Warring Fictions
Warring Fictions
Left Populism and Its Defining Myths
Christopher Clarke
London New York
Published by Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd.
6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom
www.rowmaninternational.com
Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd., is an affiliate of Rowman & Littlefield
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706, USA
With additional offices in Boulder, New York, Toronto (Canada), and Plymouth (UK)
www.rowman.com
Copyright 2019 Policy Network
All rights reserved . No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: Paperback 978-1-78661-291-5
Electronic 978-1-78661-293-9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN 978-1-78661-291-5 (paperback : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-1-78661-293-9 (electronic)
Table of Contents
Landmarks
Context
About this argument
Differences between pro- and anti-Corbyn wings have been the subject of painful tensions in the British Labour Party in recent years. Warring Fictions traces these tensions and similar divisions in Europe and the US to their source. It suggests theyre thanks to profound differences in the narratives governing our politics. The resulting divide, between the two sides of Labour, is between conflicting perspectives, not conflicting values.
To make this argument, the essay sets out two outlooks on the left:
- Left populism is a style of progressive politics based on the idea that only left-wing ideas can be moral, that most problems are deliberately imposed from above, and that society is in a right-wing decline. Most common on the Corbynite far left (though not unique to it), left populism deploys stories of conflict, insurgency and crisis.
- Left pluralism is an egalitarian politics more common among non-Corbynites. It rejects the idea that the political spectrum is a moral spectrum, and accepts a diversity of values. Left pluralists see social problems as organic, complex and the product of conflicting demands not as authored. They also tend to be more upbeat about increased interconnectedness with other nations.
These divergences make cooperation hard, with agreement about the context were working in close to impossible. They explain why the left often splits, why relationships descend into bitterness, why arguments result in non-sequiturs.
Warring Fictions looks to identify the nub of the differences. It explores three narratives, which are believed in by the populist left but not the pluralist left.
Underpinning my argument are two convictions about British politics. The first is that regaining a rational, civil and democratic debate should be the priority for people of all leanings. Until trust in the motives of others is restored, discourse is based on logic not conspiracy, and respect for opponents returns, politicians cannot address other problems. So, Im asking that the left specifically the populist left takes the steps necessary to stop Britain being consumed by US-style culture wars.
The second conviction is that the crisis of socialism and social democracy, which has put progressives out of power across Europe, is easier to solve than we think. The adage that weve run out of ideas may be true. But there are answers, electorally and through policy-making, if we want them. Yet this is impossible when every conversation is distorted by sacred falsehoods and an atmosphere that straitjackets debate. The thinking needed to tackle global wealth inequality or address climate change is shut down by the visceral stories which guide left populism.
The essay is therefore written from an openly left pluralist stance, and in opposition to the populist approach. It asks how we on the left can jettison our destructive myths and folklore, in order to achieve an egalitarian society.
Left Populism and Left Pluralism
Trump and the rise of populism
W.H. Auden called the 1930s a low dishonest decade, and it seems likely well look back on the 2010s in the same way. Weve seen the upending of the conventional spectrum and the rise of populist movements from right and left. The shift is profound enough for some to fear the end of democracy, with the rise of fake news and with declining political trust. In the UK this has played out in Scottish nationalism, Brexit and the resurgence of the Bennite left. It has seen the two main parties split at the seams, with a short-lived, non-populist breakaway, The Independent Group (TIG), registering as Change UK and then disbanding.
The rise of populism has been driven, in part, by globalisation (including technological change, inequality, migration, etc). This has generated problems which are often transnational and chaotic, and beyond the immediate control of national politicians. The chasm this creates feeds us-and-them dynamics, and is exacerbated by 24-hour news and social media. These phenomena magnify and polarise.
The populist movements this has spawned arent driven by rational arguments or policy goals. Because the problems are hard, and demand compromise, they are instead fuelled by gestures, symbolism and anger. Its this that has led to the term post-truth politics a shorthand for a climate where rational debate is eclipsed by emotion and identity. Trump claimed that he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and still wouldnt lose voters.
There are three belief systems which sustain these new movements. The first is the belief in a common enemy us versus them. Populists rely on a malign foe. The second is an anti-establishment default. Populists imply that omnipotent and self-serving elites block the will of the people. The third is a sense of decline often expressed through opposition to growing inter-dependence between countries. This lends urgency to the populist cause.
In the UK this is manifest. Both the populist left and the populist right indulge in an attritional world view, that lets their outer fringes feel justified in spitting at Tories or in intimidating MPs outside parliament (as Yellow Vest Brexit protesters have done on several occasions). Both hold elites culpable global in the case of the former, metropolitan in the case of the latter. Both see themselves as victims of an institutional bias, on the part of the right-wing press or the liberal media. And both are sustained by nostalgia, for the Keynesian consensus of Attlee or the once-Great Britain of Churchill. Theyre thus driven by a sense of national decline caused, in turn, by neoliberal globalisation and culturally liberal internationalism which they suggest that only their movements can avert. As a result, we have demagogues as varied as Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Populist belief systems are destructive, wherever they appear on the spectrum. They indulge a cognitively dissonant, conspiracy theorists view. And they lead to backward-looking and ideologically exclusive approaches. Worst of all is the lack of perspective they encourage. Populist narratives dont present hard choices or contemplate other viewpoints. They hold to ransom the wider electorate, often inadvertently, and imply that they speak for a larger group than they do. They allow the idea that their views have innate moral superiority to dominate the argument.
