Tim - a very interesting piece - your view that the old international-order liberalism is dead will, I agree, be true for a while but, in the end, people like to choose who rules them. People like to live in liberal democracies! - I just got back from Ghana where it objectively makes very little difference who rules them but the voters are passionate and vote in big numbers and they're really proud about the handover of power and so on. My Polish friends are really proud about the way they kicked out the populists - and, as you say, Poland is important these days (everyone prefers Tusk to Musk). Finally, please take a look at the parenthesis in your final para which suggests that it wouldn't matter if Zionists' houses burnt down, and I'm sure you didn't mean that - maybe edit it?
To be fair, I was writing about the international order and not decisions made within countries. There is no incompatibility between my analysis and yours because they relate to different categories of entity - the nation state and the international system.
From that perspective I agree that nation states will continue to drift towards liberal democracy with prosperity and with the emergence of viable middle classes. Similarly these countries may coalesce into regional liberal democratic groupings (indeed Africa is likely to do this, at least in parts) but, once a nation moves out of the shared prosperity model and class conflict re-emerges, then centrism faces a war on two fronts because it has no answers to either low growth or increasing numbers excluded from growth or both.
After a while, the 'football club' approach to politics begins to collapse because demands increase. The players are no longer scoring goals. Questions then start to be raised not about this or that party (which as you point out is just a shuffling within elites) but about the viability of the system as a whole. We have not quite reached that point in the UK but we are undoubtedly moving in that direction. America has just crossed over the line.
On the one side is the emergence of libertarian economics as radical solution to the decline of the middle class (as we see in Argentina) and, on the other, a revival of that mix of traditionalism and state planning by effective administrators who no longer exist in the West but which do exist elsewhere (so long as the market is not allowed to gut the system with higher salaries and privileges elsewhere).
As to Poland it is 'sui generis'. Tusk has returned to power precisely because he has adopted sufficient neo-nationalist positions to pull the rug out from under the populists. This is becoming the pattern now - liberals adopting conservative positions to hold on to power. Another example is likely to be seen in Germany where the CDU are taking some illiberal lines to block off the rise of the AfD and are widely expected to win on that basis.
Your friends are just proud of a cultural and ideological victory rather than a substantive one. Tusk is sustainable because Poland is becoming a great power. It is becoming a great power in good part because of the economic decisions of the Polish Right. Indeed, that may be a solution for the cultural as opposed to the real Left - let the Right sort things out and then come back with a softening liberal approach when prosperity demands a bit of lifestyle loosening. That is a suitable 'middle class' strategy.
As to the Zionist point, I have no such view but I have seen that view expressed on social media. It has to be recognised. I am clear that (as in the case of 9/11) common humanity soon reasserts itself but initial reactions can often be drawn from not always unjustifiable resentments. Burying the reality of such reactions under the carpet because they are distasteful is precisely why they grow and become politically effective. I shall not edit it for that reason.
For the UK, I would bet on the third, global option.
To the LA fire: yes, the charges of progressive ineptitude are sticking.
Question: if we are seeing an emerging libertarian ideology in North America and Europe, just how far will these newly empowered elites go in reducing social services? I am in particular thinking of pensions and health care.
The third option would also be my option but was ineptly attempted by the Tory Right in a half hearted way. Everything our political establishment does is half hearted and confused. The WPB seems to be the only Party here with a serious orientation towards trade with the BRICS ... ironically, the most entrepreneurial party in this respect is the most socialist one.
To answer your question, there are political limits. For example Reform is committed to the NHS. The likely drive is probably towards technology-driven efficiency at the expense of layers of mostly middke class managers and administrators. Again, surprisingly perhaps, the socialist WPB tends to this view in order to increase the role and security of front line workers and service levels for working class households. To be fair, Labour intends this outcome under Wes Streeting but is embedded in so many Labour-supporting middle class white collar interests that progress is likely to be difficult. These are UK cases and it may be easier for populists to slash and burn programmes in the US and parts of Europe. Social welfare is, however, central to European political culture so the 'attack' is likely to be on the alleged degradation of services arising out of uncontrolled mass migration.
Tim - a very interesting piece - your view that the old international-order liberalism is dead will, I agree, be true for a while but, in the end, people like to choose who rules them. People like to live in liberal democracies! - I just got back from Ghana where it objectively makes very little difference who rules them but the voters are passionate and vote in big numbers and they're really proud about the handover of power and so on. My Polish friends are really proud about the way they kicked out the populists - and, as you say, Poland is important these days (everyone prefers Tusk to Musk). Finally, please take a look at the parenthesis in your final para which suggests that it wouldn't matter if Zionists' houses burnt down, and I'm sure you didn't mean that - maybe edit it?
To be fair, I was writing about the international order and not decisions made within countries. There is no incompatibility between my analysis and yours because they relate to different categories of entity - the nation state and the international system.
From that perspective I agree that nation states will continue to drift towards liberal democracy with prosperity and with the emergence of viable middle classes. Similarly these countries may coalesce into regional liberal democratic groupings (indeed Africa is likely to do this, at least in parts) but, once a nation moves out of the shared prosperity model and class conflict re-emerges, then centrism faces a war on two fronts because it has no answers to either low growth or increasing numbers excluded from growth or both.
After a while, the 'football club' approach to politics begins to collapse because demands increase. The players are no longer scoring goals. Questions then start to be raised not about this or that party (which as you point out is just a shuffling within elites) but about the viability of the system as a whole. We have not quite reached that point in the UK but we are undoubtedly moving in that direction. America has just crossed over the line.
On the one side is the emergence of libertarian economics as radical solution to the decline of the middle class (as we see in Argentina) and, on the other, a revival of that mix of traditionalism and state planning by effective administrators who no longer exist in the West but which do exist elsewhere (so long as the market is not allowed to gut the system with higher salaries and privileges elsewhere).
As to Poland it is 'sui generis'. Tusk has returned to power precisely because he has adopted sufficient neo-nationalist positions to pull the rug out from under the populists. This is becoming the pattern now - liberals adopting conservative positions to hold on to power. Another example is likely to be seen in Germany where the CDU are taking some illiberal lines to block off the rise of the AfD and are widely expected to win on that basis.
Your friends are just proud of a cultural and ideological victory rather than a substantive one. Tusk is sustainable because Poland is becoming a great power. It is becoming a great power in good part because of the economic decisions of the Polish Right. Indeed, that may be a solution for the cultural as opposed to the real Left - let the Right sort things out and then come back with a softening liberal approach when prosperity demands a bit of lifestyle loosening. That is a suitable 'middle class' strategy.
As to the Zionist point, I have no such view but I have seen that view expressed on social media. It has to be recognised. I am clear that (as in the case of 9/11) common humanity soon reasserts itself but initial reactions can often be drawn from not always unjustifiable resentments. Burying the reality of such reactions under the carpet because they are distasteful is precisely why they grow and become politically effective. I shall not edit it for that reason.
For the UK, I would bet on the third, global option.
To the LA fire: yes, the charges of progressive ineptitude are sticking.
Question: if we are seeing an emerging libertarian ideology in North America and Europe, just how far will these newly empowered elites go in reducing social services? I am in particular thinking of pensions and health care.
The third option would also be my option but was ineptly attempted by the Tory Right in a half hearted way. Everything our political establishment does is half hearted and confused. The WPB seems to be the only Party here with a serious orientation towards trade with the BRICS ... ironically, the most entrepreneurial party in this respect is the most socialist one.
To answer your question, there are political limits. For example Reform is committed to the NHS. The likely drive is probably towards technology-driven efficiency at the expense of layers of mostly middke class managers and administrators. Again, surprisingly perhaps, the socialist WPB tends to this view in order to increase the role and security of front line workers and service levels for working class households. To be fair, Labour intends this outcome under Wes Streeting but is embedded in so many Labour-supporting middle class white collar interests that progress is likely to be difficult. These are UK cases and it may be easier for populists to slash and burn programmes in the US and parts of Europe. Social welfare is, however, central to European political culture so the 'attack' is likely to be on the alleged degradation of services arising out of uncontrolled mass migration.
You've hit the nails solid so many times in this piece that a whole house can be seen emerging.
Yes, there is a house to be built here but the old order is still squatting in a dilapidated mansion where it should be built.