Well Ed, my grandson went through a five year union electric program and is now a journeyman electrician. He is 28 and is on his second house. His wife is a stay-at-home mom. He has no student loan college debt.
I 100% support union apprenticeship programs. I assume you do not include IBEW as a leftist organization. I would never call a person who practices a trade as uneducated. However, I will note you changed the phrase less educated to uneducated to make your "point".
This analysis is correct, but I would be interested to see the missing half of it (perhaps left out for the sake of brevity), which is the evaluation of the Eurasian half of the equation.
China, Russia, and their closest Eurasian allies are the biggest beneficiaries to this fracturing of the post-WWII social democratic consensus; while the West retreats from the global stage owing to the wrangling between isolationist populists with liberal internationalists, the Eurasian bloc (and China especially) has emerged relatively politically unified and ready and willing to grow its international influence through cross-border ties and participation in transnational institutions. The Chinese model of authoritarian political meritocracy is also showing its strengths just as the Western model of liberal democracy is unveiling its largest weaknesses.
I would say that the struggle this article analyzes is part of a larger story marking the end of several centuries of Western hegemony and the beginnings of an emergent Eurasian hegemony. To the Chinese and to many of its Asian allies, this is a return to the natural state of things, as Asia has for the majority of history been the most powerful and technologically advanced geopolitical bloc in the world. They see the couple centuries of Western supremacy we have just passed through as an aberrant deviation from millennia of Eastern superiority. We very well might be about to see whether they are right.
As a matter of history, it is very interesting. As someone living in the West who is invested in Western values of liberal democratic rule, and social democratic liberal nationalism, it is also quite disheartening and a bit scary.
Thank you for this. It’s certainly quite a time to be alive. From my initial observations, populism seems to truly serve no one but the demagogues who take advantage of it. Have there been real, lasting examples in history of ways that populism has bettered the lives of those who have opted in — in the long run? Would love to see a piece on that!
It can be argued that the American Revolution was a populist exercise. As an American, I appreciate the constitutional republican democracy that resulted. However, I also recognize the toll in lives and property among the factions of colonists that was avoided in Canada by its remaining a part of the British Empire.
Canada not only avoided that nastiness, but also avoided any civil war, and for the most part has experienced a quality of life equivalent to that in the U.S. with less violence. That is despite its frigid climate which may have had the effect of uniting Canadians against the cold rather than against people with differing political preferences. It is also despite its language barrier that has been less of an issue in the U.S. until the mass influx of Spanish speakers in recent years.
However much trouble the center-left is in (and that should not be underestimated as they are leaking support to the far-left), the center-right is in far worse shape. They have utterly failed to conserve anything and have not even managed to maintain their aura of good government. Unlike the writer, however, I think they are just going to ride the bomb down rather than give up their delusions. The age demographics of the recent American and German elections should be a wake-up but it doesn't seem to be. Of course, they could use their strongholds in the court system to just nullify the election as in Romania.
Canada and the Uk both elected center left politicians so the anglophone world is hardly tilting right populist. Brexit is not exactly a roaring success and trump is a senile moron controlled by a corrupt oligarch. The right populists from la pen to trump are racists who will eventually be rejected because evil can’t rule for ever😩
Support for Emmanuel Macron in France is rising and support for Marine Le Pen is falling even though Le Pen is distancing herself from Trump. Support for Keir Starmer in the U.K. is also rising. If a vote on Brexit was taken today it would lose. Erdogan is so threatened in Türkiye that he has arrested his likely opponent. Populism (neo-fascism) has its supporters in place like Russia, Hungary and El Salvador.
Could Henry Olsen have gotten it more wrong? Populism as the next great American and global threat when, in politics understood to be representative and dynamic rather than oppressive and static, the Democratic progressive Left and its radical flamethrowers -- literally and rhetorically -- are being rejected by an overwhelming majority of Americans who voted for Donald Trump, more so a second time.
Confusing popular support with a sinister populism represents more of the mindless, arrogant irresponsibility Americans have, to their credit, turned away from.
I don't think the article is unclear--he's talking about populism as a movement rejecting liberal internationalist impulses. That means isolationist and protectionist policies, particularly industrial policies akin to those of the 19th century, and a refocusing on more isolationist notions of nationalism--with a concurrent portrayal of liberal internationalism as an iniquitous advocacy for a 'globalism' run by 'international elites' to exploit the working class.
It's a step away from Washington/Reagan-consensus economic neoliberalism in terms of trade policy, but also, in terms of foreign policy, from the older U.S.-led Western internationalism that emerged under FDR in the shadow of WWII, where America and its allies built international institutions like the IMF, NATO, etc. to try to strengthen Western liberalism against the threat of Communism, and to solidify American hegemony through the solidification of the dollar zone. (achieved first as global creditor from 1945-1970, then as global debtor)
No doubt populists are celebrating this as a kind of re-emergence of 'country-first' philosophies--but it's worth noting that this is exactly the kind of milieu that led to the World Wars. It is less easy to start a world war when you're locked into transnational alliances and engaged in cross-border trade relationships. By contrast, when every country is isolated from every other country, and all are engaged in a game of competitive mercantilism, you run a higher risk of rival nationalisms boiling over into transnational violence.
When looking at history, and geopolitics, never forget your dialectics.
Interesting! It would be a great subject for the authors to clarify popular support v populism. From my perspective it looks very much like populism, but I’m no expert, and I’m frankly anti-Trump. I’d be interested to hear an argument for the reverse.
One thing is for sure the radical left has failed
What does less educated mean as far as traits etc. I know what it technically means but it almost sounds denigrating. Is it meant to be?
It is a slap at those of us who actually work for a living
Right I didn’t realize I had done that. In my experience the snottier and more condescending posts always use uneducated.
It means less opportunities in life.
Like what?
Well Ed, my grandson went through a five year union electric program and is now a journeyman electrician. He is 28 and is on his second house. His wife is a stay-at-home mom. He has no student loan college debt.
Yet the left calls him uneducated.
I 100% support union apprenticeship programs. I assume you do not include IBEW as a leftist organization. I would never call a person who practices a trade as uneducated. However, I will note you changed the phrase less educated to uneducated to make your "point".
This analysis is correct, but I would be interested to see the missing half of it (perhaps left out for the sake of brevity), which is the evaluation of the Eurasian half of the equation.
China, Russia, and their closest Eurasian allies are the biggest beneficiaries to this fracturing of the post-WWII social democratic consensus; while the West retreats from the global stage owing to the wrangling between isolationist populists with liberal internationalists, the Eurasian bloc (and China especially) has emerged relatively politically unified and ready and willing to grow its international influence through cross-border ties and participation in transnational institutions. The Chinese model of authoritarian political meritocracy is also showing its strengths just as the Western model of liberal democracy is unveiling its largest weaknesses.
I would say that the struggle this article analyzes is part of a larger story marking the end of several centuries of Western hegemony and the beginnings of an emergent Eurasian hegemony. To the Chinese and to many of its Asian allies, this is a return to the natural state of things, as Asia has for the majority of history been the most powerful and technologically advanced geopolitical bloc in the world. They see the couple centuries of Western supremacy we have just passed through as an aberrant deviation from millennia of Eastern superiority. We very well might be about to see whether they are right.
As a matter of history, it is very interesting. As someone living in the West who is invested in Western values of liberal democratic rule, and social democratic liberal nationalism, it is also quite disheartening and a bit scary.
Xi argues that China is the longest standing civilization in the world.
Thank you for this. It’s certainly quite a time to be alive. From my initial observations, populism seems to truly serve no one but the demagogues who take advantage of it. Have there been real, lasting examples in history of ways that populism has bettered the lives of those who have opted in — in the long run? Would love to see a piece on that!
It can be argued that the American Revolution was a populist exercise. As an American, I appreciate the constitutional republican democracy that resulted. However, I also recognize the toll in lives and property among the factions of colonists that was avoided in Canada by its remaining a part of the British Empire.
Canada not only avoided that nastiness, but also avoided any civil war, and for the most part has experienced a quality of life equivalent to that in the U.S. with less violence. That is despite its frigid climate which may have had the effect of uniting Canadians against the cold rather than against people with differing political preferences. It is also despite its language barrier that has been less of an issue in the U.S. until the mass influx of Spanish speakers in recent years.
However much trouble the center-left is in (and that should not be underestimated as they are leaking support to the far-left), the center-right is in far worse shape. They have utterly failed to conserve anything and have not even managed to maintain their aura of good government. Unlike the writer, however, I think they are just going to ride the bomb down rather than give up their delusions. The age demographics of the recent American and German elections should be a wake-up but it doesn't seem to be. Of course, they could use their strongholds in the court system to just nullify the election as in Romania.
Canada and the Uk both elected center left politicians so the anglophone world is hardly tilting right populist. Brexit is not exactly a roaring success and trump is a senile moron controlled by a corrupt oligarch. The right populists from la pen to trump are racists who will eventually be rejected because evil can’t rule for ever😩
Support for Emmanuel Macron in France is rising and support for Marine Le Pen is falling even though Le Pen is distancing herself from Trump. Support for Keir Starmer in the U.K. is also rising. If a vote on Brexit was taken today it would lose. Erdogan is so threatened in Türkiye that he has arrested his likely opponent. Populism (neo-fascism) has its supporters in place like Russia, Hungary and El Salvador.
Could Henry Olsen have gotten it more wrong? Populism as the next great American and global threat when, in politics understood to be representative and dynamic rather than oppressive and static, the Democratic progressive Left and its radical flamethrowers -- literally and rhetorically -- are being rejected by an overwhelming majority of Americans who voted for Donald Trump, more so a second time.
Confusing popular support with a sinister populism represents more of the mindless, arrogant irresponsibility Americans have, to their credit, turned away from.
I don't think the article is unclear--he's talking about populism as a movement rejecting liberal internationalist impulses. That means isolationist and protectionist policies, particularly industrial policies akin to those of the 19th century, and a refocusing on more isolationist notions of nationalism--with a concurrent portrayal of liberal internationalism as an iniquitous advocacy for a 'globalism' run by 'international elites' to exploit the working class.
It's a step away from Washington/Reagan-consensus economic neoliberalism in terms of trade policy, but also, in terms of foreign policy, from the older U.S.-led Western internationalism that emerged under FDR in the shadow of WWII, where America and its allies built international institutions like the IMF, NATO, etc. to try to strengthen Western liberalism against the threat of Communism, and to solidify American hegemony through the solidification of the dollar zone. (achieved first as global creditor from 1945-1970, then as global debtor)
No doubt populists are celebrating this as a kind of re-emergence of 'country-first' philosophies--but it's worth noting that this is exactly the kind of milieu that led to the World Wars. It is less easy to start a world war when you're locked into transnational alliances and engaged in cross-border trade relationships. By contrast, when every country is isolated from every other country, and all are engaged in a game of competitive mercantilism, you run a higher risk of rival nationalisms boiling over into transnational violence.
When looking at history, and geopolitics, never forget your dialectics.
Interesting! It would be a great subject for the authors to clarify popular support v populism. From my perspective it looks very much like populism, but I’m no expert, and I’m frankly anti-Trump. I’d be interested to hear an argument for the reverse.