Now that capitalism is almost the only economic system worldwide (with a few bizarre exceptions in North Korea and Cuba) does it still makes sense to talk about left and right? Can we distinguish the various types of capitalism using the left and right categorization?
If one uses the left and right categorization to depict a spectrum of opinions that we may represent through a statistical distribution then it still makes sense to talk about the left and right tails of such distribution.
However, we should recall that this categorization originated during the French Revolution to designate where the pro-monarchy (right) and anti-monarchy (left) seated in the French National Assembly (parliament). Later this designation was generalized to other divisions over single issues. In particular, it was extended to describe those in favour of the status quo (conservatives) and those in favour of moderate/drastic reforms (progressives/ radicals).
Historically, the most important split in the XIX century was over the emerging economic system of capitalism. Since this new system affected most aspects of society, it no longer represented a single issue divide. It became a split over a portfolio of visions usually designated as ideologies until the collapse of communism in 1989.
Yet, once a portfolio of visions becomes too diversified, it loses its internal coherence and no longer can be represented by a single distribution with a left and right tail. If I pick a number of divisive issues in economics, politics or moral I may end up sometimes on the right and others on the left.
For example, one of the current raging debates in economics is over the question of government economic stimulus. Typically, the supporters of the status quo sit on the right and the interventionists sit on the left. However, the interventionists are also divided into two opposing camps over the use of pro-cyclical (fiscal austerity) and anti-cyclical (fiscal expansion) policies. Can we split these into left and right?
As an economist, I believe that government intervention must be always counter-cyclical, but should be used only to smooth extreme volatilities in the business cycle. So, with unemployment above 15%, when looking at the labour market, I find myself on the left side. But, with interest rates close to zero, when looking at the bond market, I find myself on the right side against further monetary easing. So, should I average these two distributions and become a centrist? Not really, because these two visions are not necessarily incompatible.
Likewise, I am a strong supporter of market capitalism as the main driver of progress. But it does not mean that I do not accept a limited role to other forms of capitalism like managerial capitalism or state capitalism. Can I grade their relative roles in terms of left and right? Clearly not.
In conclusion, in general terms, in the absence of a coherent portfolio of ideologies we no longer should characterize ourselves as leaning towards the left or the right. But, over single issue divisions one should not be afraid to sit on the tail of the distribution. Under this eclectic approach, do we risk becoming a weathercock turning opportunistically with the prevailing wind? Yes, but it is a risk that should be mitigated by a scrupulous respect for our values and it is a risk worth taking to enjoy the greater benefits of freedom and variety.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Can representative democracy still foil the manipulation of public opinion?
Greece was the birth of democracy, and obviously the Ancient Greeks were the first to realize that forms of direct democracy had to be replaced by representative democracy. The reasons were self-evident 2500 years ago as they are now, and may be summarized in two main factors – cost efficiency and prevention of demagogy. It is costly and unnecessary to have the entire population drafting, discussing and approving all the laws. Likewise, elected representatives can be selected to support the views of many groups of people and can be trained to avoid being deceived by eloquent rhetoric.
For many centuries the art of rhetoric has been taught as one of the fundamental human arts. But, starting with Aristotle, many have since tried to regulate its application in law and politics to prevent it from following Plato’s negative definition of rhetoric as “the persuasion of ignorant masses within the courts and assemblies”. During Enlightenment many thinkers attempted to make language a neutral, transparent medium of communication, but in the 20th century there was a renewed focus on persuasion.
This was associated with developments in the science of psychology, which led to its association with other forms of opinion making. The most disastrous use was in the field of psychology of masses. Fascist, Communist and Nazi movements were the first to resort to the combination of rhetoric with martial music and marches and the exploitation of hate and similar low sentiments in relation to perceived or invented enemies among outsiders.
In democratic societies the new knowledge of psychology was channeled for pacific aims and used mostly for commercial purposes by an emerging new industry of advertising. This industry later extended to politics.
Meanwhile, a more dangerous form of manipulation through public relations has also extended from business to politics. PR is a more deceitful practice than advertising because it hides its sponsors and true objectives by combining many independent groups and opinion makers (often even unaware of being using) to construct the desired public perception. In particular, the fact that some organizations set up multi-million-dollar public relations and advertising campaigns to try to reframe the debates and shift the focus away from their responsibilities, gives them a powerful form of propaganda and manipulation.
So, how can representative democracy cope with this plethora of rhetoric, mass psychology, and advertising and public relations tools? The solution must be two-fold.
First, following on Aristotle’s ideas, these entire industries must be made transparent and well regulated while working on political issues. In particular, the PR industry must be carefully scrutinized.
Second, the relations between political parties and those industries must be also tightly regulated. In a context when the traditional media and journalists are being starved of resources, they are prone to succumb to ready-made news and articles prepared for them by PR agencies. Likewise, when elections are becoming more costly and competitive to get voters attention politicians are also an easy prey for richly-funded PR campaigns.
In the past representative democracy has been able to survive these threats. We believe it will be able to continue doing so. The alternatives – chaos or dictatorship – are simply not acceptable.
For many centuries the art of rhetoric has been taught as one of the fundamental human arts. But, starting with Aristotle, many have since tried to regulate its application in law and politics to prevent it from following Plato’s negative definition of rhetoric as “the persuasion of ignorant masses within the courts and assemblies”. During Enlightenment many thinkers attempted to make language a neutral, transparent medium of communication, but in the 20th century there was a renewed focus on persuasion.
This was associated with developments in the science of psychology, which led to its association with other forms of opinion making. The most disastrous use was in the field of psychology of masses. Fascist, Communist and Nazi movements were the first to resort to the combination of rhetoric with martial music and marches and the exploitation of hate and similar low sentiments in relation to perceived or invented enemies among outsiders.
In democratic societies the new knowledge of psychology was channeled for pacific aims and used mostly for commercial purposes by an emerging new industry of advertising. This industry later extended to politics.
Meanwhile, a more dangerous form of manipulation through public relations has also extended from business to politics. PR is a more deceitful practice than advertising because it hides its sponsors and true objectives by combining many independent groups and opinion makers (often even unaware of being using) to construct the desired public perception. In particular, the fact that some organizations set up multi-million-dollar public relations and advertising campaigns to try to reframe the debates and shift the focus away from their responsibilities, gives them a powerful form of propaganda and manipulation.
So, how can representative democracy cope with this plethora of rhetoric, mass psychology, and advertising and public relations tools? The solution must be two-fold.
First, following on Aristotle’s ideas, these entire industries must be made transparent and well regulated while working on political issues. In particular, the PR industry must be carefully scrutinized.
Second, the relations between political parties and those industries must be also tightly regulated. In a context when the traditional media and journalists are being starved of resources, they are prone to succumb to ready-made news and articles prepared for them by PR agencies. Likewise, when elections are becoming more costly and competitive to get voters attention politicians are also an easy prey for richly-funded PR campaigns.
In the past representative democracy has been able to survive these threats. We believe it will be able to continue doing so. The alternatives – chaos or dictatorship – are simply not acceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
