Professor in the Department of Economics Dmitry Travin on how political battle is changing in the aftermath of social conflicts.
The phenomenon of Donald Trump elicits ever more surprises. The ambitious outsider billionaire won this week’s “Super Tuesday” and is now rapidly approaching victory in the Republican primaries—even though recently a large number of competent analysts convincingly explained that candidates like Trump never win.
Indeed, according to the usual logic, society should reject such a figure. Trump is too rich, which repels many voters who fear the rule of a plutocracy. Trump is politically incorrect, which alienates minorities. He isn’t appreciated by the establishment of his own party, which alienates orthodox Republicans. But still he’s in the lead.
The issue, as it seems, is that the world has changed drastically in the 21st century, and the regular logic of political analysts has now ceased to work. The phenomenon of Trump shows that the key social conflicts today are not the same as they were previously, and the political battle behind them is changing radically.
What did politicians in the West fight for in the 20th century? Roughly speaking, for the redistribution of the GDP from the rich to the poor. The left wanted to take more, guided by the well-known principle of “take and share.” The right resisted, referencing the fact that under this approach, the economy would stop working. Eventually they arrived at some standard from which it was difficult to deviate. The tax burden is high, but not exorbitant. The government regulates the economy, but preserves the dominance of private property. The less fortunate are allowed to live on “welfare,” but people with initiative possess various opportunities.
A sharp turn to the right for any politician would mean a great loss of the electorate that is interested in the functioning of the welfare state. A sharp turn to the left for any government would mean the flight of capital and a decrease in the effectiveness of the economy, which would also ultimately lead to the loss of voters. The right and the left look similar today, and the votes they gain don’t so much uphold their traditional values as they strive not to offend anyone too much. Hence maximal political correctness and the striving of leaders to resemble average Americans, average Germans, etc. When commentators spoke about the low odds of Trump winning, they correctly noted that he is definitely not “average.”
But here’s the trouble: no sooner had society sort of worked out the key conflict of the 20th century (the redistribution of the GDP), when another conflict began to grow. It stemmed from the process of globalization, which by all accounts became a significant phenomenon only 30-40 years ago. Should we allow migrants or not? Should customs barriers be lowered? Should we switch to the Euro? Should some sovereignty be transferred to Brussels? How do we deal with the outflow of capital to developing countries? Should we protect tradition and the environment, or stimulate economic development at any price? Western society is increasingly divided into groups in accordance with how people answer these questions, rather than by the old principle of “the bourgeoisie against the working class”.
But generals, as it’s known, are always preparing for the previous war, and politicians—for the previous political battle. The lieutenant who understands the essence of the future war is unlikely to rise to general in peacetime: he’ll be smudged out. And the young politician who understands that the world has become a different place in the 21st century is unlikely to pass through the party screening of perspective cadres. But you can’t stamp out Trump: he’s rich, smart, brash, and artful. He broke onto the political scene through all barriers, and all of a sudden it turned out that it was precisely this persona that a significant number of voters in the 21st century demanded—despite the tons of political analysis wastepaper saying that this can’t be, because it never could be.
Trump proposes to fence off Mexico and deport people living illegally in the United States. He is sharply against Muslims. Trump feigns that a huge Western country can exist without migration. Of course, Trump is capable of losing the election. But afterward it will be impossible to pretend that politics of the 21st century still live by the same principles as the last. One cannot speak endlessly about the problems of the past, all the while driving the problems of the future into the realm of the politically incorrect. And most importantly, one cannot pretend that certain important processes that are now occurring in Europe are accidental. “Trumpification” is taking place there as well, though still without such striking figures as the American billionaire.
David Cameron’s war with Brussels over the rights of Great Britain in the European Union recently ended. Before that, Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer chastised Angela Merkel over immigration policy. In 2015 Alexis Tsipras manipulated Greece with the help of anti-Brussels rhetoric. In 2014 Marine Le Pen, with the “National Front,” startled France with a good showing in the European parliamentary elections. All of this is, by and large, a manifestation of the same new trend—the strengthening of those politicians who are ready to limit various manifestations of globalization, relying upon a conservative electorate.
Some pay attention to the unjust demands of European bureaucrats, some to the influx of immigrants, some to the ineffectiveness of a single currency. But as a matter of fact, all of them play on the same team. Cameron, Tsipras, and Len Pen are all relatively young. The future is for them. As, incidentally, it is for the young politicians of the other flank as well, who will focus on the benefits of globalization, striving to mobilize the electorate, ready to boldly look forward, unafraid of immigrants, competition, and the interpenetration of cultures. The 21st century, like all previous eras, will be characterized by the struggle between different views. But these will be the views of the 21st century, and not of the past.
The article published in the newspaper VEDOMOSTI on March 3, 2016