Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Oexmelin]

The is where, as a francophone, English feels limited by having only one word for « politics ». In French, la politique is party politics game. This is what you are describing Minsky. What the author seems to be describing (and where I broadly agree) is the lack of « le politique » - that is, what aims to be the political being, where, in democratic polities, the political being is supposed to be coterminous with a sense of action and possibility invested in each of us, in relation to the others. Its much less present in the media, because it's more abstract, more principled, and less dramatic, but it's -more or less- the sort of invisible and unsaid rules that live in the interstices of constitutions rules and norms and make them work.

In the US, political party games have swallowed everything, but the political has been under attack for a while - the sense that what you should have control over, that should be of concern to you, is increasingly narrow, and inconsequential. The rest is the purview of experts, bosses, academics, college-degree kids, economists - who all purport to say that what they describe is always the constraints of reality over the possibilities of individual action (if you are a liberal or libertarian) or collective (if you are a progressive or populist).

[Sheilbh]

I totally agree.

I've mentioned it before but I'd see that argument as more in line with Macron's point on post-modernism which I think has truth to it: "we need to develop a kind of political heroism. I don't mean that I want to play the hero. But we need to be amenable once again to creating grand narratives."

In term of where now for the Democrats - I think that is an additional thing I'd add of trying to grasp again a sense of politics as articulating the possible. We are in volatile, changing times - so the sort of 90s style approach that was hugely successful at its time, I think is redundant. People have a sense that things are up in the air and we're not in a period of optimising an established, entrenched, unassailable model. I think Democrats (but other parties round the world to) could do with working out what they want the world to look like when the dust settles - as Macron put it a bit of political heroism in trying to re-kindle grand narratives (and, of course, if you want an example of how even doing that constraints can foil you - look no further than Macron).

[Duque de Bragança]

La politique in the meaning described by Oex is sometimes called la politique politicienne (sic) in political discourse and in the press.

[Jacob]

I totally agree.

I've mentioned it before but I'd see that argument as more in line with Macron's point on post-modernism which I think has truth to it: "we need to develop a kind of political heroism. I don't mean that I want to play the hero. But we need to be amenable once again to creating grand narratives."

In term of where now for the Democrats - I think that is an additional thing I'd add of trying to grasp again a sense of politics as articulating the possible. We are in volatile, changing times - so the sort of 90s style approach that was hugely successful at its time, I think is redundant. People have a sense that things are up in the air and we're not in a period of optimising an established, entrenched, unassailable model. I think Democrats (but other parties round the world to) could do with working out what they want the world to look like when the dust settles - as Macron put it a bit of political heroism in trying to re-kindle grand narratives (and, of course, if you want an example of how even doing that constraints can foil you - look no further than Macron).

Interesting.

And yeah, (most) people need something to believe in. One of the shortcomings of the centre and left of centre may be that they (we) have failed to articulate a sufficiently compelling something to believe in compared to the populist right.

[Razgovory]

We have spent 40 years emphasizing the sins of America.  Is it any wonder that people aren't that interested in saving it?

[Valmy]

We have spent 40 years emphasizing the sins of America.  Is it any wonder that people aren't that interested in saving it?

Yet the 'rah rah America' crowd are the ones destroying it. Kind of puts us in a bind on which direction to go doesn't it?

Anyway I think more to the point decades of protesting hasn't born much fruit. And I think people are hesitant to do anything drastic that could potentially make things worse. At least at this point.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The left in Britain gave up on class struggle;all that they offer the remains of the working class is hectoring from the pov of the progressive upper middle class. Reform is the beneficiary of course.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting.

And yeah, (most) people need something to believe in. One of the shortcomings of the centre and left of centre may be that they (we) have failed to articulate a sufficiently compelling something to believe in compared to the populist right.

I'm struck at how few people are even able to defend liberalism itself - so often it gets stuck in a defence of the status quo, small-c conservatism. It's defending the formal institutions of politics rather than its substance.

My most pessimistic take is that we're not capable of it any more. That we are post-moderns. The grand narratives are gone, we have internalised the critique and the deconstruction and can't put that back together again. In the same way as we can't just re-create the other bits of the mid-twentieth century, the mass party politics or a military-welfare Keynesian state. Again I think Macron is a striking example of someone who absolutely tried a bit of political heroism and grand narrative-mongering (especially around hisvision of "Europe") - we'll need to wait until 2027 for final judgement but at this point it looks like that project has failed.

In part, ironically, it was perhaps a triumph of liberalism  - it's a revolutionary force at dissolving constraints and ties (including those of inherited ideology) to allow the individual to thrive. But now the barbarians are in the gates and the looters are here. I think Trump is a mob boss basically - and it makes you think of when communities turn to a mob boss. I think the protection racket works in a low trust, cynical environment but I don't know - "yes he's killed people, but he'll protect us because we're in on it/paying him off".

Even with the far and radical right in the developed West I can't help but feel there's a degree of pastiche about it.

But I realise I'm in danger of basically just re-writing a Houellebecq novel so need to stop

[viper37]

Interesting.

And yeah, (most) people need something to believe in. One of the shortcomings of the centre and left of centre may be that they (we) have failed to articulate a sufficiently compelling something to believe in compared to the populist right.

The left of center in the US let the extremist dominate the discourse, but they never game them any real power, unlike the populist right.  And that created frustration, because extremists, especially on the left, aren't content with slow, gradual change.

Talks of overthrowing democracy aren't anything new on the left.  The right was just more numerous and able to do it before the left.

[Jacob]

Again I think Macron is a striking example of someone who absolutely tried a bit of political heroism and grand narrative-mongering (especially around hisvision of "Europe") - we'll need to wait until 2027 for final judgement but at this point it looks like that project has failed.

What constitutes a failed project in your view?

I feel like we're beginning to see a bit of a push back on this front. Some degrees of "liberal nationalism" perhaps. I feel like I'm seeing at least some signs of it in Canada - a rallying around the flag, progressives looking at joining the reserves, and the like. In Europe it feels like there's in increase in people embracing a European identity and the necessity of collaborating across national boundaries.

I don't know if it will be "enough", and to what degree it's a "project", but the current is there isn't it?

[Valmy]

The left of center in the US let the extremist dominate the discourse, but they never game them any real power, unlike the populist right.  And that created frustration, because extremists, especially on the left, aren't content with slow, gradual change.

Talks of overthrowing democracy aren't anything new on the left.  The right was just more numerous and able to do it before the left.

What discourse do they dominate? Not a single major media outlet. We don't really have a version of 'The Guardian' over here.

[Sheilbh]

What constitutes a failed project in your view?

Domestically I think his entire pitch was that France was needed to be "unblocked". The old parties were failing and could not deliver the reforms and change needed - which was what created space for the extremes. So you needed a new alternative - which he suggested (with all the humility of a man giving his political party his initials ) might be him. He would break through the deadlock which would banish the extremes. He did break the deadlock and there were significant changes.

But I think a lot now depends on 2027 - and there's a lot of time until then. But Le Pen is very possible. It's also not outside the realm of possibilities that you have a hard left v hard right run off. If your project was to break the political mold in order to secure the centre, then I think their eventual triumph (and the collateral damage of destroying the mainstream centre-right and centre-left) has to be a failure. If you look at what he set out to achieve it's hard to see Le Pen succeeding him as anything but a negation of it all.

Internationally I think it's more difficult - I think he's had grand ideas and a bad habit of sounding off. But there's a consistent vision there around Europe, whether in his Sorbonne speech or declaring the "braindeath" of NATO. I think the sad reality is he called Germany's bluff and they weren't actually interested. For years Germany had been suggesting that the key to deeper integration was like-minded, reformist partners particularly in France. They got one - he did pension reform, brought the budget under control (until covid), set out an ambitious vision for more Europe. Berlin's response was to note it.

I feel like we're beginning to see a bit of a push back on this front. Some degrees of "liberal nationalism" perhaps. I feel like I'm seeing at least some signs of it in Canada - a rallying around the flag, progressives looking at joining the reserves, and the like. In Europe it feels like there's in increase in people embracing a European identity and the necessity of collaborating across national boundaries.

I don't know if it will be "enough", and to what degree it's a "project", but the current is there isn't it?

Maybe and I think there probably is something. And there'll always be a reaction. I think what makes it a "project" is probably when you have a politician or a party articulating it so there's a route to doing it as a social level - something to turn it from a vibe into a fact. To be honest I sort of thought climate might be it - as a global, shared challenge. One of the reasons I like the idea of "Green New Deal" or similar was precisely its rhetorical/idea power to bind several things together.

With Europe I think embracing European identity and cross-border collaboration is a twin-edged sword (in that sense it's just like a bigger nationalism: powerful liberation but also potentially very dangerous). I think there's a lot of that going on in the far-right too, as Europeans with a common European heritage defending Europe against outsiders of various sorts.

[Jacob]

I think a certain degree of nationalism is necessary and desirable. Sure it's a double-edged sword, but everything is. Leaving an effective sword in the hands of Putinists is more dangerous than handling it with care, IMO.

[celedhring]

I think a certain degree of nationalism is necessary and desirable. Sure it's a double-edged sword, but everything is. Leaving an effective sword in the hands of Putinists is more dangerous than handling it with care, IMO.

Yeah, there was this Spanish socialist, one of the fathers of the constitution, that said the same. Wish I could find the exact quote because he was very articulate, but essentially it was down to "we may not like it but the tribalist sentiment is there, and it's always going to be there. So we should acknowledge it and acommodate it, because others  will use it against democracy".

[Sheilbh]

Agreed - but my family's Irish

And more seriously I do think that nationalism has been the way society's repel or liberate themselves from imperialism. So I fully get why there's a bit of it in Canada right now - feel like the Quebecois were probably already ahead of everyone else on this.