The Consequences of Ignoring Conservative Populism

Since the 1970s many working and lower middle class whites have become alienated from mainstream politics. Where previously they tended to support centrist or centre left parties, that supported their economic interests , they now tend to either avoid voting or give their support to neo-conservative parties. Educated liberals and libertarians argue that supporters of such parties are ignorant of, or unable to deal with, the realities of the modern world with its service economy and 'information society'. However, in the 21st century educated liberals and libertarians also appear to be increasingly out of touch with reality.

Conservative populism in the developed world appears to be strongest in the United States. In the U.S nearly half the population doesn't vote. Among working class voters that vote, most vote for the Republicans whose tax policies favour the wealthy. Liberals argue that working class Whites don't know their own interests because they are poorly educated or intolerant of minorities, who tend to vote for the Democrats.

No doubt there is intolerance towards minorities in the United States but the U.S also has very high levels of immigration and a low minimum wage. Over a million migrants enter the U.S each year. This level is economically and environmentally unstable and is highly likely to reduce wages and increase rents for low income Whites and Afro-Americans. However, the Democrats appear to have no intention of reducing immigration or seriously improving working conditions for low income workers. Hence, it is not suprising that working class whites have abandoned the Democrats. Many prefer to support the Republicans who at least promise to keep taxes low.

In the rhetoric of economic libertarians working and lower-middle class people who lack a university education are economically redundant. They argue that manual work can be done by machines or workers from the developing world. Knowledge workers or 'symbolic analysts' are today's heroes who richly deserve their much larger pay packets. The working class should either get educated or gratefully accept a low-income service job. However, low income Americans sense that much of this talk is hubris and that many traditional blue collar jobs are still important to society- its a pretty safe beat that a strike among refuse collectors would have more serious consequences than a strike among fast food workers.

The media has also added to the sense of betrayal felt by many of the Democrats' traditional voters. Although the media is largely driven by commercial considerations, rather than a liberal agenda as such, neo-conservative critics believe that it highlights the hypocricy of many prominent liberals. The media has responded by offering neo-conservatives critics a voice through talk radio and print media, thus opening up another lucrative media market. However, the big institutions of the media, such as Hollywood, still appear to have a liberal bias. As far as much of the public is concerned, neo-conservative commentators are embattled outsiders standing up for ordinary Americans agianst the liberal power elite.

Mnay 'conservative' politicians and media personalities in the U.S are actually more libertarian than conservative. Libertarian thought has had a big impact on North American society over the last twenty years. The works of Ayn Rand, for example, have been among the biggest selling books in America. Unfortunately, centrist critics of libertarian thinking have played into neo-conservative and libertarian hands by highlighting the economic aspects of libertarian thinking rather than its social ideas. Laissez-faire economics has always had a relatively strong following in the United States. As post-war Keynesian economics has become increasingly unworkable the U.S has returned to its historical preference for limited government. Neo-liberalism may not be the best solution to de-industrialisation and inflation but it has at least cured stagflation and tamed some aspects of government spending.

While America has a liberal economic history (albiet with periods of protectionism) its social history is relatively conservative. The U.S, for example, is more religious than most Western countries. Libertarian writers like Ayn Rand may support lower taxes but they also advocate atheism, abortion, unlimitted immigration( except to criminals) and legalised drugs and prostitution- social policies that would horrify most Republican voting Americans. Indeed, if U.S libertarians had their way the current war in Iraq would not have occured, as military interventionism contradicts libertarian philosophy. If the Democrats were as politically savvy as the Republicans they would play on public fears of social libertarianism and use the media to expose the libertarian backgrounds of prominent establishment figures like Alan Greenspan.

It is a huge irony that the key supporters of George Bush's neo-conservative government are working class populists, who suffer neo-liberalism and military expansionism to promote social conservatism- and intellectual libertarians, who sacrifice their social beliefs so as to promote neo-liberalism. The Democrats need to acknowledge that they have lost control of the economy because they have not moderated their social and immigration policies to attract more social conservatives with centrist economic views.