The manifesto of the liberal revenge
In its end-of-year issue, the British weekly The Economist published an article entitled The Future of Liberalism which sounds like a veritable manifesto of global liberalism in the face of a 2016 that was, in many ways, its denial. A succession of deadly blows, which can only be seen in Rocky Balboa's films, knocked out the liberal vision. We have translated this article for our readers so that those who still refer to this system of thought and action can find comfort and perhaps elaborate an answer that will only benefit democracy.
Liberal fatigue
Paul Krugman, an avowed liberal, took Trump's election very badly, prompting you to write that, as ancient history shows, republics and their fragile institutions can succumb to authoritarianism.
For a certain type of liberal, 2016 was a cautionary tale. For those who believe, like us at the Economist, in an open economy and society where the free movement of goods, capital and people is encouraged and where universal freedoms are guaranteed and protected by law, 2016 was a year of defeats. Not only for Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, but also for the tragedy of Syria abandoned to its terrible fate and the broad consensus - in Hungary, Poland and elsewhere - of "illiberal democracy". Since globalization has become a disgrace, nationalism and even authoritarianism has started to develop impetuously. In Turkey, relief from a failed coup has given way to savage repression. In the Philippines, voters have chosen a president who not only encourages death squads, but also prides himself on pulling the trigger. All this while Russia, which has hacked Western democracies, and China, which just last week challenged America by taking over its maritime drone, insist that liberalism is simply the mask behind which expansionism lurks. western.
Faced with such a short spell of disasters, many liberals (free marketers) are freaking out. Some have already written the epitaph of the liberal order and made ominous predictions about democracy. Others have argued that, with what soft adjustment to the immigration law or some extra tariff, life will go back to what it used to be. This is not enough. The bitter harvest of 2016 has not destroyed the aspiration of liberalism to be the best way to dignify people and produce prosperity and equity for nations. Instead of retreating from the battle of ideas, liberals should engage in it.
In the last quarter of a century, everything has been too easy for liberalism. Its rule, after the fall of Soviet communism, resulted in an attitude of inertia and complacency. Surrounded by growing inequality, the victors convinced themselves that they lived in a meritocratic society and therefore their success was deserved. The pundits, with whom they have surrounded themselves to run a large part of the economy, have lit up with their own brilliance. But ordinary people have often seen wealth as a cover for privilege and competence as a disguise for self-interest.
Liberalism is still a valid formula
"Take back control" was the most incisive slogan of the campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. After such a long stint in power, the Liberals should have seen the storm come. Liberalism, born at the beginning of the XNUMXth century to combat the despotism of absolute monarchies and the terror of revolutionaries, is well aware that the uninterrupted exercise of power corrupts. Privilege is self-perpetuating. Consensus stifles creativity and initiative. In an ever-changing world, discussion and comparison are not only inevitable, but they are a boon because they lead to renewal. What's more, liberals have something to offer societies grappling with change.
In the XNUMXth century, as is the case today, patterns of life were upended by powerful technological, economic, social and political forces. People took to the streets to restore order. The illiberal solution was to put someone in power with enough authority to decree what was good with enough force to slow change if you handed over to the conservatives, or with the force to subvert the dominant model if you handed over to the conservatives. revolutionaries. Echoes of these situations can still be heard in calls to "take back control" as well as in the mouths of autocrats who, leaning on rabid nationalism, promise to stem the cosmopolitan tide.
Liberals have to give a different answer. Rather than centralizing power, they must distribute it by entrusting it to the law, political parties and the competitiveness of markets. Instead of seeing the state as the arbiter of the fate of its citizens, liberalism must focus on the individual as the only subject capable of deciding what is best for him and his fellows. Rather than regulating their relations by war and force, nations should do so by trade and treaties.
These liberal ideas have taken root in the West and, despite Trump's love of protectionism, they will endure. But that will only happen if liberalism is able to tackle the other problem: the loss of faith in progress. Liberals believe in change because as a whole, it always leads to improvements. And they are right, as demonstrated by the results in the fight against poverty, for longer life expectancy, for equal opportunities and for peace. Indeed, for most of the earth's population there has never been a better time to live than now.
A large part of the West, however, doesn't see it that way. For them, progress benefits others. Wealth is not distributed, new technologies irreversibly destroy jobs, a class of people is beyond any possibility of help and redemption and other cultures pose a real, sometimes very violent threat.
Return to an ambitious vision
of Canada, is the only liberal leader who shows no concern for being ambitious. If he wants to shake himself off and become a vital force again, liberalism must be able to give an answer even to the pessimists. It is true that, during these last decades in power, the responses of the liberals have been disappointing. In the XNUMXth century, liberal reformers brought about change with the spread of education, public works programs, and the first job protection laws. Citizens subsequently gained universal suffrage, health care, and a safety net and social services. After World War II, America built a liberal global order, relying on organizations like the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund to bring about that order.
No vision as ambitious, even half as ambitious, can be found today in the West. This has to change. Liberals must tread and explore the paths that technology and social needs are opening before us. Power must migrate from the state to the cities, which are the laboratories of new policies. Politicians must avoid any sterile partisanship by seeking new forms of local democracy. The labyrinth of the tax and regulatory system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up in a rational way. Society could transform education and work, requiring workers to return to school to rebuild careers in entirely new industries. The needs that may arise from society are still unimaginable, but the liberal system, in which individual creativity, talent and personal initiative have full expression, has the ability, more than any other system, to intercept them and elaborate a response.
The optimism of reason
After 2016, is the liberal dream still possible? The basis is there even if this newspaper thinks that Brexit and the election of Trump will prove costly and harmful and even if we are concerned by the mix of nationalism, corporatism and popular discontent. In any case, the experience of 2016 also shows a demand for change. Let's not forget the ability of liberals to reinvent themselves. Let's not underestimate the ability of people, despite Brexit and the Trump administration, to know how to come out of difficult situations with renewal. The task is to interpret these urgent needs by defending the tolerance, openness and fight against prejudice which are the foundations of a decently liberal world.
