When Have Conservatives Been on the Right Side of History?

Corey Robin has recently wrote a book called The Reactionary Mind, which seeks to trace the continuities and fundamental attributes of political conservatism throughout the centuries and among a range of prominent people, from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. One of the major themes to be drawn from his analysis is that the fundamental essence of conservatism, everywhere and in every period, is the defense of privilege.

If this is true, it does much to explain the conservative argument, no matter the context or time period. Defense of privilege equates to defense of the wealthy, defense of businesses, defense of males, defense of whiteness, and so on.

If conservatives have consistently been on the side of the haves and not the have nots, then when have they been on the right side of history?

Currently, mainstream conservatives are against gay marriage, minority rights, and universal healthcare, while they are also skeptical of the merits of climate change, renewable energy, and electoral reform - things that will in the not-too-distant future be looked back upon by bewildered young people as being backwards, obtuse, and reactionary.

But conservatives were also against things that are now perceived as abominable: they went to great lengths to preserve slavery, then later to protect segregation and fought to keep policies that benefited minorites, such as the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action, from being implemented; conservatives were against women's suffrage, against most laws that benefited organized labor that we now take for granted (minimum wage laws, over-time pay, the 40-hour work week, paid vacation, etc.), have consistently been against immigration or anything that threatened white, affluent, heterosexual, Protestant males in general.

The major policies in the United States that have benefited the vast majority of society and helped to create a more tolerant, more equal society have in the past 80 years come exclusively from liberals and progressives, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Even the laws that a Republican president signed into law, such as the Clean Air Act under Richard Nixon, have come about only when the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress.

In Europe, conservatives historically were vehemently mobilized against the vast majority of society that was not an aristocratic, white, Christian male and had no qualms about justifying the use of violence to repress movements that sought to promote voting rights, minority rights, and increases in democracy.

If mainstream conservatives, conservative thought, and conservatism as a political movement in general have consistently been on the side of privilege, then they have also consistently been on the wrong side of history. But this does not mean that they have never been on the right side.

Conservatives in Europe were correct about totalitarianism, whether in its fascist or communist variant. Though Neville Chamberlain, as a Conservative Prime Minister, pursued a policy of appeasement in dealing with Adolf Hitler's Third Reich, this was controversial even among his own party. The man who succeeded him, Sir Winston Churchill, was a consistently vocal and aggressive opponent of fascism. Later, when many on the Left had become enamored and apologized for the violent excesses of the Soviet Union, Churchill and conservatives called it what it was - totalitarian. Of course, French and British conservatives both supported the maintenance of imperialism (though they went about its decline in different ways).

Edmund Burke and other conservatives did not just protest against the French Revolution, they believed it to be a terrible idea. Indeed, their warnings in the early stages seemed especially prescient after the country descended into wide-ranging pandemonium, with citizens being indiscriminately murdered and movements such as The Terror and the Committee for Public Safety emerging. Napoleon Bonaparte may have introduced certain "progressive" reforms onto the Continent, but European conservatives decried his reign for what it was - a tyrannical dictatorship.

While those on the Left have had their fair share of poor decisions - supporting Mao's overseeing the starvation of millions in China, for example - conservatism has much more often than not been on the wrong side of history. Even when they have been correct, such as when confronting the French Revolution, the rise of totalitarian communism, and fascism, conservatives have also had a tendency to go overboard in their zeal - see Joseph McCarthy's fanatical rants about communist subversion or the appalling record of imprisoned minorities that have resulted from conservative crime laws.

If, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, the arc of moral universe bends towards justice, then it is not due to conservatism that it is being bent that way.

Is a Robust Social Democracy the Best the Left has to Offer?

The large center-left, allegedly social democratic parties in Europe and North America are increasingly becoming irrelevant, hollowed-out shells of their former selves by abandoning party core principles, core constituents, and largely embracing right-wing conservative ideology as their own in an attempt to be taken "seriously" by the electorate and media. A good example of this can be seen in Britain's Labour Party leader Ed Milliband's recent legitimization of the governing Conservatives austerity agenda. Three years away from the next general election, Labour has effectively endorsed the Conservative Party's ideology and managed to alienate their own supporters while doing nothing to persuade independent voters from choosing Labour in the process.

Europe's large social democratic parties, like Britain's Labour, Germany's SPD, Scandinavia's Social Democrats, as well as those in financially-stricken countries like Spain, Portugal, and Greece, currently offer no better alternative to their right-wing counterparts other than a less harsh version of conservative, neoliberal doctrine. The same can be said of the supposedly center-left Democratic Party in the United States, who have largely embraced austerity and right-wing economics so as to be considered "serious" and "responsible".

Germany's SPD has lost hundreds of thousands of members in only a few years

The mainstream Left thus finds itself in a predicament; they cannot stray too far to the left for policies for fear of becoming unelectable, but their rightward shift has angered vast swathes of their formerly-ardent supporters, who are leaving en masse to alternative leftist parties. This shift has meant that the Left, out of new ideas, are in danger of becoming (or finalizing their transition to) conservatives-lite - Labour, for example, is increasingly being perceived by their core supporters of offering essentially the same social and economic platform as the Conservatives.

The mainstream Left is out of ideas. It has proven itself unable to build upon its successes of the past. This begs the question: Is a robust social democratic society the best the Left has to offer?

For many decades, the Left was able to smooth out the rough edges of capitalism so as to create a better, more prosperous, more healthy, more progressive society. The safety net may vary from country to country, but its existence is unquestioned. Though unquestioned, it is still threatened. That is the crux of the problem for social democrats everywhere - the safety net is under attack, its future uncertain, and the very fact that it can be destroyed means that there is a potentially gaping hole in future society that will need to be filled to avoid mass poverty and deprivation. The Left needs to fill this hole, but at the moment, they have no idea how to.

Instead of building upon their past successes, parties of the Left are joining conservatives in tearing them down. Though many countries have succeeded in vastly reducing poverty, hunger, deprivation, etc., they have not abolished them. Unemployment, high at the moment due to the financial crisis, nonetheless remains a constant threat for millions.

The vast majority of Democrats voted along with Republicans to deregulate Wall Street in 1999

The Left must come up with new ideas, new movements, new ways to improve life so that even in a recession as deep as the current one, citizens may stay out of poverty, can remain employed, can enjoy a high standard of living, need not go hungry, need not lose their homes, their savings, their health. The Left must find a way to reverse the effects of financial policies of the past several decades that have resulted in increased productivity but stagnant wages and the vast majority of income and wealth growth going to an incredibly small amount of the population who was already affluent to begin with.

A living wage, unemployment insurance, universal healthcare, social security, and the rest of the safety net is good, but it is not enough. For social democracy is under attack, the safety net is being torn down bit by bit, and the Left in Europe and North America is at its ideologically weakest in decades.

Now is the time for the Left to reinvigorate itself. Now is the time for the Left to reassert itself. Now is the time for the Left to return and fulfill its time-honored goals. The Left must offer a true alternative to neoliberalism. The Left must renew itself, or it will fade, wither, and die.

Staring History in the Face

The crimes committed by National Socialism in World War II were undeniably horrific; the atrocities that occurred in Europe by German soldiers were so terrible, that for many years after 1945 it was very difficult for Germany to fully accept and admit to what had been done by their countrymen. It has only been relatively recently that the entirety of the barbarity of the Nazi regime has become unquestioned in German society; it was understandably difficult for ordinary Germans to accept the fact that the Nazi Party had had mass support and that millions of Germans from all backgrounds did terrible things with the military or could not possibly have been unaware of what was happening to the Jews of Europe. This aversion with the past is gone now. Germany has stared its history in the face and no longer blinks at what it sees.

The German term for this is Vergangenheitsbewältigung - coming to terms with the past. While it has taken many years for Germany to truly come to terms with its Nazi past, the same cannot be said for other countries.

The crimes of the Nazis were so terrible that other countries were able to place the blame for the bad things that happened in the war entirely upon them. So it was that Austria was able to, up through the 1990s, claim that it was the first victim of Hitler - this despite the fact that Nazi membership was disproportionately high among Austrians, Austrians were overrepresented in the SS, and one out of every two concentration camp guards was Austrian. Calling themselves the victim when they were in fact not allowed Austria to escape the kind of post-war punishment that Germany received, as well as the general taint of the Nazis in general.

The French for decades after World War II liked to claim that their Resistance was of mythological proportions, fighting against both the Germans and the hated Vichy regime, which was little more than a puppet government. Yet, the Germans had relatively few administrators in France during the war, meaning that the government was autonomous and legitimate, and regarded as such by the vast majority of French citizens. This inconvenient fact means that all of the Jews that France willingly transported to the concentration camps of the East was not actually at the behest of Germany but rather a willing collaboration on the part of a legitimate, racist French government. What the French still are having difficulty coming to terms with is the way they treated their non-white colonial African soldiers - and this while they were fighting a regime that itself was extremely racist.

This myth of resistance and scant collaboration was prevalent all over Europe until very, very recently. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans willingly participated in the systematic murder of innocent civilians - Jews, gypsies, ethnic minorities - but for most of the post-war years were able to blame this on the Nazis. Most of the resistance movements were not nearly as large as they were made out to be after the war, as well. Having a significant part of your countrymen participate in genocide and mass murder doesn't feel or sound too good for most people, as it should not. But ignoring or misconstruing these facts does humanity and each individual country a disservice. More importantly, it is a continuing slap in the face of the millions of innocent people who were killed in the war.

One of the many tragic aspects of the Holocaust was how little anyone did to stop it. In the 1930s and 1940s, Americans consistently showed concern for the fate of the Jews in Europe, yet supermajorities of the population at the same time refused to allow them to emigrate to the United States. Britain certainly knew about what was happening in Eastern Europe, yet did very little to do much about it. Before and after the war, Poles engaged in pogroms that killed Jews - and this in a country that saw millions of its citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, systematically murdered while being treated as sub-humans by Nazi occupiers.

The United States, generally speaking, likes to look back on the Second World War as one of its finest hours. America was a beacon of liberty, fighting a barbaric racist regime so that Europe and the world could be free. While this noble war was being waged, President Roosevelt rounded up hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese-American citizens, took them from their homes, and imprisoned them in camps - all because of who they were, not for what they had done. In the midst of fighting a country that had legalized discrimination, segregation, and racism, the United States itself had an entrenched system of legalized discrimination, segregation, and racism. The army was segregated until 1948; there was a legal, Constitutionally-upheld system that separated blacks from white society. Many of the American soldiers who fought to free Europe came back to a society that purposefully excluded an entire group of people for arbitrary reasons and did nothing to change it - Civil Rights legislation would only come some 20 years later.

While these uncomfortable truths are talked about in classrooms throughout the United States, they are almost never put into the context which they should be: that one country that practiced discriminatory and racist policies against a minority group was fighting against another country that practice discriminatory and racist policies against a minority group. And while the United States agreed that what was happening to Europe's Jews was unacceptable, they did nothing to stop it for years, while also continuing to oppress millions of their own citizens.

The Nazis are an easy scapegoat because they did indeed usher in humanity's darkest hour - they showed what we as humans are capable of, and it was terrible. But the Nazis' crimes should not excuse the crimes of others. It is right and just that Germany accepts the entirety of the actions of the Nazis, just as countries like France, Austria, and the United States needs to accept the uncomfortable truths buried in their pasts.

Anti-Semitism and racism was not unique to Germany or Europe - far from it. Recognizing and accepting this is one large step in making sure that the darker side of humanity never again resurfaces. We must all stare history in the face and not blink.

The Puzzling Triumph of Right-Wing Economics

In the decades following the end of World War Two, industrialized countries' embraced left-wing socio-political concepts and embarked upon ambitious social-democratic agendas: taxes on the wealthy rose, unions grew larger and stronger, things like health care and education became universalized, and in many cases large segments of the economy - like banking, natural resources, transportation, etc. - were put under control of the state, or at least regulated fairly rigorously.

In the United States, Harry Truman's Fair Deal and Lyndon Johnson's expansion of the welfare state and Civil Rights legislation led to the longest, most sustained economic boom in the nation's history. At a time when taxes on the wealthy were the highest they'd ever been, union strength was stronger than ever, America was the most prosperous. wealthiest country in the world. This prosperity was largely shared by everyone; wages for the top and bottom rose from 1945 to 1970, and the middle class was robust.

European countries, notably Scandinavia, Germany, France, and Britain, also experienced huge economic growth. Britain's Labour Party enacted universal health care and created a large social safety net, while taking control of the coal and railroad industries for public use. Social-Democratic parties in Scandinavia were almost always in power, and they used the post-war economic boom to ensure that all of their citizens would enjoy free and universal health care, education, strong labor laws that created high-paying, stable jobs and lasting, well-endowed pensions.

At the expense of the wealthiest citizens and big businesses, and to the chagrin of economic liberals and corporations, the vast majority of society in these countries were able to enjoy some of the best years of prosperity that Europe and North America had not seen for decades.

But then in 1970s and 1980s, things changed; the public sector was deemed too large, deficits too severe to maintain such a system. These countries' governments were too large and clunky to be competitive in an international marketplace. The tax burden was too high, unions had too much power, and business was being stifled by burdensome regulation.

The answer, said conservatives and the Right, was to radically alter the economy from a socialist-inspired, leftist, closed economy to one that would promote "liberty" and "freedom".

Low taxes, low spending, privatization, deregulation, weakening of unions, free-trade, free-markets, reduced pensions and benefits: these were the solutions to the terrible problems Keynesian and left-wing economics had produced over the past 30 years.

So the shackles came off. Business was unleashed, and economic freedom was pursued so that all could enjoy the prosperity that was sure to come.

Led by neoliberals like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, massive tax cuts were enacted, coupled with privatization of formerly-state industries and the reduction in the power of unions. Free-trade deals were signed, banks, businesses, and corporations saw their regulations shredded.

In the United States, Wall Street was treated with a "hands-off" approach, culminating in the efforts of Democratic President Bill Clinton, who repealed the New Deal-era banking regulations that had largely averted massive economic crises. Corporate taxes were lowered to foster competition. Capital gains were taxed at a lower rate so that investment could grow. President George W. Bush enacted two of the most massive tax cuts in the history of the country at a time when the U.S. had experienced its first few years of budget surpluses in decades.

The result of all these policies, with all the wishes and promises of the Right, has been a complete and utter failure. Deregulation of the financial sector directly led to the most morally indignant, self-induced, criminal economic crises since the Great Depression - to the cost of trillions upon trillions of taxpayer money and the loss of millions of jobs.

While corporate profits have soared, the average wage for middle-class Americans has barely moved. Income inequality is at the highest its been for 80 years, and millions of citizens are in poverty. Unions have become decimated, but this has not led to any kind of stability in the private sector, or a reduction in budget deficits either at the state or federal level. Thousands of Americans die every year because they cannot afford health insurance to pay for the care they need. Yet the chances of the U.S. receiving a universal health care system any time in the near future is incredibly low.

In Britain, Margaret Thatcher's anti-union, pro-free-market, neoliberal reforms massively increased inequality. Tony Blair's "Third Way" economic policies did nothing to correct this, despite being a part of a Labour government that was supposed to work in the interests of the working class.

Germany's Social Democratic Party enacted right-wing labor market reforms that were supposed to halve unemployment; while unemployment did go down, millions of people now work full-time but don't earn enough money to live out of poverty and millions more are forced to receive welfare - the exact opposite of what the SPD had said would happen.

Since the end of the colonial era, many African, Latin American, and South American countries have been desperately short of cash with which to spur their economy, build infrastructure, and develop their state. In stepped organizations like the IMF and the World Bank, who loaned millions and billions of dollars to these countries, but only on the condition that they enact neoliberal reforms. The result has been crippling, unfair, immoral debt for many Third World countries; free-trade has allowed multinational corporations to take profits from those developing countries and deprive African peoples' natural resources from them; a shocking and indefensible transfer of wealth from the poorest countries on earth to the richest ones has taken place.

Now that the utter failure of right-wing economics has been exposed - and by almost all measures, they have not worked the way they were promised to -, and with the world economy laying in ruins because of these policies, almost every single government in the industrialized world is sticking with their neoliberal economic paradigm. Even supposed Social-democratic parties have almost entirely embraced this right-wing system, becoming increasingly less of a truly viable alternative to mainstream conservative parties.

It seems as though, in the face of this failure, industrialized countries are doubling down on the veracity of this narrative. People like British Prime Minister David Cameron and conservative parties like the Republicans in the U.S. are acting as though government spending and huge budget deficits caused this financial crisis, when they are largely simply the result. In order to fix the mess that neoliberal, right-wing economic policies created, the solution is to do even more of them!

So it is that millions of people must face severe, draconian cuts in social spending - there goes health care, pension benefits, education funding, and infrastructure improvements. They are told that they must d0 more with less, because....well, because they just have to.

But why must the only answer be austerity? Why is the "natural" solution to reduce government, to reduce unions, to reduce pensions, to reduce spending? How is it, that after such an obvious and upsetting upbraid to the dogmatic mantra of economic liberalism, that right-wing economic policies are not only being implemented, but are the only types of policies even seriously being discussed?

No one is forcing David Cameron's Conservative Party to proceed on the course they are; they simply have different priorities about how to proceed with governing the country.

That is essentially it: a matter of priorities. For 35 years, European and American governments have been run by financial elites, businessmen, and members of a peculiarly fiscally conservative clique who have enacted policies that their ideology tells them will benefit everyone. It hasn't worked, and only a small percentage of society has benefited; of course, those who enacted these policies just so happen to also be the ones who have benefited the most.

This group is telling society that these cuts, these policies, will be painful but must take place and will eventually pay off. But why does the pain have to be felt by those who least deserve to feel it?

Would it be just as painful to end corporate welfare? To close tax loopholes? To strengthen labor unions? To enhance the safety net? It would be - but for different people. And that is all the difference. As long as the industrial economy's engine is the corporation and Big Business, so too will fiscal policies be neoliberal and inadequate. Growth will be slow, life will be harder for most people, but everyone will be told it is the only way.

But it doesn't have to be.

Austerity is not the Answer

Since the collapse of the global economy in 2007-2008, almost every industrialized country has embarked on a series of so-called austerity measures, in an apparent attempt to either grow the economy by contraction, reduce accumulated debt, or sometimes both.

Such measures involve in most cases drastically scaling back social spending and social safety nets - pensions, welfare, unemployment benefits - while raising taxes and privatizing formerly-public institutions. These actions inevitably fall the hardest upon those who most depend upon public services: the poor, the middle-class, minorities, students, the working class. In these tough economic times, citizens are told, governments and countries must endure "shared sacrifice" and to "live within their means". This narrative has been taken up by most of Europe's governments, the majority of whom are conservative, as well as the United States - despite having a Democratic President and Senate.

Though the austerity movement is pervasive and being attempted everywhere, it is not the answer. For nowhere is austerity working the way its proponents said it would. Indeed, it appears to be causing more harm than good, and coincidentally happens to be favoring the rich, big businesses, and corporations; though calls are made for "shared sacrifice", almost nothing of substance is being asked of the rich or corporations to contribute to the effort in scaling back.

The rich don't need pensions, welfare, or social security. The rich don't care if health care is reduced, as they are already healthy and can afford quality care if they need it. Corporations are making record profits and have no desire to see things change, as firing large sections of their workforce increases their profits while not reducing efficiency. At a time when the vast majority of society needs the essential services that government social spending provides, they are being told that it can no longer be afforded, and they must make do without.

It appears that this is partly a matter of priorities, and governments everywhere have shown that their main priorities are maintaining the banking and financial systems, which have cost billions and trillions of dollars to preserve. Though it was these institutions' reckless greed and irresponsible behavior that caused this global recession, the myth persists that it was the debt that caused the crisis, rather than the other way around. Nobody seemed to care about their country's debt before the global recession - why should it matter now? It matters now because it presents a fantastic opportunity for conservatives and neoliberals to radically transform society into what they hope will be a libertarian utopia. Trillions of dollars are put aside to salvage the financial sector, but in exchange, teachers must lose their jobs, workers have to give up more for the same benefits, education budgets must be drastically cut, and millions of people must reduce their quality of life - all because of a relatively small handful of people/organizations and their insatiable appetite for making more money.

Many proponents of austerity proclaim that cutting services, cutting debt, and cutting spending is the only way to shore up business confidence, and in this way the economy will grow by contraction. Yet this business confidence is nowhere to be seen, with the cruel effects of the cutting being shown in the millions of people in the United States who are now living on food stamps, unemployment benefits, and are without jobs. It can be seen in the rioting and mass protests in the United Kingdom, Greece, and France.

It seems that, despite widespread public opposition to such cuts, conservative and even leftist parties are agreed on this course of austerity.

In the United States, the Republican Party's objectives of dismantling the New Deal and returning the country to 1900-era standards of living are nakedly obvious; they are merely using the financial crisis (a crisis they largely helped to create) as a way to savagely exterminate the feeble American safety net of unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This can be seen in the vast majority of states under Republican governors and legislatures, and all with disastrous results. The undemocratic breaking of unions in Wisconsin and Ohio, the destruction of unemployment insurance in Florida - these measures were not causes of the crisis, but are nonetheless being targeted merely because of the ideological opposition of radical neo-fascist Republicans. Such drastic spending cuts are sure to harm the economy, as most economists and even financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs say. Their argument is that the U.S. is spending too much, and so-called "entitlements" need to be reformed, that is, destroyed. This argument, for cutting spending, reforming the safety net, and balancing the budget, has largely been taken up by the Democratic Obama administration, as well as most Democratic state governors - despite there being an incredibly strong case to be made for running a deficit, raising taxes on the rich, fixing the corruption inherent in Wall Street and Washington, and reversing all of the negatives the Bush administration inflicted upon the country.

Republicans say the U.S. has a spending problem, but this could not be farther from the truth. Taxes are the lowest they've been for decades, with the vast majority of the $1.4 trillion deficit coming from Bush-era policies. Though the stimulus added some to the deficit, most of the rest of that has been because of the economy's decline, as more people require unemployment insurance, food stamps, health care, and so on. Neither the U.S. deficit or national debt are serious problems at the moment, despite all the rhetoric. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is about average for industrialized countries, and while the $1.4 trillion deficit sounds large, the United States still has the largest economy in the world by far, at over $15 trillion. Interest rates are low and foreign governments still are more than willing to buy U.S. Treasury bonds; the deficit is not a problem. That extremely fiscally conservative Republican ideology has been largely embraced by President Obama and many other state Democratic governors and parties despite widespread popular opposition to such policies is worrying for the future of the United States.

In Great Britain, David Cameron's Conservative Party have embarked upon a radical agenda of draconian cuts to the British social safety net, despite dressing up the process in somewhat progressive terms. These cuts come amid mass demonstrations that oppose them, as well as riots against the raising of student fees and other cuts to vital social services. The opposition Labour Party has a large faction of Blairites who largely agree and accept the principle of the Conservatives agenda, thereby failing to present an alternative for the people of the United Kingdom. This comes at a time when the Labour Party should be more relevant than ever, as inequality in Britain is higher than it has been for decades - yet the party is more unfocused, diffident, and weakened that at any point in the last 20 years.

For the European countries that are requiring bailouts due to their financial situation, one can argue about the extent to which such measures are necessary, but what should not be debated is that these countries have lost their ability to democratically determine the course of action the people of those countries want to choose. The IMF, European Central Bank, and ratings agencies are a group of unelected, unaccountable private institutions whose agenda is clear. They have demanded that countries like Ireland, Greece, and Portugal embark upon severe and drastic austerity measures before they are able to give them the loans they need to help solve their distress. By applying essentially the same measures to each of those countries, regardless of the differences in their situations, these private institutions with leaders who no one elected are dictating the course of action that sovereign nations take, thereby undermining the democratic foundation of these countries' citizens' right to self-determination. Even when, for example, Greece employed such austerity measures as dictated to it by the IMF and ECB, their economy did not recover; in fact, its credit rating has continued to be downgraded while its financial situation shows little sign of improving - despite decreases in the quality of life for most citizens while also drastically and forcibly changing the Greek social landscape.

Austerity is not working. Austerity is not the answer. The best way to grow the economy and reduce debt is by putting people back to work. At a time when private-sector growth is anemic, and can no longer be relied upon to employ the same amount of people that it had before, the government must step in and directly stimulate the economy by massively spending on the employment of its citizens.

When asked what got the U.S. out of the Great Depression, most people will respond with "World War II". What was it about the war that put the economy back on its feet? Massive government spending on the military for several years, combined with much higher taxes on the rich. The United States debt-to-GDP ratio in the middle of World War II was 143%, incredibly higher than it currently is. But after robust economic growth following the end of the war, this was significantly reduced to a point where it was no longer an issue. So why are governments not treating this global economic crisis like World War II? Why not spend massively, not on tanks, rifles, and planes, but on housing, roads, bridges, and rail?

Germany is a good example of a country that has largely pursued a Keynesian economic course; the German government spent large amounts of money keeping their workforce employed, while also giving bailouts to companies on stringent conditions dictating what they could and could not use the money for. As a result, the German economy has grown far faster than any of their neighbors and employment has rebounded. The governing conservative-neoliberal coalition is planning on introducing a tax cut for middle-incomes and a tax hike for higher-incomes, due to the budget deficit being so low.

The money that was used to save the financial sector can also be used to save the middle-class. The beneficiaries of the bailouts need to give back to society what they took through their own negligence, corruption, and criminality. This is a time when public service and government social spending should be higher than ever, when the safety net is strengthened and enhanced, not destroyed. This is a time when people need their government to provide for them because no one else can. This is a time when the excesses of right-wing economic policy should be reversed and destroyed, not the opposite.

Austerity is not the answer. Democracy, citizens, and government are the answer.

The Legacy of Germany's Iron Chancellor

Otto von Bismarck was a master statesman, helping to reshape the European landscape in the latter half of the 19th century. No other figure so decisively shaped either Germany or Europe for decades before or after the Iron Chancellor.

As both a statesman and a politician, Bismarck was unsurpassed in his ability to accomplish his overarching goals, no matter how long it took or what means were required to do so.

Ruthless, partisan, deceptive, yes. But his maneuverings as Prussian Prime Minister would eventually unite the disparate German lands into a mighty Empire capable of irreversibly transforming the European geo-political landscape. Bismarck was the only man capable and willing to create a new German Empire, while at the same time maintaining the balance of power on the continent and keeping domestic political unrest at bay.

When Otto von Bismarck was growing up, Germany was an idea, not a nation. German-speakers were spread throughout Central and Eastern Europe, numbering in the millions but lacking a unified, coherent national awareness. Bismarck was born to Prussian nobility in 1815, at a time when the French Empire had just finished wreaking havoc and devastation across Europe and almost ceasing Prussia to exist in the process.

The Revolutions of 1848 showed that there was a strong nationalist current running amongst the ethnic Germans of Europe - but the only way the idea of a German nation could become reality would be through the leadership of either Prussia or Austria, the two great German-speaking powers. Bismarck understood that, in order for the German people to unite and maintain stability, the predominance of Prussia would have to be assured. Austria could never hope to maintain strength of unity amongst the different German lands when their own state consisted of dozens of ethnicities and nationalities, all vying for separate interests. Prussia had the industrial strength, the prestige, the military, and the desire to use all of the aforementioned to achieve such a feat.

This was no easy thing to do; the German lands had never been more than loosely connected, and the states that had joined together in alliances had only been certain regional areas - the North German Confederation or the Hanseatic League, for example. Different Germans who lived in different areas had completely different dialects, weights, measures, and most importantly, religions. Southern Germany and Austria were Catholic and more rural while the northern parts were more urban and Protestant.

After the devastation and subjugation that had been accorded to German lands by the French tyrant Napoleon, hatred of France became an entrenched part of the German psyche. This was felt by most German-speakers, but especially so for Prussia, whose honor had been severely damaged by the embarrassments handed to them after military defeats to the French, of all people. By the early 1860s, Bismarck had become Prussia's Prime Minister and realized that the new French Emperor Napoleon III thought quite a bit more highly of himself and his skills than was warranted.


Bismarck's brilliance lay in his ability to complete overarching goals to perfection; in this case, Bismarck's desire to enhance Prussia's power at the expense of France's had the added bonuses of uniting the rest of the German lands under Prussian dominance, subjecting Austria to second fiddle, isolating and humiliating France while also creating a new Great Power in the German Empire.

The first step was to make sure Austria could not become the leader of a new Germany. This was ensured by two wars, the first against Denmark and the second against Austria herself. Denmark's southernmost two provinces of Schleswig and Holstein had been disputed for a long time, and after the Danish King died, a war broke out between Austria and Prussia on the one side and Denmark on the other. Bismarck's diplomacy was crucial to this war, as he ensured that Britain and France remained isolated, unable to commit troops to Denmark's assistance, while also handing the spoil of Holstein to Austria, thereby sandwiching the territory between two Prussian-controlled areas in a part of Europe that was far outside of Austria's sphere of influence.

The corresponding war against Austria was over quickly, thereby assuring Prussian hegemony among the Germans. The corresponding treaty again highlights Bismarck's aptitude; all of the non-aligned German regions, notably the Kingdom of Bavaria, agreed to join a united Germany under Prussian leadership should the German Confederation be aggressively attacked by France.

In another stroke of brilliance, the Iron Chancellor managed to alter an outgoing telegram to Emperor Napoleon III, triggering an idiotic overreaction by the French that led to a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Prussian military. Not only did the war last barely a few weeks, but the Emperor himself was captured, as well as Paris. To add even more insult to injury, the new German Empire was proclaimed in the Palace of Versailles, the embodiment of French royalty.

For almost 20 years after that, as the new Chancellor of the German Empire, Otto von Bismarck oversaw the emergence of a new Great Power that should have massively disrupted the delicate balance of power in Europe, but did not. This was due in no small part to Bismarck's own gravitas.

Through a series of diplomatic treaties, Bismarck managed to secure Austria-Hungary and Italy as allies, while also keeping Russia and Great Britain neutral. Such maneuvers had the desired effect of effectively isolating France; the danger of inciting a general European war was significantly reduced, and if one were to come to pass, it would have been France surrounded on both fronts rather than Germany. These policies were almost unilaterally reversed after the new Kaiser Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck in 1890, a terribly stupid decision that quickly made Germany an enemy of Britain, France, and Russia while also unnecessarily provoking an arms race with a naval buildup and expansion into Africa.

Chancellor Bismarck was also an astute politician on the domestic front. When the Social Democratic Party threatened to overtake his preferred conservative majority in the Reichstag, Bismarck incredibly stole their platform from under them: saying that unemployed or sick workers were bad for the economy, Bismarck helped implement the beginnings of the modern German welfare system, with unemployment insurance, health care, and social security. Though he was vehemently anti-socialist, Bismarck simply re-worded the SPD's legislation into a conservative framework that engendered political victories while also helping the economy.

Though Bismarck was far from perfect - he hated Catholics, Socialists, and the Polish, attempting to enact several discriminatory laws; he restricted Germany to an anti-democratic aristocratic monarchy, with too much power vested in the Kaiser and the Junkers - his policies and achievements for Germany were phenomenal.

Without Bismarck, it is unclear exactly if Germany ever would have united, and if they did, what form it would have taken. Though his use of military means to accomplish the unification is probably not what an idealist would have liked, it worked. Only a master diplomat was able to rework the European geo-political landscape to benefit Germany to such an extent, while also isolating the other Great Powers of the day and maintain domestic stability and prosperity.

Germany truly could have used a man of his caliber, and rued the Iron Chancellor's death in 1898.

Le Populisme de Droite en Europe

Comme déja écrit, la droite est au pouvoir en Europe. Mais en particulier, le populisme de droite augment avec un taux de vitesse exemplaire.

Meme aux pays qui sont reconnus pour leurs courants fortes de la gauche; pays comme le Danemark, où le parti populaire danois, un parti qui veut réduire l'immigration et implément une politique sur l'integration plus stricte, est le troisieme plus grand; les Démocrates suédois ont récus dans le dernier élection pour la premier fois plus de 5% des votes et ont capturés 20 sièges au parlement - c'est un parti dont remarques nationaliste et contre les immigrants a resulté en leurs étant appellé des "fascistes".

Aux Pays-Bas, le Parti pour la liberté a obtenu 24 de sièges et devenu le troisieme parti du pays. Le leader du parti, Geert Wilders, s'est exprimé d'etre contre l'Islam et a donné une parole devant la mosquée proposé de New York avec des autres membres de la droite américaine. En suisse, le pays a décidé, avec l'aide et l'instigation du parti droite Union démocratique du centre, de censurer la construction de minarets - symbole de l'Islam - avec un taux de plus de 57% pour le "oui".

En Allemagne, la chancelière a declaré que "le multiculturalisme est mort". C'est que l'Allemagne n'a pas d'un parti populiste de droite qui peut répresenter leurs vues, le parti "Die Freiheit" (la liberté) a eu formé, qui veut s'agir contre "l'ideologie totalitaire de l'Islam" et l'union européen.

L'accroissement des partis populistes en Europe n'est pas suprenant. Pour un continent qui était depuis des plusieurs siecles le plupart chrétien et blanc, pour recevoir dans un laps de temps si bref des nombres d'immigrants qui viennent de pays non-chrétiens ou qui sont minorités visibles, ca c'était toujours voir des problemes culturelles. De plus, des nombres de ces pays européens n'avait pas d'une politique spécial pour le sujet de l'immigration. C'est une mélange que peut garantir le conflit.

Le conflit comme le recevoir de plus partisans pour le taliban. Comme des minorités qui craindre de vivre dans leurs pays ou ne veut pas s'intégrer. Comme ayant pour resultat de signifie que les citoyens ne veut pas avoir des immigrants ou des peuples qui ne sont pas commes leurs-meme. La France a déja vu les violences urbaines. C'est la intolérance, peut-etre meme le racisme. Mais aussi l'inexpérience avec des cultures ou des gens différents.


Alors ce que c'est une opportunité pour addresser le sujet d'immigration, intégration, et multiculturalisme; pour developper des politiques qui peuvent aider ces immigrants et les citoyens natives de vivre ensemble et travailler ensemble.

Whither the Left?

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission of the United States has just released its final report on the causes of the economic catastrophe that has so impacted the world. The report concludes that the monumental economic collapse was largely avoidable and occurred mostly because of "human action and inaction"; that is to say, in so many words, insufficient regulatory practices at all levels of government and the private sector combined with an excessive drive to accumulate more wealth by financial institutions, ultimately leading to the worst economic crisis in 80 years.
At the same time that the institutions were causing this financial meltdown, which economically crippled millions of people who had contributed nothing to the crisis, they were rewarded with massive tax-payer-funded bailouts by the government and lavished themselves with massive bonuses.

While this type of financial bust is inherently systemic in a capitalist economy, the magnitude of this crisis should have, in particular, irrevocably damaged right-wing, neoliberal economic practices that preached deregulation of financial sectors and, more broadly, strengthened parties on the Left that are more anti-free market or less pro-capitalism. Yet, despite this demonstration of the deficiencies in neoliberalism or capitalism, the Right appears to have emerged stronger, while the Left is in disarray.

In Europe, only a few countries are currently governed by left-wing parties (Norway, Spain, Portugal among them), while the majority of the rest, including the large economies of Germany, Britain, France, and Italy are run by conservatives and/or neoliberals. Support for social democratic parties like Britain's Labour or Germany's SPD are the lowest they've been in decades.

In the U.S., the Tea Party advocated for even less government regulation and the right-wing Republican Party just won control of the House of Representatives. A Conservative minority government in Canada has remained in power for the past 5 years, despite the opposition's best efforts at unseating them. Chile elected its first conservative president in years.

Certainly, some of the Right's success in Europe can be attributed to a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, but this doesn't explain wholly why they control a majority of ruling governments on the continent.

Whither the Left? Why has the left wing been unable to conquer the right at a time when they should have already easily done so?

Some think that it's because they have nothing new to offer. If that were true, though, then why did the Republican Party gain so many seats after having essentially the same platform that Americans overwhelmingly rejected in 2006 and 2008?

Perhaps it's because the message isn't getting out about what the Left stands for. This is a possibility. The center/center-left Liberal Party of Canada has been having somewhat of an identity crisis for the past several years, with voters unsure of what the party stands for; their traditional support has steadily eroded. But, if one looks at the fracturing of the Left in European countries, voters are clearly given a variety of options of left-wing choices and it's still not been enough, even for traditionally strong leftist countries like Sweden or Denmark.

One of the major problems facing the Left is this fracturing. The German Left is composed of the Greens, SPD, and Die Linke. The SPD has ruled out the possibility of any future coalition governments with Die Linke, who should be a natural ally. So has the Liberal Party of Canada thus far appeared offended at even the mention of joining with the social democratic NDP. The Obama administration's disdain for the "Professional Left" has been well-documented. If everyone on the Left apparently hates each other, then they cannot unite and therefore allow the Right to take control. The French Right is united behind the UMP, after several conservative and center-right parties merged together several years ago.

For so-called "Big Tent" parties who were recently unseated by their conservative counterparts, like Labour in Britain or the SPD in Germany, the fracturing of the Left attributed to their decline in popularity, as traditional core supporters disliked Tony Blair's Third Way and support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, while German voters questioned just how socialist the SPD were after they introduced more right-wing policies, like raising the retirement age and changing the way social welfare payments were distributed. The SPD reached a new low in the 2009 Federal election, while the other parties on the German Left achieved historically high percentages.

American liberals became disillusioned with the Democrats when they perceived certain right-wing policies of the Obama administration, and they stayed home during the 2010 midterms. It can be inferred, therefore, that supporters of center-left or Left wing parties expect these parties to behave in a certain ideological fashion, an expectation that can be sometimes harsh on parties that have to develop policies in a more pragmatic fashion due to the circumstances of the situation.

The mutual dislike the Left feels for itself has only done more to damage to its common cause; austerity is the new nationalization in Europe as a result of conservative governments who proclaim to want to rein in spending and reduce deficits, but possibly have a thinly-veiled desire to tear up the social safety net. Pillars of Left-wing political monuments, like Britain's NHS or America's Social Security program are inching closer to the chop-block. For those who believe in a large government presence and social programs designed to smooth the rough edges of capitalism, they face a severe threat to their cherished ideals.

With in-fighting, blame, and accusations the order of the day for the Left, however, the defense of these pillars has become weaker at a time when they should be assured. For a resurgence of the Left, common cause and consensus will have to be found. As well, the impatience of many who want change and progress will have to be overcome, as the journey in the future will be a long, bumpy ride.

Social Democracy in Sweden is Far From Dead

The September 19 general election in Sweden pitted the incumbent Alliance of moderates, centrists, and conservatives against the traditional heavyweights Social Democrats, in a bloc with the Greens and far left. The talk leading up to the election had been all about the Sweden Democrats, the far-right, anti-immigration party which had arisen out of neo-Nazi groups in the 1980s.

The Alliance had hoped for an increase in votes for its largest member, the Moderate Party, so that a majority government could be formed. In a country where the social welfare state is renowned and a source of pride, the architects of the "Swedish Model", the Social Democratic Party, were faced with the possibility of not only not regaining power (something they'd held for some 63 out of the previous 75 years) but also with going below the 30% threshold for the first time ever.

When the votes were finally tallied, the results were both expected and unexpected: While the Moderate Party's share of the vote increased, its partners' went down, leaving a razor-thin gap of 16 seats for the Alliance to form a majority in the 349-seat Riksdag. The Social Democrats did not do as badly as some had predicted, coming in at 30.8%, along with a further 7.2% for the Greens and 5.6% for the Left.

The Alliance has 172 seats, the Red-Green coalition 157 in the new Riksdag

It would seem then, that the nationalist Sweden Democrats, who gained 20 seats and 5.7% of the vote, would hold the balance between the Alliance and the Red-Green coalition. Except that neither party has stated they are willing to negotiate with them at all, meaning that the Alliance will have to rely upon at least some support from the Social Democrats, Greens, and the Left.

With this historic result, a conservative coalition has maintained political power after an election for the first time in since before World War Two. It is also the worst electoral result for the Social Democrats in almost a century, with some questioning whether this marks the demise of socialism and the welfare state in Sweden.

Such conjecture is premature, at best. Social democracy in Sweden is far from dead.

The economy in Sweden has remained quite stable throughout the global economic recession, and when the economy is going good, the party in power will reap the benefits. The Alliance coalition has been in power since 2006, and their limited privatization policies have helped to stimulate jobs at a time when other countries are unable to. Many have pointed to the combination of lower taxes and reduction in social benefits spending that the Moderates have implemented since they gained power as a sign that Swedes no longer appreciate the safety nets that the Social Democrats had put in place over several decades.

Fredrik Reinfeldt, leader of the Moderate Party

Again, this type of conjecture is premature at best. Social democracy, and the Swedish people's appreciation for socialist policies, is far from dead.

While the Social Democrats scored only 0.8% higher than the Moderates on the national level, the local electoral results paint a rosier picture, with 32% and a six point lead over the Moderates for municipal and county results. Additionally, polls as late as the week before the election had been showing a probably majority for the Alliance, but this popularity seemed to go down after a debate over health care insurance seemed to paint the Moderates as forcing patients with severe illness and pain to work.

Swedes like the Moderates' handling of the economy, and see Fredrik Reinfeldt as a better leader for the country than his Social Democrat opponent. While the Moderates can make slight modifications to the welfare state, pruning the excessive branches from the socialist tree, as it were, any kind of deeper, more fundamental change would be most unwelcome among the Swedish population at large.

A case can be made in saying that the Social Democrats maybe had enforced too rigidly their ideology, and as a result were unable to react well enough to the political and economic climate they found themselves in in the mid-2000s, but general, widespread support for the social framework they had placed in Swedish society will remain.

Crisis of Unity in Belgium

Belgium is a small country of about 10 million and roughly the size of Maryland. Though they may not have a large population, everything else about the country is huge. Belgium both produces and consumes huge amounts of alcohol, punching way above their weight in beer terms. Belgians are crazy about their football, with the top division having several teams pulling in over 20,000 fans a game, an impressive feat for such a small country. Politically, Belgium has more intensity, partisanship, inter-party strife, and drama than many of their larger neighbors. To understand the nature of Belgian politics and society, it helps to know a bit of background.

Belgium is a country with three separate language groups, there being a French-speaking community (Wallonia), a Dutch-speaking community (Flanders), and a small German-speaking community, a product of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War One. Brussels, the capital, is officially bilingual and a separate governing entity in the country, as it houses not only the Belgian government, but also the European Union Parliament and other EU buildings. Belgium has experienced successive waves of increasing federalization of the country, making both Wallonia and Flanders more and more autonomous, catering to the growing divide and political strife on linguistic and cultural lines that has marked the country's internal policies for over a century.

In 1830, Belgium was part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, who had dominated the largely Catholic and French-speaking Walloons, resulting in feelings of oppression. The Southern provinces, as Belgium was called then, were underrepresented in the Dutch government, and the use of the French language, spoken in Wallonia and among the upper-class of Flemish, was repressed to the benefit of the Dutch. Influenced by the July Revolution in France, French-speaking Catholics revolted against Dutch authority on August 25, 1830, in Brussels. The Dutch were unable to quell the riots, and Belgium gained its independence.

However, the independence of Belgium really only benefited the French-speaking aristocracy of Flanders and Wallonia. Flemish, the variant of Dutch spoken by a majority of Belgians, was repressed and not given official recognition until some 130 years later, in the 1960's. Economic and political policies vastly favored francophones over Dutch-speakers, with the Wallonia becoming rich at the expense of Flanders. Add to this the fact that Brussels, for centuries a majority-Dutch city, was slowly Frenchified, as more and more of the population began speaking French, leading to its current status as being a francophone enclave within Dutch-speaking Flanders. The resulting rise in Flemish nationalism and desire for autonomy is understandable, then.

Fast-forward to the current day, and the huge impact the effects of federalization and granting increasing autonomy to both Wallonia and Flanders can be seen. Belgium is now a country in name only, really. The Dutch Community (Flanders) and the French Community (Wallonia) are almost completely sovereign countries. They have autonomous laws, government, and policies except in foreign affairs, justice, social security, and monetary issues. The two language groups watch different TV, film, read different books, newspapers, and media, listen to different music, and have different societal figures that the other know nothing about. Going from one place to another may be easy, considering one can get from any point in the country to another in under an hour, but it is like going from one country to a completely different one. Economically, Flanders is seen as being more industrial and richer, having to spend their own money to prop up the more agricultural, poorer Wallonia. Throw in resentment among the 6 million Flemish who are aggrieved at being forced to speak the language of the 4 million Wallonians, which is significantly more important internationally, especially given the proximity to France, as well as immigrants coming to Belgium who live in Flanders but only learn French, and the scene is set for chaos and disunity.

There are no national parties in Belgium. There are a myriad of local (language-centered) parties, ranging from center-right or center-left, to socialist and green, to nationalist, sovereigntist parties calling for full independence of their respective areas. In 2008, the Belgian government that had only been in power for 4 months collapsed. The government had taken over 200 days to come to an agreement for a coalition government, which ended up being a mish-mash of 6 different parties, three each from Wallonia and Flanders. When Prime Minister Yves Leterme offered his resignation to King Albert II on July 15, 2008, the King refused.

Yves Leterme

The political deadlock and uncertainty over such a lengthy period led many to wonder if Belgium would be able to survive as a single entity in Europe. After the governmental debacle of 2007-2008, similar circumstances among the linguistic groups of Belgium again caused an early election this year, to be held on June 13. What stands out about this, is that recent polls show that separatist parties in Flanders are hovering near majority percentages. What would happen if pro-independence parties gain a majority in the Belgian government?

A major question would be what to do with Brussels, which would be an enclave within an independent Flanders with a majority of French-speakers and containing federal buildings of the Belgian government, as well as the European Parliament. Should Flanders democratically separate, no doubt certain parts of the country would be happy, but the constitutional and logistical matter of it all would seem to be the recipe for a political headache. Though separatism may have 50% of the vote in Flanders, that still only means that 30% of Belgium as a whole would agree to seeing the North go through with it. Would other countries recognize this newly-independent Flanders, or would it become a type of Balkanization or Kosovo-ization?

In the past, when faced with such a crisis of national identity and unity, Belgium has been able to work out compromise after compromise to preserve the stability of the country. It is likely that, should compromise fail in the coming elections, the many logistical, constitutional, and political obstacles standing in the way of full sovereignty for Flanders would at worst impede, hinder, or slow the process, and at best block it altogether, making the prospect of seeing a divided Belgium in the coming months very unlikely.

Though Belgium will probably not be breaking up anytime soon, the possibility is still alive and kicking, and questions remain as to how the country can move on from separatism and come to a lasting state of affairs in which both of Belgium's major linguistic regions are satisfied.