- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
It seems to me that there is a strong air of self-righteous inevitability to the arguments of the modern ideological progressive wing and their allies in the neo-liberal corporate establishment in that they will ultimately be vindicated by history. I think you see this superficially manifested in the appeals to [Current Year] and that kind of thing, but at a deeper level they are often trying to legitimise themselves as the sole rightful inheritors of the moral authority of the last generation to fight real fascists and authoritarians who were undoubtedly on the right side of history. In their eyes, the current wave of populist, nationalist, protectionist backlash is only a temporary but worrying setback for the inexorable march of progress towards some kind of multi-kulti, open borders, humanitarian global utopia centered on a democratic Transatlantic axis. On the other side, the backlash is viewed not as a transient symptom of a troubled world but rather the decisive turning point for the reversal of the same process.
Who is right? Who will win the kulturkampf for the Western democracies?
I am unconvinced of the merits and reasoning of all the neo-liberal arguments, but the appeal to the extrapolation of historical trends in the shared politic discourse of the 20th century Western democracies is a powerful one, and the uncompromising air of moral superiority seems to severely limit further room for reasoned opposition. On the other hand, when the historical trend is viewed in terms of the gradual devolution of the post-Cold War order of sole-superpower American hegemony to a more traditional multipolar great power model, it seems reasonable to posit a general turn towards nationalist protectionism and the fracturing of the Transatlantic supranational axis, with simultaneous erosion of some of the progressive and neo-liberal values represented by that axis.
I am not too confident about my odds of accurately picking the winning side, though if I had to hazard a guess, I would say the deck is stacked in favor of the existing neo-liberal establishment. They enjoy the benefits of a half-century of incumbency in power and a strong strategic alliance with the global corporate interests and the mouthpieces of popular media. It is definitely an uphill battle for the other side, and while I am tempted to fully cast in my lot with them and empathize with their struggle, I often feel it would be far more prudent to sit it out and wait for more incontrovertible signs of a decisive turning point in the historical trend.
Who is right? Who will win the kulturkampf for the Western democracies?
I am unconvinced of the merits and reasoning of all the neo-liberal arguments, but the appeal to the extrapolation of historical trends in the shared politic discourse of the 20th century Western democracies is a powerful one, and the uncompromising air of moral superiority seems to severely limit further room for reasoned opposition. On the other hand, when the historical trend is viewed in terms of the gradual devolution of the post-Cold War order of sole-superpower American hegemony to a more traditional multipolar great power model, it seems reasonable to posit a general turn towards nationalist protectionism and the fracturing of the Transatlantic supranational axis, with simultaneous erosion of some of the progressive and neo-liberal values represented by that axis.
I am not too confident about my odds of accurately picking the winning side, though if I had to hazard a guess, I would say the deck is stacked in favor of the existing neo-liberal establishment. They enjoy the benefits of a half-century of incumbency in power and a strong strategic alliance with the global corporate interests and the mouthpieces of popular media. It is definitely an uphill battle for the other side, and while I am tempted to fully cast in my lot with them and empathize with their struggle, I often feel it would be far more prudent to sit it out and wait for more incontrovertible signs of a decisive turning point in the historical trend.