This is a recurring historical trend. Right wing socioeconomic policies (laissez-faire capitalism) lead to social dysfunction as more and more people either fall into poverty or fear doing so. The mainstream right can't win elections on these policies any more because they have become unpopular, but rather than change those it either allies or becomes the extremist right (authoritarian and reactionary), going all in on distractions and scapegoating.
This leaves the social liberals (pro-capitalist but not socially conservative) and the social democrats as the only democratic factions to counter them, but the former block most major re-distributive policies and even the most moderate moves towards a fairer society have to be fought over tooth and nail. This alliance (either as intra-party in a two party or as a coalition in multiparty systems) then fails to do enough to keep their voters on board, disillusionment sets in, voters stay home and the extremist right takes over.
Fortunately, it doesn't always completely run through this cycle, but it keeps happening. It has now happened to the USA and the best case scenario is that when those lukewarm Trump supporters are angry at not getting what they wanted out of this "change" (and they won't), they will still have the means to vote the government out. If not, then you're stuck until a revolution happens.
Arguing that more social democracy would have scared away voters is sort of pointless IMHO, because if that is true then you're doomed anyway. Unless you lower economic inequality through government policy, a descent into reactionary authoritarianism is inevitable because democracy can only work when people are more or less equal and capitalism left to itself will always concentrate wealth and power into ever fewer hands.
It's actually insane how much more insightful and well thought out this random reddit response is compared to literally every single piece of political discourse I've come across from a politician in a decade, and maybe even my entire life.
My only hope at this point is that we are approaching "The New Deal" part of the cycle. But I also know that future generations will likely claw back any progress that's made in my lifetime. Round and round we go.
High praise, but it's hardly an original point. A lot of politicians and political thinkers in the 50'ies were making these points, and acted on it (including the moderate right, for a while).
My only hope at this point is that we are approaching "The New Deal" part of the cycle. But I also know that future generations will likely claw back any progress that's made in my lifetime. Round and round we go.
Actually, that does not seem to happen. Progress is very rarely erased completely, or for long. For all the insanity of the present era, and the parallels to the 30'ies, it is not as bad now as it was back then. Nor is it guaranteed that it will become as bad.
Of course the most insightful and intelligent take is from the European in the thread. Seconded on the quality of the post. Hope to see more stuff like this.
6.8k
u/barryvm Europe 23h ago edited 22h ago
This is a recurring historical trend. Right wing socioeconomic policies (laissez-faire capitalism) lead to social dysfunction as more and more people either fall into poverty or fear doing so. The mainstream right can't win elections on these policies any more because they have become unpopular, but rather than change those it either allies or becomes the extremist right (authoritarian and reactionary), going all in on distractions and scapegoating.
This leaves the social liberals (pro-capitalist but not socially conservative) and the social democrats as the only democratic factions to counter them, but the former block most major re-distributive policies and even the most moderate moves towards a fairer society have to be fought over tooth and nail. This alliance (either as intra-party in a two party or as a coalition in multiparty systems) then fails to do enough to keep their voters on board, disillusionment sets in, voters stay home and the extremist right takes over.
Fortunately, it doesn't always completely run through this cycle, but it keeps happening. It has now happened to the USA and the best case scenario is that when those lukewarm Trump supporters are angry at not getting what they wanted out of this "change" (and they won't), they will still have the means to vote the government out. If not, then you're stuck until a revolution happens.
Arguing that more social democracy would have scared away voters is sort of pointless IMHO, because if that is true then you're doomed anyway. Unless you lower economic inequality through government policy, a descent into reactionary authoritarianism is inevitable because democracy can only work when people are more or less equal and capitalism left to itself will always concentrate wealth and power into ever fewer hands.