By Ted Morgan
Published in the Morning Call (c)
Can we reclaim democracy?
Back in the mid-1990s, political
scientist Benjamin Barber wrote the book, "Jihad vs. McWorld: How
Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World." McWorld represents the
globalizing culture of capitalism. Jihad refers to reactions to the spread of
this culture, not only Islamist extremism but all forms of ethnic nationalism
or racist xenophobia.
Barber maintained that the two
forces feed off each other, and the corporate media play a crucial role in this
process. Whereas Jihad is fed by emotion, often reflecting yearning for a
mythical past, McWorld offers the "rationality" of the market and
illusions of a universal future. From the perspective of the market, Jihad is
irrational and dangerous. From the perspective of Jihad, McWorld threatens
one's sense of place, one's religious beliefs and traditions, even one's
identity.
Crucially, Barber argues, Jihad and
McWorld interact to undermine civil society and the democratic institutions of
the nation-state. That is the issue we face today: Can we escape the no-win
choice of Jihad and McWorld and reclaim democracy?
We have before us two prime examples
of Barber's thesis at work. Donald Trump
and the British vote to exit the European Union
represent Jihad, and Hillary Clinton
and the EU and British establishments represent McWorld.
Trump has tapped into angry
frustrations among sectors of the population who have long felt the world is
leaving them behind. He has used vitriolic attacks against the alleged threat
of immigrants and Muslims as key elements in his campaign pitch, but what is
crucial is the way he has presented himself — as a bombastic,
tell-it-like-it-is guy willing to throw away the conventions of civil politics.
His angry outbursts express and legitimize what his constituents feel — anger
that they're losing out. For decades, people drawn to Trump have been told that
they are victims of the liberal establishment and its Big Government.
Ironically, Trump succeeds because of
a foundational McWorld institution — the entertainment medium of television
news, which spreads a culture of drama, personalities and conflict that grabs
our attention and plays on our feelings. This is a world of images and sound
bites, not sober political realities. Trump's recent attacks on NAFTA
and the Trans-Pacific Partnership resonate well with people whose economic
security has been shattered by "free trade" agreements.
In the context of Great Britain,
similar dynamics are at work. The "Leave" campaign emphasized the
loss of Britain's control within the EU, highlighting the fear of increasing
hordes of immigrants from the Middle East. Clearly voters were angrily
disenchanted with the self-serving rhetoric of political elites; clearly they
feel they've had enough, whatever the outcome might be.
The alternative we are presented in
both cases is a defense of the institutions of McWorld — ultimately the
investment markets and the globalization of capital. Not surprisingly, McWorld
also sells itself to voters via fear — most fundamentally the fear of economic
and political instability.
In the case of Clinton, her campaign rhetoric promised "progressive" solutions because, as she put it, "I believe in progress." However, the central drive for many pro-Hillary voters is fear of — you guessed it — Trump.
Yet, the Clinton campaign has
already undercut most of the progressive challenges coming from the Bernie
Sanders camp, to say nothing of reversing some of Clinton's own campaign
rhetoric. In a June 29 piece in Politico, platform-drafting committee delegate
Bill McKibben described how the Clinton delegates voted en masse to defeat
amendments challenging the TPP and supporting Medicare for all, and helped
defeat five amendments to combat climate change. Presumably, then, if you fear
her opponent enough, empty rhetoric that disguises business-as-usual becomes
more acceptable.
Ditto with Brexit. The panic in the world's markets
and dire warnings of spreading economic recession in The New York Times,
Britain's Guardian and other establishment media play on our fears, while
exaggerating the benefits of McWorld. Thus, for example, the Times warned on
June 25 that Brexit would weaken institutions and alliances that have
"helped guarantee international peace and stability for 70 years."
(Note to the Times: The United States has been at war for 40 of those 70
years.)
The two fatal flaws of Jihad vs.
McWorld are: 1) neither provides a path to a livable world for all humans, and
2) their dynamic interaction spreads the belief that there is no alternative.
Yet in Britain and elsewhere around
the globe, many on the left envision a different form of democratic
globalization, responsive to the needs and aspirations of all people. In the
United States, Sanders articulated a vision that could lead us toward that
alternative and a far more democratic world — if we joined the political
revolution.
Ted Morgan is professor of political
science at Lehigh University and author of "What Really Happened to the
1960s: How Mass Media Culture Failed American Democracy."
Copyright © 2016, The Morning Call
No comments:
Post a Comment