You make a lot of interesting points but I think you miss something fundamentally important. The urban progressive elite doesn't exist in the way it is implied in this article, and not does a populist right wing rebellion. Both of those groups - the right wing populists and the progressive elite - are the same group, or, at most, different factions of it. Namely, they are the neoliberal billionaire elite proposing different flavours of fascism, and using 'the woke agenda' as a way of directing popular protest into directions that either sure up existing power structures or herd them into areas of irrelevance.
Let's take, for example, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Both of them highly influential architects of our new reality. Both of them, depending on your perspective or ideology, could be seen either as the progressive urban elite or as right wing populists. However, just like Trump, they are neither. What they are is extremely rich neoliberals interested in using existing trends and systems to achieve two goals: the preservation of their own power and wealth, and the use of technology to administrate a form of fascism in which they remain elite.
The woke discourse isn't a ground-up articulation of popular grievances against the establishment. It's a top down dissemination of culture war talking points into areas that are very comfortable for the real power elite. Pro or anti migration? The real power lies in promoting hatred of immigrants in general while allowing migration itself into areas that are economically useful for the elite. Established power has a vested interesting in both being able to control borders with ever more punitive measures while *also* selectively encouraging immigration in order to, for example, compensate for an aging population and to help keep wages low.
To cut this short - right wing 'populism' through the likes of Trump is basically a way of smuggling fascistic corporatocracy to anti-state libertarians and working-class nationalists, meanwhile pro-vaccine rhetoric also smuggles fascistic corporatocracy to concerned liberals and social democrats. Actual leftists - anarchists, for example, are nowhere near actual power anywhere and even mild reformers like Bernie Sanders are very kept away from the levers of power in a way that the likes of Trump and Farage are not.
Thanks for your comment, Sebastian. I don't disagree with you that the dynamic you describe exists. Obviously the rich and powerful use their influence and money to pursue their own interests. Trump, for example, is not motivated by altruism. I wouldn't include Farage in a list of powerful players though... Anyway, I disagree with you in that I don't think the strings these men pull are the driving forces behind the strange changes we've seen in recent years. Trump has skilfully tapped into the growing discontent that existed (and still exists) among large sections of the American population. Other populists have done the same. The progressive elite is a new category. I am using Matthew Goodwin's term here. Others speak of the managerial elite. The point is that apart from the very rich, there is a new elite that is not very rich but is culturally influential and has a lot of influence on discourse and ultimately on policy. And many, I think, have explored and described the divide that has driven populism in recent years. Michael Lind in his book The New Class War, but also David Goodhart and Matthew Goodwin. Andreas Reckwitz in Germany and Christophe Guilluy in France. Calling the segment of the population that supports national populism the "right-wing working class" is not entirely accurate, I have to admit. It is a shorthand way of describing a more complex phenomenon. Culturally, however, they are clearly on the right. Without their real grievances and without the arrogance and contempt of the urban academic managerial class for these people, the phenomenon of national populism could not be explained. For example, the promotion of hatred of immigrants is certainly real, but it is not the driving force. Dissatisfaction with unprecedented mass immigration precedes any populist exploitation of this sentiment.
I really like your essays (both of them). I think they are a very thorough reflection of what has happened in the last couple of years. I do however also think that totalitarianism has been a lot longer in the making. In my opinion, a large component that adds to our current totalitarianism is 'the battle for total equity' and the resulting backlash on our freedom and wealth. We have been ruled by socialists for decades now, thriving on inequality of opportunity by people they define as minorities and victimization. This constant cry for equity (not even equality anymore!) and equal outcomes dumbs down the entire nation. It started in our educational systems where the urge to equalize all students has drastically reduced the quality of education for over thirty years. We now have a complete generation that can do no more than repeat what they have been taught at school and believe anything you tell them. With a total disregard for facts, the right opinion has become more important than being right.
Also the urge to compensate everyone for all adversities in life has soared our government spending and increased our national and European debts. Besides spending billions on immigration, governments have, since the beginning of this century, solved every crisis by borrowing money and buying off the consequences. For example, the banking crisis, eurocrisis and COVID-crisis have all been resolved by governments increasing their expenditures. At the same time the ECB bought up all the bad debts, printing free money in return. By now, the whole of Europe is riddled with debt, which is paid for by inflation and the reduction of wealth by its inhabitants. Any discontentment about that is of course 'radical right ideology'. Elites live in a different universe because they do not feel the consequences of their actions. They're generally not the ones living in poor neighborhoods swamped with immigrants, trying to meet ends every day and having less to spend each year.
Like yourself I struggle with the reality that so many people still believe the government acts in their best interests and unquestionably believe what the newspapers tell them. Most people just don't seem to care what happens if they can just live their lives peacefully. They are absolutely fine with the concept of exchanging their freedom for safety and a government fixing all their problems for them.
After a couple of years of writing articles, I decided to write a fiction novel (it's out in Dutch, now translating it to English), hoping that if people can actually live through and feel where we're heading they would become more involved. It has been my solution to do something about the situation. I am very curious about your ideas!
ps. You may want to take a look at the Online Harms Act in Canada where they are establishing 'Minority Report' pre-crime measures for addressing hate speech. Also, I recommend that you watch a recent speech given by Ursula von der Leyen at the Copenhagen Democratic Summit about prebunking: 'inoculating the country against the disinformation virus'. I wrote a short article about the latter on my own substack (@cuddledchildren), where I have included the whole video. You can also find it on Youtube. Watch and horror! ;)
Thank, you very much, Jeanette, for your comprehensive comment. I totally agree with your reflections. The term "cultural socialism" is actually a much better term than wokeness/wokeism, a conclusion I have reached after listening to a conversation with Eric Kaufmann about his upcoming book. https://swiftpress.com/book/taboo/
Fantastic 2 part essay!!! I bookmarked it so I can share with those who may be receptive.
I would like clarification/sources on one point. You write,
<<The Chinese government has perfected the digital control of its people. The way Western governments and elite institutions are increasingly controlling discourse is looking more and more like the Chinese way, as also lamented by Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei, who ironically sought refuge from Chinese totalitarianism in Europe years ago.>>
Could you provide a better citation than the hyperlink? It's a link to a Twitter post of one guy described as a Chinese dissident, who says sometimes he sees worse censorship in the US vs China.
The problem is, this ignores the fundamental truth of a Chinese gov that provides for its people and is constructed by merit. In China, you do not become a politician by being rich. You start at the smallest local level, if you make a positive material difference in your locality's life, you have the opportunity to move up a level. It is a true meritocracy.
I just recoil from this Chinese censorship refrain because it is taken as a given and I won't take something as a given without seeing the evidence, and I don’t ever see evidence, just statements taken as fact.
That being said, really loved this piece, and thank you for writing it! And I hope you decide to write the "what do we do now?" Part 3!
Thank you, Rachel. I understand your scepticism about China. I think it is warranted. I don't have any particular insights into China, apart from the fact that I don't just follow the mainstream media narrative, which helps to avoid indoctrination but doesn't guarantee that you're relying on trustworthy and truthful information. So I don't think I can provide the level of evidence you are looking for. Until I am convinced otherwise, my understanding is that the Chinese government censors the traditional media and the internet extensively when it comes to issues of national interest. It blocks websites and demands censorship from Google and other companies if they want to operate in China. It seems to me that China is doing all of this in a way that promotes social cohesion and creates a more functional society. So while I don't want to live in a surveillance society, my understanding is that China is at least doing things with a purpose. It's a model that works, whereas in the West we're copying digital authoritarianism step by step, but doing it in a way that increases polarisation and damages society. Just one comment on Ai Weiwei: I linked to this Twitter comment because, at least in Europe, this guy is quite well known. When he was in prison in China, he was all over the media. It's not evidence of what's going on in China, but it's an interesting voice - or so I thought. Thank you very much! Ah, I have started to write about what we should do now. :)
Fully agreed - anti-imperialist countries that nationalize their natural resources have to be authoritarian to some extent, because if they don't, imperialists worm their way in. Thanks again!
You make a lot of interesting points but I think you miss something fundamentally important. The urban progressive elite doesn't exist in the way it is implied in this article, and not does a populist right wing rebellion. Both of those groups - the right wing populists and the progressive elite - are the same group, or, at most, different factions of it. Namely, they are the neoliberal billionaire elite proposing different flavours of fascism, and using 'the woke agenda' as a way of directing popular protest into directions that either sure up existing power structures or herd them into areas of irrelevance.
Let's take, for example, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Both of them highly influential architects of our new reality. Both of them, depending on your perspective or ideology, could be seen either as the progressive urban elite or as right wing populists. However, just like Trump, they are neither. What they are is extremely rich neoliberals interested in using existing trends and systems to achieve two goals: the preservation of their own power and wealth, and the use of technology to administrate a form of fascism in which they remain elite.
The woke discourse isn't a ground-up articulation of popular grievances against the establishment. It's a top down dissemination of culture war talking points into areas that are very comfortable for the real power elite. Pro or anti migration? The real power lies in promoting hatred of immigrants in general while allowing migration itself into areas that are economically useful for the elite. Established power has a vested interesting in both being able to control borders with ever more punitive measures while *also* selectively encouraging immigration in order to, for example, compensate for an aging population and to help keep wages low.
To cut this short - right wing 'populism' through the likes of Trump is basically a way of smuggling fascistic corporatocracy to anti-state libertarians and working-class nationalists, meanwhile pro-vaccine rhetoric also smuggles fascistic corporatocracy to concerned liberals and social democrats. Actual leftists - anarchists, for example, are nowhere near actual power anywhere and even mild reformers like Bernie Sanders are very kept away from the levers of power in a way that the likes of Trump and Farage are not.
Thanks for your comment, Sebastian. I don't disagree with you that the dynamic you describe exists. Obviously the rich and powerful use their influence and money to pursue their own interests. Trump, for example, is not motivated by altruism. I wouldn't include Farage in a list of powerful players though... Anyway, I disagree with you in that I don't think the strings these men pull are the driving forces behind the strange changes we've seen in recent years. Trump has skilfully tapped into the growing discontent that existed (and still exists) among large sections of the American population. Other populists have done the same. The progressive elite is a new category. I am using Matthew Goodwin's term here. Others speak of the managerial elite. The point is that apart from the very rich, there is a new elite that is not very rich but is culturally influential and has a lot of influence on discourse and ultimately on policy. And many, I think, have explored and described the divide that has driven populism in recent years. Michael Lind in his book The New Class War, but also David Goodhart and Matthew Goodwin. Andreas Reckwitz in Germany and Christophe Guilluy in France. Calling the segment of the population that supports national populism the "right-wing working class" is not entirely accurate, I have to admit. It is a shorthand way of describing a more complex phenomenon. Culturally, however, they are clearly on the right. Without their real grievances and without the arrogance and contempt of the urban academic managerial class for these people, the phenomenon of national populism could not be explained. For example, the promotion of hatred of immigrants is certainly real, but it is not the driving force. Dissatisfaction with unprecedented mass immigration precedes any populist exploitation of this sentiment.
I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said here, but the point you make in the final paragraph is very thought-provoking.
I really like your essays (both of them). I think they are a very thorough reflection of what has happened in the last couple of years. I do however also think that totalitarianism has been a lot longer in the making. In my opinion, a large component that adds to our current totalitarianism is 'the battle for total equity' and the resulting backlash on our freedom and wealth. We have been ruled by socialists for decades now, thriving on inequality of opportunity by people they define as minorities and victimization. This constant cry for equity (not even equality anymore!) and equal outcomes dumbs down the entire nation. It started in our educational systems where the urge to equalize all students has drastically reduced the quality of education for over thirty years. We now have a complete generation that can do no more than repeat what they have been taught at school and believe anything you tell them. With a total disregard for facts, the right opinion has become more important than being right.
Also the urge to compensate everyone for all adversities in life has soared our government spending and increased our national and European debts. Besides spending billions on immigration, governments have, since the beginning of this century, solved every crisis by borrowing money and buying off the consequences. For example, the banking crisis, eurocrisis and COVID-crisis have all been resolved by governments increasing their expenditures. At the same time the ECB bought up all the bad debts, printing free money in return. By now, the whole of Europe is riddled with debt, which is paid for by inflation and the reduction of wealth by its inhabitants. Any discontentment about that is of course 'radical right ideology'. Elites live in a different universe because they do not feel the consequences of their actions. They're generally not the ones living in poor neighborhoods swamped with immigrants, trying to meet ends every day and having less to spend each year.
Like yourself I struggle with the reality that so many people still believe the government acts in their best interests and unquestionably believe what the newspapers tell them. Most people just don't seem to care what happens if they can just live their lives peacefully. They are absolutely fine with the concept of exchanging their freedom for safety and a government fixing all their problems for them.
After a couple of years of writing articles, I decided to write a fiction novel (it's out in Dutch, now translating it to English), hoping that if people can actually live through and feel where we're heading they would become more involved. It has been my solution to do something about the situation. I am very curious about your ideas!
ps. You may want to take a look at the Online Harms Act in Canada where they are establishing 'Minority Report' pre-crime measures for addressing hate speech. Also, I recommend that you watch a recent speech given by Ursula von der Leyen at the Copenhagen Democratic Summit about prebunking: 'inoculating the country against the disinformation virus'. I wrote a short article about the latter on my own substack (@cuddledchildren), where I have included the whole video. You can also find it on Youtube. Watch and horror! ;)
One small typo: the substack's name is Coddled Children
Thank, you very much, Jeanette, for your comprehensive comment. I totally agree with your reflections. The term "cultural socialism" is actually a much better term than wokeness/wokeism, a conclusion I have reached after listening to a conversation with Eric Kaufmann about his upcoming book. https://swiftpress.com/book/taboo/
Fantastic 2 part essay!!! I bookmarked it so I can share with those who may be receptive.
I would like clarification/sources on one point. You write,
<<The Chinese government has perfected the digital control of its people. The way Western governments and elite institutions are increasingly controlling discourse is looking more and more like the Chinese way, as also lamented by Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei, who ironically sought refuge from Chinese totalitarianism in Europe years ago.>>
Could you provide a better citation than the hyperlink? It's a link to a Twitter post of one guy described as a Chinese dissident, who says sometimes he sees worse censorship in the US vs China.
The problem is, this ignores the fundamental truth of a Chinese gov that provides for its people and is constructed by merit. In China, you do not become a politician by being rich. You start at the smallest local level, if you make a positive material difference in your locality's life, you have the opportunity to move up a level. It is a true meritocracy.
I just recoil from this Chinese censorship refrain because it is taken as a given and I won't take something as a given without seeing the evidence, and I don’t ever see evidence, just statements taken as fact.
That being said, really loved this piece, and thank you for writing it! And I hope you decide to write the "what do we do now?" Part 3!
Thank you, Rachel. I understand your scepticism about China. I think it is warranted. I don't have any particular insights into China, apart from the fact that I don't just follow the mainstream media narrative, which helps to avoid indoctrination but doesn't guarantee that you're relying on trustworthy and truthful information. So I don't think I can provide the level of evidence you are looking for. Until I am convinced otherwise, my understanding is that the Chinese government censors the traditional media and the internet extensively when it comes to issues of national interest. It blocks websites and demands censorship from Google and other companies if they want to operate in China. It seems to me that China is doing all of this in a way that promotes social cohesion and creates a more functional society. So while I don't want to live in a surveillance society, my understanding is that China is at least doing things with a purpose. It's a model that works, whereas in the West we're copying digital authoritarianism step by step, but doing it in a way that increases polarisation and damages society. Just one comment on Ai Weiwei: I linked to this Twitter comment because, at least in Europe, this guy is quite well known. When he was in prison in China, he was all over the media. It's not evidence of what's going on in China, but it's an interesting voice - or so I thought. Thank you very much! Ah, I have started to write about what we should do now. :)
Fully agreed - anti-imperialist countries that nationalize their natural resources have to be authoritarian to some extent, because if they don't, imperialists worm their way in. Thanks again!