Has the Left become the Right?

What becomes of the politically broken-hearted?

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

How exactly did that [the Trump comeback] happen?… The “Trumpian Right,” whether you agree with it or not, has been more intellectually alive and vital than the Progressive Left… The deindustrialization of America has mattered more than people expected at first, and has had longer legs, in terms of its impact on public opinion… The ongoing feminization of society has driven more and more men, including black and Latino men, into the Republican camp… The Obama administration brought, to some degree, both the reality and perception of being ruled by the intellectual class… Immigration at the border has in fact spun out of control, and that has been a key Trump issue from the beginning of his campaign. And I write this as a person who is very pro-immigration. You can imagine how the immigration skeptics feel… And we haven’t even gotten to “Defund the police,” the recurring rise of anti-Semitism on the left, and at least a half dozen other matters. In very simple terms, you might say the Democrats have done a lot to make themselves unpopular, and not had much willingness to confront that… On the other side of the ledger, you might argue, as do many intelligent people, that the Democrats are better at technocracy, and also that Democrats are more respectful of traditional political processes, especially transitions after elections. 
Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution, 17/7/24

You’re an Anglosphere voter. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to choose between Party A and Party B.

Party A
Party A sees itself as representing what we Australians call battlers and what non-Australians might call the left behind or rustbelt voters. It favours immigration restrictions and the reintroduction of tariffs and industry policy to reverse the deleterious effects of decades of global labour arbitrage by corporate elites.

More broadly, Party A is increasingly sceptical of letting the free market rip – albeit after long holding precisely the opposite view – having now recognised the consequences of largely guardrail-free capitalism. For instance, the income inequality found in Anglosphere societies, especially America, pre-1945 and post-1979.

One of Party A’s natural constituencies maintains an ancient, implacable hatred towards organised labour. But another constituency – people who have historically voted for Party B – argues Party A needs to rethink its hostility to unions and start supporting a more equitable distribution of the spoils between Capital and Labour.   

Party A proposes that the US pull back from its disastrous military adventurism and rein in the influence of the military-industrial complex and unrepentant neocons.  

Party A is pro-free speech. Or at least currently far more pro-free speech than Party B.

Party A recognises that it’s those in the bottom three-quarters of the income distribution who suffer most when high-trust societies become atomised, disorderly and crime-ridden. Accordingly, supporters of Party A tend to be both keen on law and order and hesitant about the dramatic social change that inevitably accompanies mass migration. Change that is especially unsettling for those who don’t have the ‘white flight’ option of buying their way out of the neighbourhoods newly arrived migrants settle in.  

If you had to summarise Party A’s political positioning in one word, it would be populist. Party A believes the common people have been poorly served by political, business and media elites in recent decades and that cultural clout, and maybe even some wealth, needs to be urgently redistributed from the top 20 per cent to the bottom 80 per cent.

Party B
There’s no clear-cut Manichean divide between Party A and Party B. Party B has also had a belated epiphany and realised that decades of plutocrat-empowering globalisation have resulted in significant negative externalities. Not least many Anglosphere citizens, especially younger ones, believing they can’t get ahead no matter how hard they try. It also accepts that some redistribution of political influence from the top to the middle and bottom is required. (Party A is more focused on culturally empowering globalisation’s losers/non-winners, while Party B is more open to tax-and-spend policies designed to uplift them economically.)    

However, Party B is now the party of the Establishment and thus a – somewhat conflicted, for historical reasons – defender of the status quo. It defaults to believing those in positions of authority are always much wiser, and usually more moral, than the hoi polloi. It continues to fervently believe that the upsides of mass migration far outweigh the downsides. It remains much more concerned with ramping up vibrant diversity than with maintaining social cohesion. It appeals most strongly to those who are university educated and thus culturally – if not necessarily economically – upper-middle class.

Having completed their long march through the institutions, supporters of Party B have now largely abandoned their once staunch support for free speech and vigorous debate. Supporters of Party B are mistrustful of democracy (i.e. “populism”), or at least the demos. Party B and its champions – now including much of the extant legacy media – will often attempt to destroy anybody who questions the pronouncements or motivations of members of polite society. (See, especially, 2020-2022.)

Here's a question for you, dear reader – which side of the traditional left-right spectrum would you put Party A and Party B on?  

Widespread confusion
Andrew Klavan, a Jew who became a Christian, argues, “I’m a conservative because I’m a liberal”.

Konstantin Kisin

describes himself as politically non-binary. Semi-humorously, Brendan O’Neill labels himself as a Libertarian Marxist. Bill Maher, a long-time Democrat dismayed by the excesses of the Social Justice Left, laments he’s “a man without a country”. Bridget Phetasy has created a mini media empire by solely targeting the electorally unhoused.

Speaking of podcasters, while many progressives have decided – often without the bother of listening to him – that Joe Rogan is a Far Right lunatic, that’s at most half true.

Rogan occasionally mentions his mother and stepfather needing to rely on food stamps. He regularly expresses frustration that more isn’t done to help those located at the arse end of US society. Like many Americans, he’s enraged at the trillions of dollars pissed up against the wall on pointless Middle Eastern wars. He not infrequently wonders aloud what would have happened if those trillions of dollars had been spent on, say, rebuilding the US’s crumbling infrastructure or assisting its flailing underclass.

He’s critical of the US healthcare system and seemingly supportive of a more universal and socialised system. He’s long supported drug legalisation while also being sceptical of Big Pharma. And despite being well on his way to Oprahesque levels of prosperity even back then, he supported (self-described democratic socialist) Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primary.  

Could there possibly be a reason so many people tune in?
You can performatively despise Joe Rogan, if you so wish. What you can’t do is pretend he’s unpopular.

Most podcasts aren’t listened to by anybody other than those involved in their creation. A podcast that reaches 500,000 – 1,000,000 people is considered a wild success. Rogan’s podcast episodes regularly attract 11 million-plus listeners.  

So why does Rogan far outperform even his closest competitors?

Let me proffer an explanation.

There’s a growing cohort of Anglosphere voters who aren’t much interested in what the social-justice Left or free-market-fundamentalist Right have long been serving up.

Given they no longer identify strongly with either of the two conventional options, these individuals are open to hearing what Rogan and his guests – dissident Rightists such as Tucker Carlson, Tim Dillon, Alex Jones, Michael Malice, Jordan Peterson, Dave Smith and Peter Thiel, as well as dissident Leftists such as Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald,

Coleman Hughes

, Jonathan Haidt, RFK Jr, Abby Martin,

Josh Szeps

,

Matt Taibbi

, Brett Weinstein, Eric Weinstein and Cornel West – have to say.

Are the politically homeless setting the political agenda?
Let’s posit that (a) there’s now a substantial slice of the electorate that believes Anglosphere societies took a terrible wrong turn somewhere and require a swamp-draining political realignment and (b) politicians/political operatives on both the Left and Right are now trying to appeal to these unmoored voters.  

What might happen in such a scenario?  

You’d expect centre-left parties to become a little less obsessed with gender, sexuality and race cause célèbres and to start crab-walking away from pricey, blue-collar-job-destroying schemes to address climate change.

After standing idly by, or worse, for four decades as those at the top strip-mined the wealth of those in the middle and bottom, you might find centre-left politicians suddenly rediscovering the old-time religion of class politics.

You might even notice that centre-left parties are increasingly willing to displease their more self-regarding supporters by cracking down on illegal immigration.

(The prospect of dialling back legal immigration remains a bridge too far for the Democrats. But many centre-left parties across the Anglosphere and Western Europe, including the ALP here in Australia, have now bitten that bullet.)  

On the other side of the aisle, centre-right parties might opt not to be quite so accommodating of corporations. They might introduce tariffs and immigration restrictions and reanimate industry policy to give beleaguered working-class and middle-class voters a leg up. They might even attempt to kiss and make up with the unions they’ve spent so long trying to destroy.

What happens next?
Where does this leave the Democrats, Republicans, ALP and Coalition this election season?

The Left must continue to appease its dual constituencies – those at the bottom as well as those close to the top of the socio-economic ladder – while simultaneously trying to win back those sections of the working and lower-middle class sick of being scolded for their transphobic racism.   

The only consolation those on the Left can take is that the Right faces its own challenges trying to keep its varied constituencies – not least, workers and their bosses – on the same page.

But I’m in broad agreement with Cowen. The Right is more vibrant and has been much more willing to break with the neoliberal past and embrace the neopopulist future. It’s also quicker on Sister Souljah draw, having been more willing to throw long-time backers, not least Big Business and foreign policy hawks, under the bus.

In contrast, the Left continues to act like it’s turned up to a cyber war brandishing a tattered Enya CD from the 1980s.

That being the case, I’m still calling Trump for the win. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Albo manages to get himself turfed out after one term.