This week the American news media was abuzz with stories of populist anger over Obama's reversal on the Bush tax cuts. Meanwhile across the Atlantic, there was anger and rebellion of a much different sort, as a wave of riots swept across London in response the government's cuts to public education. In a move which surely carries some sort of symbolism, protestors even smashed the window of Prince Charles' limo.
Unfortunately the press in most cases has failed to acknowledge, or perhaps, figure out, the real source of the public's anger, which is not simply about the tax cuts or student fees. Look past the talk show ranting and political posturing and the nature of the discontent that is building across America and Europe is actually quite simple. Reckless, expensive policies designed to benefit narrow interest groups get passed again and again by government. Sensible, egalitarian solutions that benefit society are rejected.
The media creates the sense that there are no solutions available to societies' problems, but there are solutions. We could go a long way towards eliminating our deficits, for instance, simply by returning taxes on high income brackets to sensible levels. As economies grapple with the challenges and uncertainties of globalization and volatile markets, the government could mitigate the damage by protecting programs such as Social Security.
These and other supposedly "left-wing" positions win consistent majorities in most Western democracies. They are not ideological pipe dreams, as some would suggest, but rather sensible policy responses which solve long-term problems in a way that benefits society as a whole. And yet, whether it's a "Liberal," "Conservative" or "Lib-Conservative" government, the public has been forced to witness the spectacle of nearly every one of these policies being dragged off, dismissed and summarily executed by our politicians. The inescapable conclusion is that in our so-called liberal democracies, real liberalism, defined as rational policies designed to enhance the rights and freedom of individuals, seems to be off bounds as a policy solution.
Liberalism of course, has taken many forms, and encompassed ideologies claimed by both sides of the American political debate. Which is why at times it's worth putting aside the philosophical complexities of modern political theory and referring back to its origins in Enlightenment thought as a rejection of monarchical rule and a belief in self-governance. The concept of "left vs right," as integral as it might seem to our collective political worldview, is really barely two hundred years old, dating back to the French parliament immediately following the revolution.
The left - those sitting on the left side of the room in the French legislature - were defenders of the revolution and advocates for reform and greater individual freedom. The right, who sat across from them, were those sympathetic to the Monarchy, religion and traditionalism. And this itself had its roots in traditional French social custom, which dictated that those with privilege should be seated on your right.
Understanding the rather arbitrary, but still meaningful, left vs. right divide through the prism of freedom vs. authority, revolutionaries vs. monarchists, begs an obvious question: how can any left-wing party be truly liberal if it is backed and funded by the rich, today's version of the aristocracy? Under such a system, reformist policies might be achieved when they coincide with the interests of the rich and powerful, but never when they compete.
This view also underscores the futility of hoping that a primary challenge to Obama will solve anything. If no other lesson is to be drawn from the past two years, it's that any individual politician's power to change the system is massively oversold. This is nothing new of course - as Chomsky pointed out decades ago in "Manufacturing Consent" - every major advance in political freedom has come from collective action, and not from electing sympathetic elites.
Unfortunately, organizing has fallen by the wayside in recent years. America doesn't protest as much as Europe, and when we do it's usually directed at the wrong target, waving a misspelled sign. On the other hand, the internet presents a powerful potential platform for collective action - if the organizers start thinking critically about how it might be achieved. The question then becomes, if we can't count on the ruling class to achieve change, can we count on ourselves?