The New Political Divide; Farewell, Left Versus Right. The Contest That Matters Now Is...

[Purveyor]

Farewell, Left Versus Right. The Contest That Matters Now Is Open Against Closed

AS POLITICAL theatre, America’s party conventions have no parallel. Activists from right and left converge to choose their nominees and celebrate conservatism (Republicans) and progressivism (Democrats). But this year was different, and not just because Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party. The conventions highlighted a new political faultline: not between left and right, but between open and closed (see article). Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, summed up one side of this divide with his usual pithiness. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” he declared. His anti-trade tirades were echoed by the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

America is not alone. Across Europe, the politicians with momentum are those who argue that the world is a nasty, threatening place, and that wise nations should build walls to keep it out. Such arguments have helped elect an ultranationalist government in Hungary and a Polish one that offers a Trumpian mix of xenophobia and disregard for constitutional norms. Populist, authoritarian European parties of the right or left now enjoy nearly twice as much support as they did in 2000, and are in government or in a ruling coalition in nine countries. So far, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union has been the anti-globalists’ biggest prize: the vote in June to abandon the world’s most successful free-trade club was won by cynically pandering to voters’ insular instincts, splitting mainstream parties down the middle.
In this section

News that strengthens the anti-globalisers’ appeal comes almost daily. On July 26th two men claiming allegiance to Islamic State slit the throat of an 85-year-old Catholic priest in a church near Rouen. It was the latest in a string of terrorist atrocities in France and Germany. The danger is that a rising sense of insecurity will lead to more electoral victories for closed-world types. This is the gravest risk to the free world since communism. Nothing matters more than countering it.
Advertisement

Higher walls, lower living standards

Start by remembering what is at stake. The multilateral system of institutions, rules and alliances, led by America, has underpinned global prosperity for seven decades. It enabled the rebuilding of post-war Europe, saw off the closed world of Soviet communism and, by connecting China to the global economy, brought about the greatest poverty reduction in history.

MORE...

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/20160728n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/n/n

[msongs]

1. dear economist corporate mouthpiece...angst is about corporate strangulation, not trade nt

[Warpy]

2. Thank you, that too

I was going to say the real divide is between sane and crazy, logic versus wishful thinking, attentive versus ignorant and proud uvvit.

But yes, an economy this topheavy can't stand for long. It is going to collapse again.

[newthinking]

5. This!

That is the root. Question is which solution will we get (If we get a solution)

[David__77]

3. Sovereignty can coexist with cooperative relations.

International trade can occur in a way that facilitates the greatest good for the greatest number.

[kristopher]

7. How do you know?

All that has happened so far is that the decision-making about distribution of the "good" has been monopolized by the accumulated wealth. This decision-making is already largely supplanting democratic processes.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just asking if you can square your statement with the observed evidence regarding loss of sovereignty.

[David__77]

8. I said "can" and not "is."

I suppose that my statement was aspirational, rather than a description of current conditions.

[kristopher]

9. Yes, I recognize that. I was asking how any other outcome is possible given the dynamics.

From what I see of history, either we control capital or capital controls us. Do you have some sort of model you can lay out where a balance is assured?

[David__77]

10. I get what you're saying.

I've got no succinct answer for that, in policy terms. I do wish the US and other governments would refrain from seeking to overthrow other states through military or covert means.

[BlueMTexpat]

4. Or reasonably sane versus

unhinged ... !

[ancianita]

6. Looked for a byline -- every serious essay should have one -- but it's anonymous. Writers should

get credit.