Centrist politicians once based their whole pitch on the claim to possess “electability,” but now they can’t offer a sustainable formula for beating an increasingly militant right. They only develop a sense of urgency for the fight against the Left.
The reelection of Trump, once seen as a hostile insurgent within the Republican Party but now its unquestioned master, sums up the collapse of the boundary fence that once separated the mainstream right from politicians like Le Pen or Farage. If the political mainstream on both sides of the Atlantic has proved far more accommodating to the far right than the radical left — even when the latter forces have been calling for reforms that were the standard fare of social democracy a few decades ago — there is a simple reason for that.
It is relatively easy to satisfy the far right by targeting a vulnerable minority, from immigrants to trans people. Taking up even a fairly modest left-wing policy proposal, on the other hand, will soon bring you into conflict with powerful corporate interests and lobbies. That is why it is now Donald Trump’s Republican Party, but not the Democratic Party of Bernie Sanders. It is also why governments dominated by Giorgia Meloni and Geert Wilders can hold power in two of the European Union’s founding states, while parties of the radical left have been marginalized or subordinated.
To put it another way, it’s not that right’s base wants to target minorities (and indeed, they use their fervent belief they are not racists as a contrarian point to demonstrate how the left doesn’t “get” them). It’s that they are satisfied with framing the issue as a need to oppress some marginalized group. There is little else needed, they just need an excuse to “fall in line” and immigration etc provides that ably. Similarly, because the right already favors corporations and has built it into their “small government” ethos, they face no pushback and indeed corporations are gleefully obsequiousness to right-wing leaders.
The left on the other hand both has higher standards (i.e., the need to “fall in love”) and is also in policy friction with businesses. Even businesses that view their culture as progressive will fight reform that decreases profits, so support is never truly aligned. The “neoliberal” left feels they can reconcile that friction either by Bernaysian PR, self-interest game theory (which infuriated quite a few here during the election), or soft-walking anti-corporate reform. But they are playing with the deck stacked against them, so it’s no doubt they lose.
The most insightful line is here:
To put it another way, it’s not that right’s base wants to target minorities (and indeed, they use their fervent belief they are not racists as a contrarian point to demonstrate how the left doesn’t “get” them). It’s that they are satisfied with framing the issue as a need to oppress some marginalized group. There is little else needed, they just need an excuse to “fall in line” and immigration etc provides that ably. Similarly, because the right already favors corporations and has built it into their “small government” ethos, they face no pushback and indeed corporations are gleefully obsequiousness to right-wing leaders.
The left on the other hand both has higher standards (i.e., the need to “fall in love”) and is also in policy friction with businesses. Even businesses that view their culture as progressive will fight reform that decreases profits, so support is never truly aligned. The “neoliberal” left feels they can reconcile that friction either by Bernaysian PR, self-interest game theory (which infuriated quite a few here during the election), or soft-walking anti-corporate reform. But they are playing with the deck stacked against them, so it’s no doubt they lose.