Political Change Deniers Should Reconsider
As discussed in the previous blog:
- Rising levels of greenhouse gases result in climate change
- Rising levels of inequality result in political change — authoritarianism / fascism
Imagine for a second a world where we don’t know about greenhouse gases. In such a world, climate change has all kinds of explanations:
- The sun is getting hotter
- It’s the normal cyclical weather pattern for the Earth
- Just bad environmental luck lately
We don’t live in that world and if you Google, “reasons for climate change”, the answer pops up immediately:
Climate change is primarily driven by human activities that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
But now Google “reasons for the rise of authoritarianism”. You get back a very, very long list of potential reasons where
Globalization and Inequality: Rapid globalization and increasing economic inequality can lead to feelings of displacement and resentment, creating fertile ground for populist leaders who promise to restore national identity and economic security.
is in there, though it pretends globalization isn’t caused by inequality, but so is this disclaimer at the end of the very long list of reasons:
Important Note: It is crucial to understand that the rise of authoritarianism is not a monolithic phenomenon. The specific causes and manifestations of authoritarianism vary across countries and contexts. However, the factors listed above offer a general framework for understanding this complex global trend.
And then below the AI driven very long list we get this first link “Democracy in the Shadow of the Global Rise in Authoritarian Populism” by Harvard Kennedy School Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights.
And again it’s a long list of reasons for authoritarianism:
This erosive view of democracy is often coupled with a growing negativity in the overall popular perception of politics and politicians: the belief that politics revolve more around the interests of politicians themselves rather than the interests of the society as a whole.
Socio-economic issues have also contributed to the rise of authoritarian populism: the persistence of poverty worldwide, the relative increase in inequality, and social stagnation that has led to a general lack of upward mobility, he explained. “Globalization and the knowledge economy have negatively impacted many segments of the society in different parts of the world, and the impressive rise of AI will further impact our socioeconomic conditions”
This is the equivalent of saying that the sun causes climate change. Certainly no sun, no climate change, but saying the sun causes climate change or poverty or “globalization and the knowledge economy” cause political change is just blatant sophistry.
It’s unlikely that Luís Roberto Barroso, President of the Brazilian Supreme Court, a man who devotes much of his life to fighting for democracy means to be a political change denier.
Richest 10% income share, 1980–2020
Unfortunately for many authoritarianism is thought to be something beyond anyone’s control.
And even if Barroso admits human decisions are to blame, he might still maintain that political change is not “a monolithic phenomenon”. Charles Dickens, when writing about wealth inequality, understood that realizing culpability is key:
“I wear the chain I forged in life.” [says Jacob Marley’s ghost] “I made it link by link and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it.”
Indeed if you Google Britain’s “Golden Years” you get back the mid-Victorian era (1850–1870) even though A Christmas Carol was published in 1843 and London’s debtors’ prisons weren’t abolished until 1869.
Google would claim the Victorian era is not authoritarian but universal suffrage for men didn’t happen in Britain until 1918. Meanwhile some consider the Tamworth Manifesto of 1834 to be the birth of modern conservatism:
if, by adopting the spirit of the Reform Bill, it be meant that we are to live in a perpetual vortex of agitation; that public men can only support themselves in public estimation by adopting every popular impression of the day, — by promising the instant redress of anything which anybody may call an abuse — by abandoning altogether that great aid of government — more powerful than either law or reason — the respect for ancient rights, and the deference to prescriptive authority
This whiny attitude towards reform and the call for “deference to prescriptive authority” by men fearing diminishing power are exactly the roots of wealth inequality led authoritarianism. 1834 was also the year of the New Poor Law dramatically defunding care for the poor and introducing a workhouse system that led to a poverty induced crime wave.
The author of the Tamworth Manifesto was Robert Peel
The son of a wealthy textile manufacturer and politician, Peel was the first prime minister from an industrial business background.
Peel is also famous for creating the modern police state. So all the elements of wealth inequality driven authoritarianism were there:
- The tail end of the industrial revolution in Britain 1760 to 1840 — causing tremendous inequality
- Growing unhappiness with taxes going to the poor
- Businessmen taking the reigns of power — sometimes with coalitions with organized religion
- Some disaster that a ridiculously conservative government botches — in this case Peel was actually the good guy who got rid of high tariffs on corn but that led to his party’s fall. Then at the outset of the Great Potato Famine:
As a devout advocate of laissez-faire, Trevelyan also claimed that aiding the Irish brought “the risk of paralyzing all private enterprise.” Thus he ruled out providing any more government food, despite early reports the potato blight had already been spotted amid the next harvest in the west of Ireland. Trevelyan believed Peel’s policy of providing cheap Indian corn meal to the Irish had been a mistake because it undercut market prices and had discouraged private food dealers from importing the needed food. This year, the British government would do nothing. The food depots would be closed on schedule and the Irish fed via the free market, reducing their dependence on the government while at the same time maintaining the rights of private enterprise.
If you Google “causes of the irish potato famine” you get more denial:
The primary cause of the Irish Potato Famine was the widespread destruction of the potato crop by a fungal blight (Phytophthora infestans) between 1845 and 1852.
No that’s again the sun causes climate change. Fungal blight didn’t starve people — wealth inequality driven cruel “market forces” British policies did.
This is why political change deniers should reconsider. It might feel great at first to not pay taxes and leave everything up to laissez-faire. However its the equivalent of not brushing teeth and not going to the dentist — at first it’s fun but eventually it’s an enormous pain.
That said is there a way out of inequality that doesn’t involve famine, war, revolution, or depression? If you Google “how does inequality historically end” you get
Historically, periods of inequality reduction have often coincided with catastrophic events like wars, revolutions, or pandemics.
In 1890, Victorian economist Alfred Marshall had this to say,
The most valuable of all capital is that invested in human beings; and of that capital the most precious part is the result of the care and influence of the mother
Perhaps the global baby bust and the global inequality can be tackled together if we turn away from trying to shrink government and instead try for government that invests in human beings.