Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism

I've read two other books on populism. This one is denser but more convincing. If you only think about US politics and buy the myth that the country has been going downhill economically since 1973, it will seem wrong. But one great strength of this book is its international perspective. That blows away many US-centric views. A highly important book that needs more attention. (See also: What Is Populism?)

There is a lot of impressive data in this book (making it a quick read if you skip the figures and tables). Its central flaw comes in the foundational assessment that the Millennial and Gen-X generations are somehow "post-materialist." This theory is best summarized on pages 34-35:"Economic and physical security have led to pervasive intergenerational cultural changes, bringing a shift from materialist to post-materialist values. People changed from giving top priority to economic and physical safety and conformity to group norms toward increasing emphasis on individual freedom. Growing up under much more secure conditions than their elders, the younger birth cohorts had considerably more tolerant social norms and as they replaced the older cohorts in the adult population, the prevailing culture of their societies were gradually transformed. It took decades for this to happen but it eventually gave rise to a positive feedback loop. People take for granted the world into which they are born. It seems normal and legitimate. The cultural norms of high-income conditions and the world into which one was born was much smaller for Millennials than for the Interwar generation. Conversely, as time went by, the older cohorts experienced a growing gap between the norms of the world into which they had been born, and the world in which they lived. The younger birth cohorts had experienced greater gender equality, tolerant sexual norms, and cultural diversity since birth and they seemed familiar and unthreatening. For many older people, same-sex marriage, women in leadership roles, multicultural diversity in cities, and, in the US, an African-American President were disorienting departures from the norms they had known since childhood; they felt they had become strangers in their own land. The process of cultural change was reinforced by large-scale immigration, rising access to college education, and urbanization. The pace of long-term cultural change can be accelerated or weakened by period-effects associated with shifts in economic conditions and population migration."I personally would prefer to believe that the election of Trump was actually a reaction to the fact that our economy today works for fewer and fewer people -- that if Obama had done more to reduce inequality, he might not have been succeeded by Trump. The alternative is that most older white Americans are irredeemable and we can only wait for them to die. How can younger people be "post-materialist" when their lives are materially harder than those of their parents? There is only one chapter in this book on economic grievances.To their credit, in their "What is to be Done?" segment at the end of the book, the authors do submit a ringing endorsement of a frontal attack on inequality in democracies (page 464):"Western societies are currently regressing toward the authoritarian politics that is linked historically with economic insecurity. But -- unlike the rise of Fascism during the Great Depression -- this does not result from objective scarcity. Western societies possess abundant and growing resources, but they are increasingly misallocated from the standpoint of maximizing human well-being. Insecurity today results from growing inequality -- which is ultimately a political question. Government intervention could reallocate a significant part of these resources to create meaningful jobs in healthcare, education, building infrastructure, environmental protection, research and development, care of the elderly, and the arts and humanities -- with the goal of improving the quality of life for society as a whole, rather than maximizing corporate profits."This is a refreshing change from the authors' insistence elsewhere that Bernie Sanders is a Libertarian Populist, or that the opposite of populism is pluralism. It comes rather too late, however, so I deduct one star from my rating of this book. It's only one star because I find it difficult to argue with the authors' overall thesis that cultural issues really are the most important in contemporary Western politics. I recommend reading this book if you are interested in that subject.

This is a deeply researched, but eminently readable book. If you, like I, wonder what's happened and why we are choosing autocrats around this world, this book is for you.

Jason Galbraith’s review made me want to get and read this book.

This is a comprehensive, detailed academic treatise on the authors' hypothesis about a cultural backlash against libertarian values in Western societies that has given rise to authoritarian populism. I must applaud its rigorous analyses of an enormous about of data in comparative politics. It provides a convincing case of the pertinent issues involved.Although the book covers a very interesting subject, I find the authors' style of writing rather too dry to sustain interest. Their discussion often involves very long paragraphs that at times stretch over a few pages.While pertinent issues are carefully and convincingly presented, the final chapter gives recommendations that lack depth and are no more than common sense. That I find disappointing.Finally a recommendation for readers who may be interested. Do get a hard copy of the book. The very fine print in the many tables and graphs is quite impossible to read with an e-copy on my cell phone.

Instead of discussing the details of this important book, which are convincing within a optimistic liberal expanded-democratic ideology/paradigm, let me cast doubts on its continuous validity – and thus criticize the foundations of the book.That ideology/frame served well in Western civilization countries for two centuries and more. But I am afraid it cannot cope with the opportunities and dangers posed by an emerging epoch of human “novogenesis” powers increasingly supplied by technoscience, whether we want it or not.The ideological-paradoigmatic basis of the book is clearly put in the declaration “We view Trump as a leader who uses populist rhetoric to legitimize his style of governance, while promoting authoritarian values that threaten the liberal norms underpinning American democracy” (Kindle location 323-325).Unconventionally, I will put my review in the form of a contrary macro-historic perspective, by quoting an assessment of mine from the website of the PSJ yearbook blog (without the references):“I think the Trump phenomena should be considered within the global perspective of humanity in transition. Even if we leave aside the radical possibilities of a phase shift into an Epoch of “Singularity,” it seems reasonable to view the world as moving into a period of radical transformation. The history of the 17th century can somewhat serve as an analogue. As I stated in another context “It is absurd to believe that everything is going to change, but politics will and can remain the same”.Given this perspective, the experiences of heads of governments with handling of crises in the past is inadequate for considering emerging realities and needs. Much more “disruptive” presidents are likely to be elected and engage in radical policy innovations without being constrained by “the world as it is”, but rather throwing surprises at history.It is not for me to evaluate the modus operandi and decisions of President Donald John Trump. But, from a world-historic perspective, the overall impact of President Trump is disruption of “politics as usual,” which is overdue. Naturally, this is condemned by all who cling to what they practice and the past-conditioned power — indecisive bargaining on domestic policies and endless “diplomacy-centered” foreign policy. And, truly, Trump’s revolutionary choices carry high risks.However, there are periods when “politics as usual” is even more dangerous, especially when historic quantum-leaps pose totally novel challenges which can be coped with only by parallel radical and even revolutionary politics and policies.The future is in deep uncertainty. But the emerging epoch of Homo sapiens clearly constitutes what science fiction author Lain M. Banks called an “Outside Context Problem,” as an isolated tribe meeting an advanced civilization. The combined effects of emerging science and technology, ranging from general artificial intelligence to gene engineering, are sure to add up to a radical shift of human existence: labor market will implode; expensive human enhancement will result in glaring life expectancy inequality; virus mutations in kitchen laboratories will enable fanatic sects to kill millions; clime changes will produce mass migrations and require harsh changes in life styles, and so on. But, strictly regulated globally, the same science and technologies may enable multiple human thriving, but perhaps at the price of foregoing quite some individual liberties and abandoning much of state autonomy plus for sure at least partly novel politics and policy making. Therefore, disruption of “politics as usual,” despite all its dangers, is an essential phase clearing the way for the needed novel politics.I do not imply that all the innovations of Trump are for the better. Nor is it assured that his deviancy will serve as ‘constructive destruction.’ It may fail to achieve the necessary critical mass, and may evoke counter-productive reactions. But the positive potentials of the bombshells thrown by President Trump on politics-as-usual should be recognized”.Returning to the reviewed book, I think it should have considered different perspectives even if rejecting them. Being stuck in “political science as usual” as if it is eternally all of the truth does not fit rapidly changing realities.Readers are invited to open their minds and consider alternative paradigms fitting an unprecedented epoch of phase-shifts, even if they end up agreeing with the authors and reject my counter-stance. I enjoined reading the book and learned from it a lot, even though using it as an anvil for my Platonic-Nietzschean hammer: What it regards as “backlash” I regard as a bulldozer breaking a way to the future, but to be put aside as soon as possible.Professor Yehezkel DrorThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem