My Review of Adrian Woodridge's "The Revolutionary Center"

Liberalism Under Siege

Adrian Wooldridge, formerly political editor of The Economist and now an opinion columnist at Bloomberg, has offered up a history of liberal political thought from Montesquieu to John Stuart Mill and on to Hayek, Keynes, and Friedman. That liberalism faces attacks to today from the authoritarian Right and the identitarian Left reminiscent of the 1930’s. (See: https://shulmaven.blogspot.com/2023/11/reliving-1930s-part-5.html ) And it goes without saying that the concept of free speech is now under a withering assault. Wooldridge wants to reclaim liberalism’s revolutionary history that brought freedom and prosperity to much of the world. Thus, you can call him a revolutionary centrist, and the world truly needs hm today.

 

For whatever reason, too many people have abandoned the basic tenets of liberalism which include freedom of thought, a free market, room for heterodox views and the removal of obstacles to self-development. In short, Wooldridge believes in a meritocracy that offers a ladder up for those folks who have been left behind.

 

In terms of government liberalism stands for the separation of powers as articulated by the U.S. Constitution. He quotes Lord Acton about power corrupting, and we are getting a real-life lesson with the antics of Donald Trump.

 

Wooldridge sees three strands of liberalism today. The first being neoliberalism with its faith in markets to solve society’s problems. Second, managerial liberalism, which is characterized by an elite consensus coming out of Davos, the universities, and the NGOs. The third form is progressive liberalism which exalts rights over responsibilities especially for groups. I would not call this liberalism.

 

Wooldridge offers political solutions reanimating liberalism. He moves to the right and the left at the same time by calling for higher taxes, antitrust enforcement of the tech companies, immigration restrictions, and a return to merit-based admissions to the universities. He also doesn’t believe that Muslim fundamentalism is compatible with liberalism. If the Muslim population of Europe can’t be integrated into the broader society Europe will (is) be in a world of hurt.

 

To me the solution is in governing, not only in making political compromises as necessary as they are. In order for liberalism to succeed, it has to govern successfully. That means a wholesale repudiation of the “blue model” that now governs most of America’s large cities. The high tax-low service model of the blue cities and today’s U.K. for example, is forcing voters to move towards the authoritarian right and to the socialist left in the U.S.

 

We are living in a time where the horseshoe theory of politics holds as both the right, and the left ending up in opposition to the liberal order that has served us well for of these years. It is a real shame, and it is very disheartening. Wooldridge points us a way out of this malaise.

My Review of Victor Shvets' "The Twilight Before the Storm"

 The Times They Are A-Changin* 

Viktor Shvets, an investment strategist at Macquarie Bank, doesn’t like the baby boomers, especially the neoliberal order that generation brought into being. Drawing on the work of Neil Howe and others ( https://shulmaven.blogspot.com/2023/09/my-review-of-neil-howes-fourth-turning.html ) wherein generational changeovers drive history he argues that the neoliberal order of 1980-2010 is over and we poised enter a turbulent era with the Gen-Z and millennial generations taking power. He analogizes the coming epoch to that of the 1930’s where communism, fascism and social democracy fought it out for global supremacy which set the world on fire in the 1940’s.

To Shvets the change is being brought about by the merger of financialization with the technological revolution which is creating an unsustainable income distribution that has given rise to populism on both the Right and the Left. He calls this the Fujiwhara effect where two tropical storms merge to create a monster storm. I would note that his view of fairness is horizontal equity as opposed to vertical equity where people are free to enjoy the fruits of their labor and talents.

I am a big fan of Neil Howe and I have written a thus far five part series on “Reliving the 1930’s” (See: https://shulmaven.blogspot.com/2023/11/reliving-1930s-part-5.html ) As result a read Shvets’ book with some sympathy, but in my opinion he gets more than a few things wrong. I lived the 1960’s through the rise of neoliberalism as a hippy protestor to working on Wall Street. I know I am far from being the only one. However, his boomers are the ones who went to college, not the ones who fought in Vietnam, went to work in a factory, and suffered through the divorce epidemic of the 1970’s. 

 

While Shvets is critical of the individualism of the boomers in the economic realm, he fully supports their individualism with respect to sex, drugs, and racial tolerance. Basically, the rebels of the 1960’s won a complete victory in the culture war and lost the economic war. To me it was no accident that economic freedom went hand in hand with personal freedom, although you can certainly argue there are excesses in both areas.

 

Connecting our era to that of the 1930’s, Shvets’ believes that ideally, we would have a rerun of 1930’s America along a path toward Roosevelt-style social democracy that would include a universal basic income. However, that path might not be viable and it is not the only path. The social democratic path faces the fundamental reality that in the “Blue” cities of America that are far down the road toward social democracy we see abject governmental failure in the form of high taxes coupled with poor services, failed public education, fiscal bankruptcy, governmental fraud and the widest gaps between rich and poor. That future is hardly enticing.

 

Instead, the fourth turning could lead to a major cultural revolution towards a new religiosity in society. Where the Gen-Zers and the millennials have substituted environmentalism, socialism, feminism, and new ageism for religion, in place of the market fundamentalism of the Boomers, they may ultimately turn to the real thing. It won’t be the first time America has had a religious awakening, and it won’t be the first time that history surprises.

 

*-With apologies to Bob Dylan

My Amazon Review of Ian Kershaw's "The Global Age: Europe 1950-2017"

From Renewal to Decline

After giving a rave review to Ian Kershaw’s “To Hell and Back” three years ago, I was looking forward this sequel on the history of Europe from 1950- 2017. Unfortunately I was somewhat disappointed. Perhaps it is difficult for historians to write about events they lived through, and like him I lived through many of the events he discusses.

In 1950 Europe was in ruins and the nuclear sword of Damocles was hanging over the continent by the American and Soviet super powers. The Marshall Plan was just beginning to take effect and it remained to be seen whether or not a real recovery would take place. Twenty years later Western Europe was largely booming and in the east a drab poverty was the rule of the day.

To Kershaw Europe’s great success during that period was the establishment of the welfare state. To me, on the other hand, the great achievement was placing the economy largely on a market-oriented footing that enabled the boom. Here much credit goes to the German economic miracle.

Kershaw is a child of 1968, but never mentions his own role in the youthful cultural and political revolution that took place then. He was 25 at the time. Although I experienced 1968 in America it is my understanding that far from being separate, the cultural revolution was part and parcel with the political revolution. Even the most serious of politicos of the day we caught up in sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll.  Nevertheless Kershaw rightly states that to the youth in the East, the western revolutionaries were clueless had had no idea how repressive a state could be. In other words they were spoiled children.

Kershaw gives great credit to Gorbachev in ending the Cold War Personality is important, just as the roles of Hitler, Stalin and Churchill were important in his earlier volume He also rightly gives credit to German prime minister Helmut Kohl However, he fails to credit the very deft handling of bringing about the end of the Cold War to the Bush-Baker team in the U.S.

He is way too critical of Margaret Thatcher’s harsh neo-liberalism. In my opinion Thatcher saved Britain by being Churchillian in reorganizing the economy for economic growth. Kershaw is way too concerned about the collateral damage, but to paraphrase the master builder Robert Moses, “you have to break eggs in order to make an omelet.  

Although the E.U. started with great promise, its survival is open to question. The first failure was its lack of intervention in the Yugoslavian Wars, a humanitarian disaster that required U.S. military force and diplomacy to bring it to an end. The E.U. failed to listen to the anti-immigrant stirrings in the late 1990s that would come to a full boil in 2015. To all too many Europeans the E.U. is being run for the elite by a group of nameless and faceless bureaucrats. That is one reason why the U.K. wants to leave. Kershaw is part of that elite. And to top it off, Europe remains unwilling to fund its own defense.

He rightfully calls out unregulated finance capitalism to for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Although the crisis had its origins in the U.S., Wall Street was aided and abetted by greedy European banks chasing yield. Further, while the U.S. required its banks to recapitalize, Europe did not. Hence the crisis lingers today where negative interest rates are becoming normal.

I don’t think Kershaw was harsh enough on the communist governments of the East. I was in East Berlin and Moscow in the spring of 1990. The contrast between East and West Berlin was striking. Simply put the West was alive and the East was dead. In Moscow such common drug store items as Bayer Aspirin and Tampax was not available even for upper middle income consumers.

I have two other quibbles he leaves out data on the collapse in birthrates across Europe, especially in the East, Italy and Spain. That is evidence of the lack of a future orientation and it will make the welfare state promises made to elderly untenable. Lastly he completely leaves out the rise of antisemitism, the scourge of Europe in his first volume.  It is not only coming from the far right, but we see it in the Moslem immigrants and in Britain’s Labour Party.

Despite my criticisms, Kershaw has given us a very usable history of how modern Europe came into being and for that he deserves credit.

For the full amazon URL see: https://www.amazon.com/review/R1AIX5VT8R7ZF4/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv