives struggle to come up with strategies, slogans, narratives, that would win over the electorate.

But what people want is real help with their problems. They are not asking for a political vision to change their world. They are not waiting for a new narrative to reframe public debates. They are certainly not pondering as to which party can come up with a more convincing strategy. They just want help with what is making their lives difficult, and they are desperate to find out if someone will offer it.

In the US, the Democrats are dreading they will lose control of Congress because, among other things, they have not managed to pass the Build Back Better plan with its promise of nearly $2 trillion social spending. In the UK, Labour’s pinning its hope on the Tories imploding over Partygate while its own offer is still barely registered with the public. In France, the Left were not even able to mount a challenge to Macron in the presidential run-off when that was taken up by the far-right instead.

Again and again, progressives find themselves stuck in the shadow, hardly seen as the political force dedicated to solving problems inclusively and democratically, but mostly caricaturised as figures obsessed with issues tangential to people’s everyday concerns. What they must do is focus on giving people the help they really want – help with the setting up of thriving enterprise, obtaining decent jobs, meeting the basic needs for food and energy, securing an affordable home, having access to good healthcare, living in friendly and stable communities, and being well protected from bigotry and criminal behaviour.

Progressive groups should form social enterprise to offer goods and services at the lowest possible prices, organise community support networks to provide for those caught in poverty, and develop advisory and advocacy service to help people get what they need from private and public bodies (e.g., jobs, housing, utilities), especially if any of these prove to be unresponsive or discriminatory. Fund raising, income generation, and volunteer support would be channelled to sustain and where appropriate, expand these provisions.

Instead of asking for donations to run election campaigns which connect with people only once every so many years, this help-focused approach would create a day-to-day relationship for progressives and the communities they work with. As part of this process, they can readily explain that things can improve further provided key obstacles are removed through particular local and central government actions, and these will happen if the people themselves back the progressives in the elections to come.

There is no mystery to how community-based enterprise and support network can be successfully developed.  The book, Tomorrow’s Communities, is full of evidence and examples regarding how it can be done. The challenge is to integrate that into progressive grassroot politics. Make the offer of help an everyday experience for all who seek it.

Who helps wins.