Public ideass
An optimistic progressive
The public mood is slowly heading to the “left”, but there is a great deal of political noise obscuring this movement.
“Everywhere, democratic politics is in turmoil. When the confusion recedes, only the progressives will remain standing”.
That’s how Martyn Goddard summarizes his Policy Post article Out of chaos hope.
Hardly anyone needs convincing that in many countries democratic politics are in turmoil. Drawing on polls and election outcomes, Goddard provides heaps of evidence confirming that general observation.
He also draws attention to what is less obvious: in democracies voters are becoming more “left” or “progressive” in their political attitudes.
It’s a slow trend, often obscured by short-term developments, such as the resurgence of One Nation here, and the growing electoral support for Alternative für Deutschland.
The underlying trend, however, is driven by demographics: parties on the right find their support among older voters, but as those voters die the following cohorts tend to retain their left or progressive attitudes.
His conclusion is optimistic:
Leadership matters. Far-right populists thrive in a political vacuum: when leadership, hope and inspiration are missing, voters like to shake things up. But that represents no deep conviction in the policies or in the fitness of figures like Farage, Trump and Hanson, whose pitch is entirely negative. They can tear down but they cannot build. Their polling figures will turn into parliamentary seats only if the centre-left forgets that progressive parties exist to create a better, fairer and less unequal world; and without that vision, they have no purpose and will die.
Leadership does indeed matter, but we look for it in the wrong places. We look for a strong “leader” who will take them from the political world of confusion, greed, hypocrisy, opportunism and into the promised land.
It’s a dangerous illusion, reinforced in part by our practice of calling party bosses “leaders”: Albanese as Labor Pary “leader” Taylor as Opposition “leader” and so on. We have seen it in play in our turnover of Liberal prime ministers: high expectations placed on the “leader” followed by disappointment and political assassination.
Those who occupy elected positions of authority are often the least able to exercise effective leadership: there is a constellation of interest groups determined to ensure that prime ministers and those aspiring to be prime ministers do not upset the established order.
The task of mobilizing people to deal with hard issues – economic transformation, taxation, immigration, defence spending – falls to those who have independent and respected voices. In speaking freely they can set the conditions which help our elected politicians govern in the public interest. The most prominent example is provided by President Lyndon Johnson's success in persuading Congress to pass civil rights legislation: that would not have been possible without Martin Luther King’s work in preparing the ground – his leadership.
Goddard acknowledges that in many democracies “Everyone can feel that the country isn't where it should be”. We see this in Essential’s regular survey about the national mood. Over the last four years the proportion of respondents who believe Australia is “off on the wrong track” has almost doubled – from 27 percent to 53 percent.
It would be helpful if respondents could let us know where the right track lies: perhaps they don’t know. The implication in Goddard’s article is that it’s up to left and progressive parties to offer voters a program they will recognize as the right track, but they casnnpt do it on their own.