Is there a Centrist personality?

The right loves authoritarian populists and the left loves to smash windows. What about the so-called middle-ground?

The rise of Trump has resurfaced much discussion about the right-wing authoritarian personality. This initially gained prominence after World War II as social psychologists attempted to find an explanation for why so many millions of Germans and Italians became enthralled with their fascist leaders. According to the theory as developed by people such as Theodor Adorno and Bob Altemeyer and later also popularized by philosophers like Hannah Arendt, a certain psychological profile which prioritized obedience to authority, adherence to traditional social norms and hierarchies, and punitive views towards criminal justice, as well as a general aggressiveness towards outsiders. These attitudes resulted in these personalities being particularly susceptible to far-right populist leaders, however anti-democratic and illiberal they may be.

Nailing down a left-wing authoritarian personality, however, has proven difficult. Altemeyer himself has stated that he has failed to find any evidence of it despite decades of study. Others have seen left-wing authoritarians as being mostly similar to their right-wing counterparts, except that the latter’s deference toa authority is replaced by an obsessive desire to overthrow it, as well as a willingness to engage in politically-motivated violence. Still, this is questionable. Even looking at many of the left-wing authoritarian regimes of the 20th century (the USSR, North Korea), it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the support by their populations was more a product of state intimidation and propaganda rather than personalities. Continue reading

The delusions of liberalism at the end of the end of history

Why liberals need to accept that the foundational ideology of the West is obsolete

No serious political scientist or pundit today would deny that liberalism, the foundational ideology of the Western world for the last few centuries, is under attack. Autocrats like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, or Turkey’s Recip Erdogan have offered an illiberal challenge to liberal democracy that has gained strong appeal with its constituents. But in the very bastions of the liberal West, liberalism is also succumbing from the onslaught of far-right populism. That people like Donald Trump or Boris Johnson would become leaders of their respective countries would have seemed inconceivable just a few decades earlier. Now the question seems to be which country will be the next to fall into the cracks.

Despite these concerns, liberals from both the left and right of the political spectrum appear hopeful in their hubris. In the first two centuries after its inception, liberalism successfully dismantled the political absolutism of the ancien regime, and universalized the Western values of individual rights and liberties that almost every society on earth now takes for granted. In the 20th century it also fended off two great illiberal challenges in the form of fascism and communism. Although the term is annoyingly taken as a synonym of “left-winger” in the US, almost everyone in the Western world today believes him or herself to be a liberal from a political-philosophical perspective. Unfortunately, this label is usually self-applied without stopping to think what being a liberal actually means which is extremely problematic: a foundational political ideology that remains unchallenged eventually becomes a hindrance rather than a help to human progress when its adherents fail to realize it may be obsolete.

This post will make the controversial point that liberalism has reached that point of obsolescence. More so, I will argue that it is a political ideology tarnished with blood, riddled with hypocrisy and contradictions, and which has become a rhetorical concept intended to justify the presumed superiority of Western civilization and thought as a justification for Western hegemony. And even if by the end of these lines you remain steadfast in your belief that liberalism is a sacred pillar of modernity and must be defended at any cost, hopefully it would make you uncomfortable enough that you will never look at liberalism the same way. Continue reading

The exorbitant privilege of capital

Why we need to rethink capital’s relationship with labor

The robber barons

Capital has an exorbitant privilege. With capital we are able to undertake productive investments and reap a potentially infinite amount of rewards. However, capital is not the only factor of production: for those investments to succeed, we also need labor. Unfortunately the rewards received by labor are infinitesimal and declining. In the majority of the industrialized world, the share of national income received by labor has been dropping over the past decades as a result of a myriad of factors like globalization, deregulation of labor markets, and the neutering of the power and influence of unions. The root of this privilege goes back to the origins of capital and its historic process of accumulation.

Where does capital come from? One source is from capital itself. Any increase in the value of an asset provides the owner with additional income which can then be reinvested into other capital assets. Similarly, some assets like stocks and bonds provide a regular stream of income in the form of interest payments or dividends.  Additionally, physical capital like robots or other types of automated equipment can also produce additional capital without human input. However, the main source of capital is labor. Your work, as an employee of any firm, contributes to the profits of the firm through which the firm is then able to accumulate further capital. No amount of capital will make a firm thrive in the absence of labor which is why the two are not perfect substitutes. But capital’s exorbitant privilege comes from the fact that, unlike labor, it can generate infinite returns. Let’s see how this process takes place in practice. Continue reading

Fellow economists, we’re mostly to blame for this mess

Brexit, Trump. We built the world that let extremism thrive
This is on us

This is on us

Dear world, on behalf of economists I offer an apology. More than anything or anyone else, we are responsible for the clusterfuck that has been 2016.

Since the 1980s we said that inequality didn’t matter. That working and middle class people would be fine if their incomes didn’t worsen even as those in the top 10% (and especially 1%) saw their own income and wealth skyrocket to levels not seen since the Gilded Age. We did not see that people did not view their lot in absolute but in relative terms. We expected them to accept our logic, and acted dumbfounded when they didn’t express gratitude for the few tiny drops of prosperity that trickled down. We never imagined that they’d be rightfully pissed. Then we blamed them for living beyond their means to catch up with the Joneses, for being irresponsible for maxing their credit cards and taking out mortgages on houses they couldn’t afford. We never saw inequality as a psychological problem as much as an economic one.

We called anyone who disagreed a socialist.

Around that same time, we said that free markets were a panacea for growth. True, many countries did benefit heavily from globalization and certainly those countries that did not follow certain basic rules of market logic have fared terribly (Venezuela being a case in point). But globalization was not a panacea for the working and middle classes of the developed world. In our smugness, we said that the lost jobs either to China, Mexico, or technology were a necessary evil for continued productivity growth. We acted like it was their fault that they did not have the skills needed for the new economy, and that it was nobody’s responsibility to find them those skills either. In the dog eat dog world of neoliberal economics there are losers, and we could afford not to be those losers becomes economists are still not being outsourced to India or replaced by robots so we had little empathy for those who were less lucky. We applauded that unemployment fell and didn’t care that it was because people lost stable, salaried jobs and became self-employed with zero benefits. We cared more about the Dow Jones than the Gini index.

We called anyone who disagreed a socialist.

We also assumed that everyone was rational. We even had a name for this species of humanity that always took decisions based on all available information, weighed all options, and picked the one that maximized their utility: homo economicus. Since we thought psychology, sociology, and all the other social sciences were inferior disciplines because they could not prove their hypotheses with econometrics, so we never bothered to accept their insights into human behavior. The result is that we thought markets were self-correcting, industries were self-regulated, and markets punished those who took decisions against the public interest. We saw the “irrational exuberance” of the dot-com bubble and then did nothing when a bigger bubble, the subprime housing bubble, sprung up almost immediately after the first one popped.

We called anyone who disagreed a socialist.

And finally, we assumed we had all the answers. We took the view of Noble laureate Robert Lucas that the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades”. This was just five years before the global financial crisis. We also poisoned the minds of politicians, who adopted our elegant yet simplistic neoclassical view of how the world worked. We flooded bookstores with titles like Freakonomics and The Economic Naturalist: How Economics Explains Everything to educate the masses on why we knew better. We were conceited, arrogant, and frankly, fucking annoying.

We called anyone who disagreed a socialist.

Then on June 23rd we wondered how the British could be so stupid as to want to leave the EU. On November 8th we were even more perplexed on how Americans could be dumb enough to vote for someone like Trump. From our little intellectual ivory towers, the framework in which we understood the world was perfectly fine. We didn’t get that we didn’t get it.

And now with the twin shocks of a global crisis in 2008-09 and a political crisis in 2016, our world has been shattered. Probably irremediably. But we don’t know it yet. This will still be blamed on people (deplorable as they may be), rather than the structures that conditioned them to be that way. And we’ll be scratching our heads into oblivion by failing to understand why a laid off steelworker from Pennsylvania or miner from Yorkshire won’t be voting with rapturous joy for the man or woman who promises free trade agreements, minority rights, and open immigration in place of the only thing that really matters to them: dignity.

(The author wishes to note that he has stood against everything that has been criticized in this piece since his days as an undergrad. And if you think he is a socialist, well, you’re pretty much the type of person he wrote this for)