There seems to be a seismic shift happening politically. Away from the classical liberal, internationalist order of the last 80 years or so, to either a soft communism on the left, or soft fascism on the right.
Let me explain!
After World War II, the world was firmly set against the
evils of nationalism, seeing what it did when left unchecked in Nazi Germany
and Imperial Japan. The geopolitical
consensus was: let’s work together as nations, and not pursue our own national
ambitions aggressively and/or belligerently, or we’ll have to go through all
that again. (The formation of the United
Nations was a part of this intent, though its structural and functional flaws
run deep, to the point of being of little use.)
Still, the functional relationship especially among Western nations
became substantially more cordial. “We
want to basically be friends, and not provoke or get mad at each other, so we
don’t wind up in another world war.”
This was the intangible foundation of the classical liberal
internationalist order, and it was assumed as bedrock, until about 10 minutes
ago.
But the younger political generation, from AOC to JD Vance
and their followers, do NOT think this way.
They are much more willing to use political force to advance their
communist or nationalist agenda, with less concern for how it provokes others.
I’d rather have a national political agenda that
collaborates with friendly nations, instead of seeking to get all we can out of
them, America first, style. I oppose
Trump in this, but don’t think he’s about to provoke WWIII anywhere, either.
The extreme polarization of society in the last 10-15 years
has led to a greater willingness, especially among the young, to exert
political force on the other side, rather than resort to persuasion.
Fascism needs further comment. The right is exasperated that the left
constantly accuses them of fascism just for not agreeing with them. I share that frustration, but also see signs
that the new right IS adopting some elements of fascism, just as the left is
adopting communism. This usually gets
inflammatory in heated discussion, but let’s try being rational a moment.
The first definition of fascism is, “A system of government
marked by centralization of authority under a dictator.” Now, Trump is no dictator. The overreach of executive power has been
going on for decades, from GW Bush’s national security after 9/11, to Obama’s
“I have a phone and a pen,” and on.
Trump is merely continuing what they and Biden have continued and
expanded. But I don’t like it – it’s
very Imperial Rome. The Republic is
dying. We need a limited government
conservative in office, again. We don’t
have it, and I don’t see it in the foreseeable future.
The second definition of fascism is, “a capitalist economy
subject to stringent governmental controls.”
I’m seeing this more and more, in Trump’s insistence with
private businesses that they do business a certain way in a certain place, for
the national interest. There is a case
to be made for protecting the American economy, here, but it comes at the price
of liberty. I’m not sure where to draw
the line, honestly. But I do know we are
moving more toward subjecting the private market to government control, whether
from the left or from the right. The
recent 10% stake in Intel by the Federal government is a clear example. Not good.
The third definition of fascism: “violent suppression of the
opposition.” This one has the least
credibility as an accusation from the left against the right. The only violent suppression happening is
against criminals and illegals in our country, which should be done. The extreme opposition to law and order on
the left makes me most willing to accept the right-wing conspiracies that the
left WANTS more crime and illegals, to destabilize the country and give them
more power.
The last definition of fascism: “a policy of belligerent
nationalism and racism.” I’m seeing
belligerent nationalism, definitely.
Take our allies for all the tariff taxes they’re worth. Who cares about Ukrainians being assaulted
when we’ve got our own borders and people to deal with? Sometimes this comes with a tinge of racism:
we want an ethnically cohesive culture (Stephen Wolfe). The goal is to foster Western culture and
American identity, which I appreciate.
But to force companies to hire Americans at twice the labor cost as
Indians doesn’t seem right to me, either.
And as a country we don’t know who we are anymore, so instilling an
American identity in immigrants, or sussing out if they own it on a case by
case basis before letting them into the USA, isn’t feasible. This gives some credence to the new right’s
argument that we should just stop all immigration until we’ve got that sorted
out. But in the meantime, if it ever happens,
there are real, persecuted asylum seekers who are getting booted back to their
countries where they’ll be tortured and maybe killed when we send them
home. To do that to people in the name
of nationalism, to abandon Ukraine to Russia’s invasion, is an ethical failure
on our part.
I would prefer a return to a classically liberal order,
where freedom for all is respected, but I fear it is gone. Such freedom has been too much abused, and
people are sick of the results. As Chuck
Colson liked to say, if we won’t rule ourselves, we will be ruled by
others. Now we’re just fighting over who
will rule us with an iron fist, and that fight will get more and more
desperate, as we realize it WILL be an iron fist, either way. I don’t want Christian morality imposed in
all its details on the entire populace, but neither do I want to see more
abortion carnage and LGBT perversion celebrated. People are just looking for basic sanity
these days, but most political actors don’t seem very interested in that.
