Macron Illustrates Why Neoliberalism Can't Save Democracy

France is currently being torn apart by massive protests after President Macron raised the retirement age from 62 to 64 without a parliamentary vote (which he surely would have lost.) It goes against the wishes of the majority of French people, and probably of their representatives, too. There is a kind of irony to this, since Macron ran and re-ran as a defender of democracy against the forces of populist authoritarianism. His current situation ought to be a warning to centrist and center-left politicians who profess to do the same.

Populist authoritarians get mass support partially because they advocate a Herrenvolk nationalism that assures people in the “in group” that they will be taken care and the social state will not be pared back. Just think about the United States, where Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election by promising to make the public feel the hard hand of capitalism, and Donald Trump won after defending Social Security and Medicare against that type of Republican. While Trump’s policies involved massive giveaways to the wealthy, his rhetorical uses of Herrenvolk nationalism assured the less affluent parts of his base.

Like other neoliberals, Macron thinks the public needs to take their medicine no matter what. Neoliberals see this as a moral imperative, hence Macron’s monomaniacal push to raise the retirement age when the pension system is not in crisis. I am also reminded of the austerity policies in the UK that left its standard of living hobbled without bringing on any economic benefit. The Tories stick to those policies because they are on a moral crusade to save their people from “dependency.”

Neoliberals even take pride in bucking the popular will, to them giving the public less is not a bad thing, but rather a sign of courage. While they play these games, however, the populist authoritarians proclaim that they will take care of the in-group. Macron’s decision about retirement has probably done more to boost the National Front than anything Marine Le Pen has ever done. Similarly, Hilary Clinton’s tendency to defend neoliberal policies in the 2016 election did great damage to her.

The world’s democracies are on a knife’s edge. From India to Hungary to Israel to Florida we are seeing populist authoritarians gain power then use their positions to prevent their opponents from winning elections. Unfortunately, many opponents of these regimes still recite the old neoliberal creed. As long as they flout the wishes of the people so that they can punish them, these neoliberal centrists will be the second biggest threat to democracy because they enable the biggest threat to claim they are protecting “the people” against “the elites.”  

After Richmond, Read Bring the War Home

The extreme right-wingers who showed up to Richmond with their murder toys after the Virginia legislature proposed some mild gun control laws has been in the news. What has struck me is how the media has protrayed these folks merely as supporters of the 2nd Amendment, and not as members of armed militias. If their memebership in militias is mentioned, there is little context provided as to what that actually means. In doing so the media not only downplays the nature of this rally, it erases some crucial and bloody American history.

I recenly read Kathleen Belew's excellent Bring the War Home, a history of what she calls the "paramilitary Right" and "white power movement" of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. That particular movement had its apotheosis in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. As Belew shows, Timothy McVeigh was no "lone wolf," but embedded in a much bigger network of racist violent extremism.

This book ought to be required reading for anyone currently trying to understand the current outburst of right-wing extremism. The white power movement of the 70s was dominated by Vietnam veterans ready to "bring the war home." Their war experience fed into a paramilitary style, and also allowed them to feed off of a popular culture satured with paramilitarism. (They made a Rambo cartoon and sold the toys to boys my age, for crying out loud.) America's 21st century wars have led to a similar militarization of society, a sea that makes it easier for gun toting extremists to swim around.

Part of the reason this movement was able to operate with such impunity was that the FBI treated its actions as isolated cases, rather than part of a mass movement. Even after the Oklahoma City tragedy the media continued in this mindset. Richard Jewell's name is well-known and there was a movie made about him. The man who actually committed the bombing, Eric Rudolph, is less known. When he was captured he was treated as a lone crackpot, not as a member of extremist circles who was raised in white supremacy and got support from locals when he went into hiding.

Today we see the militia members march in Richmond, and they claim that they did so without committing violence. Meanwhile, people affiliated with them commit atrocities like shootings in Charleston and Pittsburgh and they pretend they have nothing to do with the behavior of these "lone wolves." It's an old trick but it keeps working because our government and media are too lazy to press the issue. What we saw in Richmond is part of a much longer story that will lead to more bloodshed. The difference is this time the man these extremists support is in the White House. If he is voted out, don't expect them to go quietly. Get prepared to confront them.