Category: US

The Polarization lacks an ideological solution

.Reading time 7 minutes.

Also published on Open Democracy and  Democracy Chronicles

The increasing political polarization, a problem of the entire western world, is based on misconceptions to which today’s politicians find themselves without an ideological solution.

During the night of the midterm elections, I switched on CNN International for the first time in a year, but no longer found a newsroom but rather something that looked like a military headquarters. Us against the president – the president against us.

In Sweden, almost all parties, media and people in general, support the Democrats. Thus it took me almost a whole day to disentangle news reports and subjective analyses, romantic reviews of Barack Obama and, not least, Trump’s self-assured victory rhetoric, before I dared to form my own opinion of ​​how the election actually turned out. The polarization is not just political, it permeates the whole of society, and, just like in war, it’s soon hard to trust anyone.

The biggest winner in the election was the polarization or division of the United States; the dislike of “the others” and the desire to tell them how wrong they are. It’s an attitude that permeates both sides, but, as most people can figure out, is a deeply destructive development, not only occurring in the United States but in the whole western world.

Many point to Donald Trump when talking about polarization, but as it had already started in the 70’s, according to Nolan McArthy Professor of Politics, one has to look deeper. Also, it isn’t caused by social media. And when trying to understand who was supporting the right-wing radicalization, it turns out that the idea that it was the poor who supported Trump isn’t correct. In the Presidential election, Trump had more support from the wealthy than Clinton did. In addition, it wasn’t people suffering from the high unemployment who voted for Trump; they tended to vote for the Democrats.

But isn’t immigration, at least, a crucial and steady indicator of all the successes of right-wing radicals around the western world? No, not even that is correct. Right-wing nationalism also occurs in countries with almost no immigration at all!

The quest for a simple explanation, for absolute numbers, obscures the view of an explanation that is to be found on a somewhat more analytically demanding level. You have to ask at least two consecutive questions if you want to understand it – which many journalists lack both the time and unpolarized attitude to do. One is that few people ask themselves why immigrants are disliked. Also, could there be a common negative experience of society that includes an economic and cultural, as well as an emotional and social, explanation for the right-wing radical support? Some researchers have actually asked these questions and received answers but these haven’t been widely reported. A new perspective of why people vote right-wing radical is:

The experience of being marginalized, not being seen, losing one’s status and ending up an outsider.

For example, it is not immigration itself which is the problem but the fear of finding oneself outside a particular social group, thus losing one’s identity, which creates the resistance to immigration. And it’s not unemployment itself that generates the most dissatisfaction but the fear of being affected by it – rich or poor. Those who really suffer from unemployment tend to vote for left-leaning parties or democrats.

Instead, it’s both a cultural and a social concern to lose one’s dignity and status. New values, new cultures, rapid societal change and a general experience of becoming a loser in this turmoil erodes people’s trust in the entire establishment.

The longing for dignity, stability and equality is so great in the United States today that people who despise the establishment, in their desperation, still resort to one of its most dominant cornerstones and its leader, to capitalism and the capitalist Donald Trump. But the trend is the same in Europe; Sweden is today among the most unequal countries in Europe and the gap between rich and poor increases at the same rate as the number of right-wing voters. The “Yellow Jacket” movement and the recent dramatic protests all over France is another voice of the marginalized..

Decades of increasing political polarization should have given politicians plenty of time for reflection and solutions. But the political establishment in the western world is de facto those who created polarization and are as trustworthy as a runaway train!

The Left’s focus on economic justice can contribute to less dissatisfaction, but not to a different experience of the societal machinery as a whole. Their open approach to immigration, cultural integration and disregard to tradition will increase polarization. And Liberalism – favouring an independent market economy, privatization and a world where human value is measured in consumer spending with no concern for the increasing gap between the poor and the wealthy – has no hope. Furthermore, with global players beyond democratic control, mistrust grows. And this climate of fear and anxiety turns people towards conservatism.

Another democratic and ideological new order is required and a wave of social/humanistic unrest is already noticeable, but we need the courage to ask the questions that actually reveal the social and cultural background to what the media reduce to “violence and protests”.

Circus Trump – A Dream come True for the Establishment

.Reading time 7 minutes.

Also published on Democracy Chronicles

Are you tired of the worldwide media plague of the past few years, Donald Trump? One might think that such attention serves critical examination and sensible values. However, the secondary effect is that the debate leads people back to the old and familiar, thus blocking a critique of the current political system.

A few days ago we had a children’s party at our house. While sitting around the kitchen table, the subject of ghost stories came up and one of the nine-year-olds exclaimed: “What if Trump popped up at the window!”

The other day I was sitting on the train reading one of my favorite North American magazines which has undercurrents of anarchy, anti-consumerism and is full of great writing. But before I actually started to browse through it I thought to myself: ”Wonder how many pages before I see him”. One, two, three, four … there he was – complete with grotesque scowl. Yet another one, to add to the many thousands already published in the ordinary media. With a sigh I put the issue back in my rucksack.

And when I attempt to gauge the temperature of the political debate, visiting traditional as well as alternative and progressive news sites regardless of whether in my own country or the United States; there he is. Day after day, same old thing.

Even when I’m sitting in the audience among progressive activists, within less than a few minutes his name is whispered.

How long is this going to last? This is one of the worst political psychosis I’ve experienced; a political traffic jam that just won’t clear.

And everyone is contributing: politicians, film directors, activists, intellectuals and, not least, the news media. According to surveys, he is the president who, during his first year, has had by far the most attention. And, also according to surveys, he is the president most disliked by the media for 25 years. Moreover, there is an unusually large amount of focus directed on him as a person. He has transformed news media into something that more resembles celebrity gossip. They point their fingers, their jaws drop in shocked amazement, they speculate as well as persistently cite facts that will support their self-image as innocent victims of this monster. He shouts back, they respond and boo. This hate-love drama becomes apparent to those who stand outside the ring and see the two opponents, each wearing a clown’s red nose, chasing each other round and round in their media/political circus act.

Some people probably think that this is some kind of speech in defense of Trump. But in this report, I have no wish particularly to condone Trump and his policies – I will neither support nor despise them. Here he is neutral, if anyone still remembers what political objectivity is. Yes, I understand the outrage; his contempt for women, disdain of ethnic groups, climate denial, opportunism, rudeness, the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – but nevertheless: there are more important things in the world than his views on these issues.

For example, that the western world is experiencing social decline, or the increase in public apathy and indifference to today’s democracy. You who still choose not to prioritize subjects such as the decay of civilizations in favor of the man with the blonde forelock, just consider that Trump would never have been elected if people hadn’t been so indifferent to the old society.

Are you also aware that in your Trump-mania, you are now standing side by side with the most destructive forces? Those who also do not want him as he creates imbalance in their conservative “ecosystem”, a growing western caste system, where ever fewer people are being given ever more. Those who neglect human dignity and democratic participation. When you look contemptuously at those who voted for the monster and vilify them with rhetorical conservative catchwords as ‘populists’, you are supporting not only political technocrats and corporate capitalists but also lobbyists and globalists. They stand right behind, thanking you for your attention or, more accurately, lack of attention.

Thriving in this political darkness are weeds such as, for example, David Letterman’s interview with Barack Obama after his departure; a self- righteous, democratic feel-good interview that came across as passé as Hollywood’s touched up presidential portraits. Or the well-meaning Morgan Freeman in his series “The story of us”, where he admiringly interviews Bill Clinton about the excellence with which democracy is pursued in the “free world”. I mean, exactly who is free here? You can’t move a metre without being beholden to someone else. You are an economic piece of Lego in a model that you never asked for or had any influence over.

Do you protest against Trump because you want to turn the clock back or because you want to create something new?

The point is that it is not the political figureheads who determine the system in the United States or anywhere else but an unwritten agreement between economic, political and media interests; a culture maintained by an establishment. The president or government are appointed by the system, they don’t change the system. They can create political and economic turbulence around the world, but they never change the status quo, they act within the framework that loses credibility day by day. Meanwhile, the progressive social innovators, system critics and social pioneers have been at the circus. They have been there for a few years now, watching the same performance over and over again: “Trump the Chump”. Enclosed in a political tent without oxygen – yet another silly political pantomime at which we are expected to boo or applaud. A dream that has come true for The Establishment.

The contempt for the radicals

.Reading time 4 minutes.

Also published on Democracy Chronicles

In the New York Times article “What’s Wrong With Radicalism” (December 11) columnist David Brooks generalize about radicals. And actually, if one thoroughly consider his exact conclusions even though it’s nicely put together,  it carries a patronizing tone. Having all radical political voices of today bundled into an unserious package should be met.  


If you have a radical view of societal change today, you belong to a mob of factually misguided, gullible, irresponsible, malicious loudmouths who create unrest.

That is the conclusion of New York Times columnist David Brooks’ analysis in his article “What’s Wrong With Radicalism”. An easy and ingratiating read for the diminishing host of readers who are still convinced that the cause of increasing populism, the mistrust of the establishment, and a new political landscape across the western world is only an unusual virus; namely this radical, malignant and infectious mob. But it will soon pass; the well-established politicians, economists and opinion leaders are the obvious shepherds and healers.

There is something religious about this. Or at least a strong sense of escapism. Thoughts veer towards the Titanic and the orchestra that played for the 1st class passengers until the end. Well-dressed, cultured and wealthy people, mostly men, who share an illusory culture that just has to remain.

To me – politically engaged in an activist movement consisting of 70000 members with concrete economic, social alternatives to the current order, in pursuit of genuine democracy and transparency – and others who left the sinking ship long ago; columnists such as Brooks seem like a dying race, with neither political argument nor vision. In the United States as well as in Europe, wise and innovative people and activists work to create a different and worthwhile social structure that can put an end to people’s increasing distaste for those in power and politics.

The Panama papers, paradise leaks, persuasive and dishonest presidents, surveillance, a small autocratic clique of people in the financial industry who are allowed to own most of the world´s resources, media companies controlling millions of people’s digital lives, increasing numbers of people suffering from mental disorders, and globalization that has removed power so far away from people’s everyday lives that no one cares anymore, are some aspects of our reality. Perhaps Brooks considers this fake news and behind the denial is, of course, the insight that this miserable state is not caused by “political fools”; it has been created by all the common democratic and undemocratic forces that have, for so long ruled the western world. Most of the passengers aboard this sinking ship are now trying to protest, knowing that we have crashed into an iceberg – and knowing who steered us into it. But in one of the sloping salons you will find people like Brooks. Clad in evening dress, puffing on a cigar, still in the process of ordering the best available cognac, in conversation with a small clique of opinion leaders who live in the past.

It may be that in this time of doom some of the passengers are screaming, are raging and shoving at each other and that every little pronouncement is not always true, but still, in comparison with Brooks, they stand on firm ground in the understanding that our society no longer primarily serves its citizens.

The social body and the threatening infection

.Reading time 7 minutes.

It is a common view that 2017 is a politically unpredictable year and unpredictability is anything but what our Western society wants.

On the wish list are: Stable economic growth; political stability; a reliable government; a steady cycle of work and consumption and, not least, a reliable information system – a news media which reflects and analyzes what is happening as the “voice of society”. All of these are interdependent in the “social body”.

Many scoff at this kind of holistic approach. They believe that, on the contrary, society is made up of different stakeholders such as rival companies, the news media and a variety of political currents, preferring to stress that it is these differences that have created our eminent society and provided its diversity, dynamism and vitality.

Nevertheless, everything is dependent on a common system of norms. Without its common standards, the social body would quickly disintegrate. Principles and ideals such as representative democracy, liberalism, capitalism, competition, individualism, hierarchical arrangements, materialism, the human being seen as primarily an economic creature, and so on are ways of thinking that we never question but take for granted. Why would we not? Every conceivable alternative would be worse anyway, isn’t that right? For most people the machinery is, in short, just “our civilization”. Everything west of the United States and east of the EU is generally seen as less civilized.

One might think that it would be the most learned, the most successful people who had the ability to look further and avoid this sectarian, societal self-image. But much of what happens is the opposite of that: The most successful and prominent people are those who have dug deepest into the current system. They are the ones who have been most richly awarded in our society by being the most diligent in following standards and adapting to them. They will not betray “their law”. No, it is not intellectualism and in-depth knowledge that give people wider perspectives. On the contrary, it’s the ability to deprogram from the existing order which provides that liberating sense of clarity and insight. But the most profound insights are often left unacknowledged because they rarely serve the governing system. This applies in all social orders of the world and for all its dissidents.

Brexit, the US presidential election and the inauguration day have unveiled and exposed the social body for those who might have believed that society consisted solely of independent competing forces. Throughout the Western world, a wave of condemnation is currently emanating from the influential people in society towards all those who don’t support the status quo, whether it’s to do with Hillary Clinton, the European Union or trade agreements. Suddenly liberal, conservative and socialist seem to have merged into one and the same political force. Throughout the entire Western world, news media convey similar analyzes and the same conclusions. Banks in France unanimously refuse to lend money to the “wrong” presidential candidate and their campaign. The social body that never was now emerges into its complete form. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both attacked the prevailing system. One had more success than the other but in both cases their rhetoric was grounded in the only currency that ultimately counts; people. Real people who think, feel and make definite choices. And more and more people seem to be veering away from society’s accepted standards.

A rot is spreading rapidly in the West.

The social body is infected, it has a fever and is feeling desperately ill. Millions of people are increasingly rejecting their own civilization. The Western social body’s defense system has no remedy against this epic threat; it trembles and cringes in pain, anger and fear. Its mouth – our old media – sometimes judges, sometimes threatens the citizens to quickly return to the “right thoughts”, because everything is a misunderstanding. Mostly it’s Fake news, the Russians are to blame or Nazis are hiding around the next street corner. During the Christmas holidays Barack Obama signed the ”National Defense Authorization Act” (NDAA), thus also legalizing the “Global Engagement Center”, the propaganda center that will fight ”false information” as well as allow non-governmental organizations the right to gather information and contribute towards counteracting false information about the US and its allies; the new Riders who will carry forward the “good” eye of Sauron. The rot must be combated; Western ideals must prevail.

Society’s foundation and source of energy is the citizens themselves and when only a quarter of the US population support the old ideals and, furthermore, lose or when the European population reject the EU, the bedrock of Western culture has eroded significantly.

The Panama documents revealed economic crime and corruption endorsed by Prime ministers and thousands of economic stake holders. The societal body is already full of rot and on the ropes; everyone knows that. It is in a state of denial, like an old dictator who, before his fall, threatens with even more control, censorship and external menaces.

All the while, people look around and let the old decompose.

The New Devil or the One We Know

.Reading time 5 minutes.

Also published on Democracy Chronicles

A wave of populism is sweeping across the Western world, and right now it’s most clearly exemplified in Donald Trump. The established politicians, culture writers, editors and so on are the ones who usually possess the most sensible and thoughtful insights, unlike populists who are blatant, emotional and dangerous; basing their opinions on simplifications and disaffection; not on the facts.

Western-style Government is fundamentally based on the premise that power should be based on the people. But maybe this is an outdated view. Today, society is much more complex. The consequences of referendums are incalculable for most voters, and therefore polls, where people with a lack of knowledge are given the same voting rights as those who have more insight into the issues, may not be appropriate. The entire Western establishment agrees that Brexit was a disaster.

And perhaps populist views and populist politicians should be kept out of the public debate as far as possible as they are irresponsible and even dangerous. The debates on integration issues, foreign policy and the views on leadership, schools, care, democracy, etc. would be more constructive if they were built on the established views and public reasoning and based on liberalism and the Western democratic culture rather than populist stupidity.

Anger, denial and a deep lack of self-confidence.

Populism occurs in response to elitism. To the traditional politician the populist is regarded as simplistic and irresponsible just as the powerful are seen as simplistic and irresponsible to the individual who seeks his own role as a grass roots citizen, the genuine article. Globalization has reinforced the vertical and hierarchical social order. Furthermore, power today is situated in a single cloud in which parliamentary democracy, capitalism, banks, intelligence services and media service providers can no longer be distinguished.

The anti-populist and simplistic political promises of “change” that characterize most Western elections lack value because they are rarely met. In our Western societies, no fundamental changes are created. On the contrary, it seems that Western culture has solidified around work and consumption as its only vision, with more and more stressed, tired and sick citizens. The trend is less analysis, less reflection and increased, convulsive social pace and more individualism.

One might ask which option carries the most superficial messages? Is it the simplistic discontent-confirming populist or the traditional, familiar and reasonable political hawk promising change but delivering the status quo. Is it the new devil or the one we know?

Many people fear a new wave of fascism. The only question is which one; the nationalist and humanly intolerant one? Or the incumbent hegemony: the power-hungry, dogmatic and increasingly fearful and controlling one? Is it Trump’s catastrophic view of women we should pay attention to or is it Clinton’s classic, ingrained patriarchal order we ought to examine? How is it possible that 40% of all voters ignore the fact that Trump doesn’t stick to the truth? Perhaps because the truths and the good argumentation that Clinton represents have never delivered in practice; within the social reality of the citizens.

Maybe we should ask why politicians, courts, banks and the media continue to lose people’s trust. Perhaps that would be something to pay attention to instead of the next political sex-scandal which makes our present state of democracy look like a burlesque show.

The most interesting thing is that there is a profound change in people’s view of the social order. Reduced confidence and increasing indifference to those in power have created new trends and new political thought structures not only among popular protest movements throughout the Western world but also among the ordinary citizens.

The carousel does not end on November 8; it has only just started to spin.