“For just as reciprocity, redistribution, or householding may occur in a society without being prevalent in it, the principle of barter also may take a subordinate place in a society in which other principles are the ascendant.”
–Karl Polanyi
I. America is at war on all fronts. Our society and culture are in decline. We have no sense of morality and relativism has become the norm. The family unit has completely disintegrated and divorce is now common practice. We have no values other than borrow, spend, and consume to gluttonous proportions without concern for the future. And now we’re paying for it with an economic crisis that doesn’t have an end in sight. There is an utter lack of community and the organizations and societies that used to matter don’t. Small-towns and the heart of America are dying out, and the American farmer is a thing of the past. The military struggles to get recruits and does not have the social prestige it used to, and the American empire does not inspire the fear it once did. Our border is disintegrating and our language and culture are dying out as our neighbor overpopulates us with its people. Multiculturalism is taken to be dogma and we are losing a sense of who we are as a people. Our youth is spoiled and has a sense of entitlement never seen before and is weaker than the generations that preceded it. Masculinity is demonized and has no outlet. Heroism and sacrifice are considered historical artifacts that have no place in contemporary society. The world is filled with terrorists who are willing and able to inflict greater damage on our own soil than we’ve ever seen. And a socialist uprising may be around the corner.
The right in this country can feel these problems but seems to be able to do little about them. They can pass little in terms of policy in such a liberal society that worships the freedom to destroy itself, forget its values, and do whatever it pleases without regard for the society as a whole. The liberal, democratic process makes it hard to accomplish anything, especially moral enforcement, since the masses who continue to do wrong and only care about themselves have just as much of a voice in politics. But no one can see this because of the extent to which we learn about it in school and, more importantly, the economic prosperity it has brought until now. And the social conservatives are allied with a political wing with which it shares little in common and whose free market society undermines what the social conservatives truly want to accomplish. Why is there an alliance between the social and economic right in this country?
Why does the American right have such a moralistic devotion to the market and its efficiency? They talk about values that they believe to be more important than anything, yet they ally themselves politically with libertarians who do not care at all about values, social issues, or American culture, but only about the market. The libertarian conservatives have no values other than their own greed and they are willing to compromise themselves ideologically if it gives them political power (how many of these libertarian, Friedmanite Republicans complained about the defense budget and the inefficiency of the military?). And what does the most possibly efficient operation of the economy have to do with values and culture anyway? Shouldn’t it be much less important? Why are the social conservatives so passionate about efficiency in Caesar’s domain? If they claim to be influenced by Christian morality, why wouldn’t they be more likely to subvert the market to fit human needs, stop the cultural decline, preserve the family unit, or pursue serious foreign policy objectives abroad? In Europe the socially conservative, Christian parties are not economic libertarians, the liberal parties are. And why is economic prosperity so important to the socially conservative right? Why is it so important that the distribution of wealth be highly unequal? Isn’t greed entirely incompatible with Christian morality? And if the right constantly looks back to the past (presumably the 30s, 40s, 50s, and early 60s) and wishes to restore us to that society, why are they so critical of the institutions and economic policies that characterized that era? Why can’t they suspect that our current economic regime may have been a cause of the cultural decline they claim to oppose?
II. In order to answer these questions, the history of party politics and economic policy in the US must be examined. The golden generation, which the right idealizes, emerged from the great depression with the New Deal. It took extensive state intervention in the economy to restart it as well as the expansion and modernization of the state. Their next great act was to win the Second World War and to establish the US as the greatest superpower the world has ever seen. This was also achieved through a great expansion and modernization of the state along with rigorous controls put on the economy. The United States enjoyed economic supremacy as well in being the engine of the global economy. The Bretton Woods era saw the US reach its apex in terms of economic power and the highest growth rates in our history, and this was an economic regime much different from ours today. It had a much smaller financial sector, a bigger state, tighter regulations, and a much more equitable distribution of wealth. At the same time we pursued greatness and overcame our rivals in both the space and arms race.
Eventually the Bretton Woods era came to an end. Other economic powers emerged, putting stress on the currency regime, and the oil crisis further strained the system. The American public was unwilling to put up with the resulting stagflation and the smaller growth rates, and we entered a new global economic regime with floating exchange rates and the freer movement of capital, goods, and people. During this era the new economic right emerged, founded by radical libertarians such as Milton Friedman. They opposed the expansion of the state and welfare system of the Great Society, and eventually the New Deal. The welfare system had grown too large and the unions had too much power in the eyes of many. Since the Great Society also aimed at racial equality (with desegregation and the attempt to bring an end to Jim Crow laws, redistribution of wealth to African-Americans through welfare, and the integration of hospitals through attempts at creating a national health care system, among other things), it found allies in Southern, Midwestern, and Sunbelt social conservatives, especially since unions were much less prevalent in those areas. These conservatives also became disenchanted with our foreign policy, and the weakness of the Carter administration in dealing with our cultural enemies enraged them.
In responding to these trends the Reagan revolution successfully created the modern GOP and American right, based on the convergence of economic libertarianism, (supposed) social conservatism, and a more confrontational (at least in rhetoric) foreign policy.
The success of the radical free-market movement was especially made possible by the collapse of the Bretton Woods regime. During that era the state was still an important part of economic growth. It created demand and jobs as well as stabilizing the economy. But in the new economic regime, with floating exchange rates, free trade, easy credit, and the growth of the financial sector and transnational capital (all combining to enable giant asset bubbles), the state is no longer as successful at creating wealth. In our highly financialized society, the state is inefficient compared to the private sector in maximizing short term profit and those resources would see higher yields (in the short term) if put through the private sector.
In this era, the freedom of movement of capital, goods, and people became the paradigm, enabled by the system of floating exchange rates. Neoliberal economic policy became the standard around the globe, and it usually created short-term economic gains, encouraged by the liberal governments that became almost entirely replaced other regime types. Privatization and deregulation would lead to short term economic growth and became the programs for governments around the globe. In America, the Democrats also shifted rightwards, embracing the reduction of the state and other libertarian measures. It eventually became the party of neoliberalism as the unions lost power in this era (especially since our manufacturing and agricultural sectors shrank and lost power as labor moved overseas or to illegal immigrants) and the professional class became the base of the Democrats. They desired the neoliberal state with lower prices for the consumer and lower taxes as well as a smaller military. The parties seemed to be converging, only separated by differences on a few hot-button social issues, until 9/11 occurred and the public was reminded of the importance of the military and national security.
III. Thus, a unique combination of historical factors led to the alliance of the social conservatives and economic libertarians. But what the social conservatives do not but should realize is that the decline of American culture is ultimately caused by the market. First and most obviously, the liberal state leads to cultural decline because it worships the freedom to do so. Once the state guarantees the freedom of the populace to engage in whatever moral perversions it pleases, they will do so. Agrarian and urban classes tend to stick to their religion and values. The middle and upper classes, however, are much more consumed by the liberal, capitalistic way of life. The white collar background is characterized by the greater presence of the market and economic transactions in their daily lives, and they are much more likely to revert to hedonism, atheism, and perversion. Without rules, there is chaos and disorder. A society without social norms other than the freedom to do what one pleases and the freedom and desire to accumulate wealth is bound to descend into chaos. People look to the state for guidance, meaning, and rules, and when a state is secular and “rational” and tries to be above religion and ideology, often times society will quickly adopt those secular values and lose its own. It is no wonder then that despite their economic prosperity, suicide and depression are commonplace in the wealthiest liberal states.
But the market itself directly causes cultural decline. This begins with economic modernization. When economic modernization occurs very rapidly, it leads to disorder and the dismantling of traditional social and economic structures. Urbanization and industrialization, processes that characterize the 20th century in the US, resulted in the end of our agricultural sector. America used to be built on the small farmer, and now he is only a romantic ideal of the past. Over the past few decades, what is left of small farming has been swallowed up large corporate farms in the name of profit and the free market. We could do nothing to stop it in a society that worships short-term economic gain above all else. Small towns in the Great Plains have been steadily disappearing over the past few decades. In the current economic paradigm of an integrated global economy based on short-term profit, small towns disappear because they are not as economically profitable as other arrangements. A corporate, centralized farming system means there aren’t enough farmers to support these small towns. Thus, the progression of unfettered capitalism in this country over the past 100 years has destroyed the heart of America. This is what causes the insecurity of American social conservatives and the wave of religious revivalism in this country. People sense that we are losing our identity, but they worship libertarian economics so fervently that they can’t see the causes of the cultural decline.
The media in this very developed, capitalistic society also causes the cultural decline. In our highly marketized society, our culture becomes simply a product of capitalism. Culture is mass produced and distributed by the media, which is motivated by profits. Morality and traditional values don’t sell; one only needs to look at Hollywood to realize that. So we’re exposed a barrage of moral relativism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and cosmopolitanism, and the television and internet have so much power over us and how we perceive the world that most of the population is successfully brainwashed. Technology and the information age mean that this culture is ever-present, and the religious in the country must fight a constant battle to keep their children from becoming washed up in this liberal, soulless mass culture. And through the media we are bombarded with advertisements that pressure us to be consumers, often times using sex to sell their products. Without much history and tradition and in a society that worships “progress,” this capitalist, mass-produced, liberal culture becomes the omnipresent norm. Our economy is based on debt and gluttonous levels of consumption, and we’re too caught up in our consumerist, materialist culture to have real principles other than frantic borrowing and buying. Our most sacred holiday, the celebration of our religion, has turned into a disgusting, orgiastic, annual spree of consumer capitalism. This is a culture that has made us materialistic, shallow, and weak.
The more an economy develops and financializes, the more the market governs the relations of its people. The more marketized and financialized a society becomes, the more everyday actions become economic transactions, and the more capitalism pervades every aspect of daily life. Society becomes more and more an appendage of the market, which operates under its own set of rules instead of whatever values the society may have had. Traditional structures mean less as we become atomized individuals who participate in the market. The prevailing ethos is that of the accumulation of wealth and the pursuit of a career, by both men and women. The community loses importance as a structure of economic and social support since we’re so busy pursuing our own economic interests. In this wealth and status oriented society of ours we only want to associate with those of a similar income and profession, and the resulting divides run deep. The family unit disintegrates as well and is replaced by an arrangement that produces more wealth, that is, both parents working and sending their children to a daycare. The idea of motherhood is demonized and considered irrational and impractical in this highly marketized society as women are pressured into and now prefer to pursue careers instead of raising a family.
The nation eventually dissolves too as it becomes more and more integrated in the global economy. It becomes a servant to the global market at the expense of its own people, industries, and farms. And in an economic regime characterized by the freedom of movement of goods, capital, and people, our border disintegrates more than just economically. So we’re flooded with unpatriotic immigrants who don’t share our culture and language, take our jobs, and bring crime, gangs, and drugs. But the prevailing cultural norms of this economic regime are liberalism, multiculturalism, and cosmopolitanism, so we’re supposed to embrace this and all have one big, happy, neoliberal hug.
The liberal lifestyle is another cause of the decline of American culture. Our reckless borrowing and spending creates an environment for our children where they have a sense of entitlement and not one of hard work. Most of them couldn’t nail a hammer to a board because in our marketized society, we hire someone else to do that. Any job that is too difficult we pay an illegal immigrant to do. And gender roles are completely meaningless in a society of contract-making, profit-seeking individuals. What’s the point of masculinity when it doesn’t guarantee you a salary? There’s no need to fix a toilet, you can call up a plumber for that. Women and men do the exact same things in a financialized society of individuals that make transactions and that can purchase any service, where most make their living in offices. The white collar lifestyle has made us weak. Innovation has made things infinitely more comfortable for us, but the liberal’s unshakeable faith in progress and science has made us blind to the human effects of technological advancement. Gone are the days of wooden ships and iron men, and the modern, comfortable lifestyle does not mold men into the tough warriors they once were.
We are no longer a nation of self-reliant farmers but one of profit-seeking professionals. The pursuit of happiness for oneself, which means the accumulation of wealth, has become the prevalent ethos in this country. It is a more complex form of hedonism, one that replaces all other values in its quest for wealth, consumer goods, and pleasure. Community, family, and religion become less important with such an outlook on life. There is nothing wrong with individualism and the pursuit of a career, but in society as highly marketized as ours, with such an overwhelming amount of transactions that make up our daily lives and govern our existence, economic individualism is taken to an extreme. When the market becomes more and more a part of our daily lives, we are more and more its appendage, ruled by an inorganic, complex, and lonely system of commodities and transactions.
In such a world there is little room for family, values, heroism, sacrifice, or the nation. What good do values do if they don’t advance one’s career? If the only absolute one knows in life is the market, what truths are values grounded in? In the case of women, what is the point of having a family when it could mean the end of her career? It is no wonder that the professional class is extremely atheistic and doesn’t have children. And what place do patriotism and the nation have in such a world? If we are simply a collection of individual actors making transactions in the global economy, what purpose does the nation serve? Why should one serve the nation or make any sacrifices for it?
There is no room for heroism or sacrifice in a liberal, marketized society. What is the point of risking one’s life? If the purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness and wealth, than there is little reason to throw it away at a young age for some abstract principle that can’t be quantified by money. This is why there is no required military conscription in this country, although it is the norm in many other countries. The wealthy who control politics would never want to be forced to risk their lives in the name of our great nation. How many children of the professional class join the military? Its ranks are mostly filled with those who are so disadvantaged that it’s their only option. The military isn’t a good career option and it could result in death, so it doesn’t make much sense to join it unless there are absolutely no other opportunities.
People say that this is what the free market is about, that we have no control over these things and that we can’t stop these processes, but things weren’t always this way. If we look to the golden generation and the ones that came before it, the ones we supposedly idealize, we would see a free market society that is not characterized by these problems. Back then, for the majority of the people, individualism didn’t mean gluttonous debt and consumption, it meant self-reliance. It didn’t mean abandoning your community and family for the pursuit of wealth, they supported each other. A man had a family to take care of. They lived very modestly, but they lived within their means. They were as tough as nails and got us through the Great Depression and a World War. They understood the importance of sacrifice, heroism, and honor, and they were all willing to give their lives for their country. They cared about the United States of America, which didn’t exist in a highly integrated and financialized global economy, certainly not in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and early 60s. During that era, the state had a very important role in economic life. They didn’t treat big government like it somehow restricted their freedom, and they didn’t worship the unregulated form of capitalism that we do today. Yet family values were the norm, not something we looked back upon nostalgically. They waited until they were married to have sex and they rarely divorced. Almost all of them went to church.
IV. The liberal state and its citizens are addicted to economic growth. They worship the economy and place it above everything else. No goal can be seriously pursued if it negatively effects economic growth. Growth may not always come–it depends on a variety of factors, many of which the state has no control over. Climate, geography, and war can all influence an economy and its rate of growth. More importantly, so do conditions in the global economy. Good performances from competing exporters, a slump in global demand, recessions with trading partners, increasing levels of economic integration–there are an infinite amount of causes for a lack of growth that completely depend on factors out of a nation’s control. Additionally, it remains to be seen whether there is much growth to be had in the post-industrial stage of a nation’s development. Once a nation industrializes, then financializes, what can come next? If we look at Japan as an example, it finished industrializing in the 1970s, financialized in the 1980s, and after its asset bubble crashed, has seen no growth for two decades. This is in one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, one that saw decades of amazing levels of growth. This crisis may mark the end of serious growth rates in the US. There’s nowhere to go, a great deal of our economy is based on moving paper, and there’s nothing we can produce that other nations can’t.
The citizens of liberal states have come to expect high growth rates, and this is their primary concern in government. They are entirely unwilling to sacrifice prosperity for anything worthwhile, and they will elect whoever can guarantee them short-term economic growth. But they forget about the realities of the business cycle and that short-term economic growth is not always sustainable and can lead to worse losses later. They are highly susceptible to the pursuit of short-term growth without regard for the long-term consequences, and we’ve seen this happen in dozens of countries around the globe in the 1990s and 2000s. The current financial crisis is a product of this dilemma. The giant asset bubbles (resulting from a combination of imprudent privatization, a lack of regulation in the financial sector and in many other parts of the economy, extremely low interest rates for two decades, the tech boom, too much debt and financialization all around, and other factors, all occurring in a global economic regime based on the freedom of movement of goods, capital, and people and a global credit glut) were blown to begin with to achieve economic growth and please the voters. No one in power stopped it because no one wanted to pay the consequences, no one wanted to slow the boom or pop the bubble and lose the popularity contest, even if it was best for the economy and our nation in the long run.
And now no one wants to face reality, that the 1990s and 2000s were unsustainable and an economy that we cannot return to, because that’s unpopular and something the voters don’t want to hear. Everyone in power is concerned with pleasing the voters and pursuing short-term economic goals, which means propping up the house of cards that’s inevitably falling. We have already squandered trillions trying to reflate these asset bubbles. We’re digging ourselves into a whole that we eventually won’t be able to pay our way out of, and precious resources that could be spent elsewhere are thrown into this parasite we’ve grown. If someone told the public what needed to be done, no one would listen because the concept of sacrifice is completely foreign to Americans who can’t remember the Depression or World War II. Instead they’d listen to some economist whose models and math tell them what they want to hear.
The liberal state merely provides technocratic management of the economy, and different factions vie for the distribution of its gains and influence in economic policy. Even in its pursuit of economic growth it is ineffective. It is incredibly short-sighted and unconcerned with long-term consequences, and its procedures and competing factions means little can actually get done, especially in providing effective long-term economic planning. And what is sometimes necessary cannot be achieved because of the power certain economic factions have. Perhaps more importantly, it provides nothing other than economic management, and very little in terms of the pursuit of ideological goals. Such goals are never pursued if they involve negatively affecting the performance of the economy, as economic management is the supreme function of the state, and they cannot be enacted without the consent of most of the populace, which is difficult and rare in a liberal society. Part of this is because the poor cannot afford to bear the burdens of a recession (because in a liberal society the poor unfairly bear the burden of economic downturns that are usually the fault of the wealthy) but mostly it’s because the middle and upper classes want lower taxes and economic growth.
Within this liberal philosophy there is no room for evaluating the social and cultural usefulness of our economy. Short term profit matters to this society more than what our economy actually does for us on a cultural level. So no one has asked about the social utility of finance. Our financial sector has grown exponentially since the 1970s, and it is much bigger than it was even in the 1920s. What is finance good for? It does not produce anything of value. It does not feed people or give them a product they can use. It simply consists of a few wealthy bankers who make exorbitant amounts of money by moving other peoples’ money around. There is no proof that it leads to long-term economic success, and more importantly, it brings no cultural or social benefit. Several centuries ago, even charging interest rates on loans was considered a mortal sin. How much things have changed.
Wall Street saw astronomic gains by combining investment and commercial banking and hurling capital and assets through its many conduits. What good did this do for the American people? It provided us with short-lived prosperity that would cost us all in the long-run. We were told they were doing this prudently, and that new financial technologies led us to a “new economy,” a plateau where risk supposedly didn‘t exist. It should have been obvious to everyone that unsafe amounts of leverage and speculatory financial practices lead to short-term gains that aren’t sustainable. That’s what happened in 1929 and in just about every other financial crisis. Except this time around, our society is so financialized and so debt-ridden that prospects for a recovery are much bleaker. And who pays for this? The American public does. The bankers have been bailed out and still get their six-figure bonuses. Even the ones that didn’t have amassed enough wealth and assets that they’ll be fine for the rest of their lives. We were told that their excessive salaries were justified because of the risk involved, but while they enjoyed the profits, we had to pay the losses when it all came apart.
Unemployment is out of control in this country and at the highest levels since the Great Depression. As of September 2010, 1 in 7 Americans live in poverty. And we’re bailing out our financial sector with trillions of dollars? The American public is furious, and rightly so. Our financial sector obviously needs to be a lot smaller, and it needs to have a purpose other than filling the bankers’ own pockets. It needs to be controlled, and it needs to serve Main Street instead of Wall Street. But this can’t be accomplished in a liberal government with its slow proceduralism, especially one that is dominated by finance capital. In a liberal society, the state is dominated by and has less power as an entity than some of its economy’s sectors. This is catastrophic for the nation and its economy, and in our case it means our government cannot realistically take drastic measures to save our economy. The impoverished masses are only growing and they will not be silent for much longer. If we don’t want a socialist revolution, than we need to act now.
V. The liberal state does not only fail for economic reasons but for ideological ones as well. It lacks a convincing ideology and the ability to enforce one because it allows people the freedom to choose in every aspect of life. It also insists on being secular and above the influence of the ideologies of its citizens. It tries to be “rational,” “objective,” and “scientific.” It fails to do so, being an irrational system itself, but it also fails to provide ideological and practical reasons for its existence. It attempts to provide economic growth and nothing more. It doesn’t have anything meaningful to say about culture, society, or our place in the world, and for this reason, many do not find it an appealing form of government and society. Modernization theory held that liberalism would be embraced by other peoples once they were exposed to it, and neoliberals believed that the market would successfully bring these values to the rest of the world. We’ve been trying that for decades, and it hasn‘t worked. If we want to fix the Middle East, we’re going to have to do it by force. Clearly, liberalism isn’t as powerful as we thought it was.
But most importantly, liberalism fails because it cannot stop our enemies, the ones who will destroy our civilization. The first and most obvious are the terrorists. They belong to a fanatical religion that is hell-bent on destroying this great nation. It comes from a civilization that is fundamentally different from ours, one that has decided that it cannot coexist with us. And we won’t be the ones to go, at least not without a fight. This isn’t a traditional enemy, and even with our superior military, it is very difficult to defeat. We haven’t even come close to stabilizing either of the countries we have invaded, not to mention eliminating terrorism there. Clearly, we need a much larger, more powerful military, but that is impossible in a liberal society that refuses to conscript its populace or spend what is needed on its military. At home we could be hit any minute. A terrorist could easily smuggle in nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons that could kill millions of Americans. September 11th proved to Americans how vulnerable we are, yet even then we can’t seriously pursue terrorists at home without the outcry of liberals defending their rights. We know we are doomed when we live in a society that insists upon giving our enemies the right to destroy us.
The other enemy exists at home as well. It is socialism. Now my opponents will try and label me as a socialist, but that is simply the result of their libertarian dogma. My view of the economy is that it doesn’t matter. At least it doesn’t matter nearly as much as our people, culture, nation, and military do. I don’t think economic efficiency and profit are nearly as important as these things. Free-market libertarians and neoliberals do not care about them, they are only concerned with the market and profit. Most importantly, I don’t think the state should be demonized, especially by those who insist that it should be Christian and that we are a Christian nation. I don’t think Christianity and free-market worship are as compatible as the American Christian right claims them to be.
It is true that I do believe that the state should be larger and should take a much more active role in participating in and regulating the economy. This is for economic and social reasons. I believe stability, not short-term profit, should be our paradigm, which is achieved by this more active state. I also think this is necessary to jumpstart our economy in this crisis and get it headed in the right direction. Moreover, I believe that the economy should serve the needs of the nation and its people, not the other way around. It can and should be subverted to meet national and practical needs. This does not constitute socialism in any way, shape, or form. Every market has a state participating in it and regulating it. During our golden age, our state had a much larger role in doing so than it does now. Does that mean we were socialist? Of course not. These are lies propagated by greedy libertarians who want lower taxes and higher profits. The issue of the state’s involvement in the economy is one of practicality and depends upon every economy’s unique situation. Right now we are in a situation where we need a big, interventionist state, and we’ll need one for a while, especially as long as we are at war. In any serious war, just like World War II, the state needs to take some extreme measures for the sake of the war effort. But that doesn’t make it socialist.
And ultimately it is the liberal state that these libertarians and neoliberals want that will lead to socialism. Liberal governments, in their inability to effectively manage their economies in the long-term, allow capitalism to spin out of control and cause economic crises, just as they did in 1929 and 2009. When these crises occur, liberal states fail, and socialism often takes their place. When the working class is squeezed too hard, it will revolt. This is the most important reason we need a big state with socially just economic policies: it is out of necessity. If the working class is not appeased, it will turn to socialism, the greatest evil mankind has ever known. The liberal state is entirely unable to stop the rise of socialism; something more heavy-handed is only able to achieve that task. If conservative reactions against liberal governments had failed in the 20th century, Portugal, Spain, and their former colonies, among many other countries, would all be socialist today.
So then what happens when the liberal state can no longer bring effective management of the economy? What basis does it have for continuing to rule its populace? What happens when poverty and crime become too grave for the society to bear? When chaos prevails and a socialist revolution is around the corner? What if it becomes apparent to the populace that its inevitable pursuit of short-term economic gains is imprudent economically in the long run, and that another system would be more effective in managing the economy, because it can provide leadership that can better pursue coherent, long-term economic success and stability; leadership that can get things done and make hard but necessary decisions without being weighed down by politics and procedure? What if the populace realizes that perhaps the pursuit of wealth and prosperity is not as important as it once thought? What happens if the populace decides it wants more from the state than the pursuit of prosperity and giving people the freedom to do whatever they want? What happens if the populace wants a state that shares and enforces their values? What happens when they need a state that can successfully protect them from terrorism? What happens when they want a state that can restore its culture and empire to prominence?
I think we will find that the populace will be more than willing to abandon many of the practices it once considered unchangeable. We have seen many times in history the abandonment of liberal government when it fails, even in places with a relatively strong economy and democratic traditions (Argentina, for example), or countries with high growth rates (Iran). Eventually, the populace will become discontented with liberalism and its lack of meaning, even if the economy is performing well. This becomes apparent in Islamic countries such as Iran in their refusal to embrace liberalism. Because it does not form a part of their history and tradition, they can easily see its flaws from an outsider’s perspective, no matter what growth rate it brings. Many of these countries choose a government that keeps their people from morally disintegrating, one that reflects the values of the people, as opposed to a liberal government that attempts to remain above values and ideology. Though they are our enemies, we must commend them for their moral fervor and consistency in their politics. I do not share the same optimism for our great nation because of the extent to which we worship liberalism. I do not believe we will reject liberal government for purely cultural and social reasons. Something else must lead to its collapse, and there is something that almost always does lead to its collapse: market failure.
Though the situation is entirely different in every case, often times the public has two choices when liberal government fails: order or socialism. The last great depression shook the very foundations of our liberal society and the alternatives seemed to be very real possibilities. It survived the depression, implementing ideas from these alternatives, and ultimately it took a different kind of state to guide us through those challenges. But in other places, where the depression was even worse (and in places where the change occurred even before the depression, with failed liberal states, mismanaged economies, and disorder), the populace and civil society completely lost faith in the liberal state, and what emerged proved much more effective at managing the economy, pursuing the cultural objectives desired by its populace, and dominating the world. Or, they took the other route: socialism. And the liberal state can do nothing to stop its growth. When markets fail, the working class often chooses socialism, and the liberal state can do nothing to stop it. Not Barrack Obama socialism, I’m referring to something that signifies the end of civilization as we know it.
VI. The time has come for a new American right to emerge. We need a new system, one that gets things done without political bickering and the deadlock of competing interest groups. It will have more a more sensible, sustainable economic vision with stability and order as its primary goals. Everyone that wants a job will get one, and the state will take care of its hard-working citizens and ensure that whatever economic costs its projects incur will not be unfairly born by those who cannot afford to. With fewer numbers that will have to resort to crime to survive and fewer who decide they want a revolution, combined with a stronger, less restrained police force, order will be restored. But this system will be concerned with much more than technocratic management of the nation’s economy, and it won’t have to worry about pursuing “prosperity” or short-term economic growth. It will be able to focus on more important things, whether it’s cleaning up American culture or restoring the great American empire, without having to worry about the economic costs and appeasing the public’s immediate whims. Our people will be safer from terrorists without having to deal with liberals who want to protect the rights of those who are trying to kill us. Our military won’t have to worry about budget constraints or troop shortages, and its campaigns won’t be run by civilians. We won’t be afraid, unwilling, or unable to make sacrifices, and the unbridled pursuit of greatness, at the center of this regime, will finally be possible.
The State of Affairs by Curtis Davis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
The New American Right 