A lot of US blog posts have asked this after the US government came very close to self-inflicted default. It was
indeed an extraordinary episode which indicates that something is very wrong.
All I want to suggest here is that it may help to put this discussion in a
global context. What has happened in the US has of course many elements which
can only be fully understood in the domestic context and given US history, like
the enduring influence of race, or cultural
wars. But with other, more economic, elements it may be more
accurate to describe the US as leading the way, with other countries following.
Jared Bernstein writes “The US economy has left large swaths
of people behind. History shows that
such periods are ripe for demagogues, and here again, deep pockets buy not only
the policy set that protects them, but the “think tanks,” research results, and
media presence that foments the polarization that insulates them further.”
Support for the right in the US does appear to be correlated with low incomes and
low human capital. Yet while growing inequality may be most noticeable in the US,
but it is not unique to it, as the chart below from the Paris School of
Economics database shows. Stagnation of median wages may
have been evident for longer in the US, but the recession has led to declining real
wages in many other countries. Partly as a result,
we have seen ‘farther right’ parties gaining
popularity across Europe in recent years.
Yet surely, you might say, what is unique to the US is that a
large section of the political right has got ‘out of control’, such that it has
done significant harm to the economy and almost did much more. If, following Jurek Martin in the FT, we describe
business interests as ‘big money’, then it appears as if the Republican party
has been acting against big money. Here there may be a parallel
with the UK which could be instructive.
In the UK, David Cameron has been forced to concede
a referendum on continued UK membership of the European Union, in an attempt to
stem the popularity of the UK Independence Party. Much of UK business would regard leaving the EU as disastrous, so
Cameron will almost certainly recommend staying in the EU. But with a fiercely
anti-EU press, and a divided party, he could well lose a referendum. So the
referendum pledge seems like a forced concession to the farther right that
entails considerable risks. Chris Dillow notes other areas where a right wing
government appears to be acting against ‘big money’.
While hostility to immigration has always been a reaction to
economic decline, it is difficult to argue that hostility to the
European Union is a burning issue for the majority of people in the UK. So why
was Cameron forced to make such a dangerous concession over the referendum? One
important factor is that the EU is a very important issue for all of the right
wing press, which is universally antagonistic in its reporting. Murdoch’s
hostility is well documented, which suggests the press is leading rather than reflecting popular
mistrust. So while a right wing press is generally useful to the Conservative
Party, in this particular case it seems to be pushing it in a direction ’big
money’ does not want to go.
Most discussion of the Tea Party seems to view Fox News and
talk radio as simply a mirror to a phenomenon that must be explained. However
in the case of the EU and the UK press it seems causality runs the other way:
it is the press that helps fire up the passion of a minority and the attitudes
of a wider majority. When I see lists of influential people within the
Republican Party, names like Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and Glenn Beck seem to
figure prominently. Perhaps in both the US and UK, ‘big money’ and those on the
centre right need to ask themselves whether - in enabling
and encouraging a highly partisan and emotive
media - they have helped create something they can no longer control.
Postscript 25th October
I would not normally bother with responses to my post like
this, but Mr. Bourne has a line which might for a fleeting moment sound
convincing. He says that my post insults eurosceptics like him, because by
suggesting that the influence of the press is strong on this issue, I must be
assuming that he, other eurosceptics and perhaps all the British people are
stupid. (It also shows I despise democracy and the nation state, apparently,
but let’s ignore that.) This struck me as odd, because I can be pretty
eurosceptic at times, so I must be insulting myself!
This is nonsense, because it confuses intelligence with
information. People’s views are influenced by the information they receive
(mine certainly are), and therefore it is important that this is not one sided.
My concern with much of the UK press is that on many issues people are getting
very distorted information. Now Mr. Bourne thinks that in worrying about that,
I am implying that people are stupid. But wait a minute. Mr. Bourne’s employer,
the CPS, recently released a report criticising the BBC for bias. If they think
that is important, and they seem to, does that not mean they also think people
are stupid?
I suspect Mr Bourne chose to be insulted so he could have a
good old eurosceptic rant. Which is fine, but please do not make completely
unjustified assertions about what my views are at the same time. That is
insulting.
