Photo credit: www.theguardian.com

The Political Landscape and the Increasing Inequality Dilemma

“He’s really done it this time. Now everyone can see what a disaster he is.” Such sentiments about Donald Trump have echoed numerous times, only to be disproven with surprising resilience. However, recent developments may indicate he has indeed crossed a line. His unpredictable approach to tariffs and trade policies has the potential to ignite a global economic crisis. Could this push his supporters to reconsider their loyalty? Skeptics might doubt it, and here’s why.

Trump’s agenda has aggressively targeted foundational elements of progress and well-being: democracy, environmental health, education, healthcare, scientific advancement, and the arts. Despite this assault, his approval ratings have stubbornly fluctuated between 43 and 48%, significantly higher than those of many international counterparts. The reason for this persistent support may lie in a core aspect of human nature: the inclination to dismantle structures perceived as exclusionary.

This inclination is crucial for understanding contemporary political dynamics, yet remains largely unacknowledged by the mainstream. Conversely, the far-right has adeptly recognized and exploited this sentiment.

Across the globe, particularly in the United States, inequality has surged since the late 1970s. For instance, the wealth of the world’s billionaires increased by $2 trillion last year, while the number of individuals living in extreme poverty has remained virtually stagnant since 1990, particularly in the UK which tracks this alarming trend.

There is compelling evidence linking rising inequality with the emergence of populist authoritarian movements. Research published in the Journal of European Public Policy reveals that a single-point increase in the Gini coefficient, a standard measure of inequality, correlates with a 1% rise in support for authoritarian leaders.

So, what accounts for this phenomenon? Various factors contribute, including feelings of marginalization, status anxiety, and perceived social threats. In many instances, these insecurities can trigger an authoritarian response coupled with a diminishing trust in social institutions. At the heart of these explanations lies a primal instinct: if you can’t seek justice, foster resentment.

In America, a significant portion of the populace finds itself marginalized from the benefits of societal advancements. Scientific innovations may yield breakthroughs, yet not for those who cannot afford healthcare. Higher education can unlock many opportunities, but often at the cost of crippling student debt. Cultural enrichments like art and music enhance life quality, yet come at a price prohibitive for many. Access to national parks and other public benefits often requires disposable income, leaving many disenfranchised.

Democracy is often viewed as a means for public voice in policy-making, yet this assumes a financial capacity to influence political parties. According to political scientist Prof. Martin Gilens in Affluence and Influence, the preferences of most Americans frequently go unheeded in governmental policies. GDP growth under President Joe Biden was substantial, but as economics expert Jason Furman notes, “from 2019 to 2023, inflation-adjusted household income declined, and poverty rates increased.” Thus, GDP and social progress are increasingly decoupled.

For those who feel excluded from the benefits of society, the rhetoric of dismantling the established system can be appealing. Trump, despite the chaos he perpetuates, positions himself as a champion of those seeking vengeance against perceived scapegoats: immigrants, marginalized communities, scientists, and global competitors.

However, such figures cannot thrive alone. Their strongest allies are mainstream parties that remain impotent in the face of the economic elite. With deep ties to affluent sponsors and intimidated by powerful media interests, centrists have long failed to acknowledge the root issues of inequality, thereby exacerbating the problem. This impotence is evident in the Democrats’ response to Trump, with journalist Hamilton Nolan poignantly observing that “one party is out to kill, and the other is waiting for its leaders to die.”

In the UK, the Labour Party, akin to its American counterpart, has long assured itself that economic disparities can be overlooked as long as initiatives are made to uplift the underprivileged. This principle has eroded, with the party now suggesting that they can cut welfare if GDP continues to rise. But this neglects an essential truth: inequality matters significantly. Extensive evidence, notably compiled in The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett and updated recently, illustrates the profound effects of inequality on numerous societal facets.

Should a concept like Starmerism exist, it falters in light of a recent study conducted by political scientists Leonardo Baccini and Thomas Sattler, asserting that austerity measures heighten support for radical right movements in economically precarious areas. Their findings suggest that without austerity, there is no significant difference in right-wing voting patterns among less-educated and highly educated populations. Essentially, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves risk alienating their core supporters in favor of figures like Nigel Farage.

Of course, Labour officials reject the notion that they are enacting austerity. Their technical definitions, however, are largely detached from the real experiences of the economically disadvantaged. While austerity is a reality for many, the affluent continue to thrive, often unnoticed by governing parties.

Starmer and his team claim they are limited in their ability to increase taxes on the wealthy. Nevertheless, as private luxury conveyances traverse the skies, this assertion becomes increasingly unsustainable. Dismaying as it may be, recent data reveal that, post-social benefits, the Gini coefficient between gross and post-tax income in the UK experiences minimal variation. This indicates that taxes are insufficient to adjust income distribution favorably. The disparity arises because lower-income individuals pay a far larger portion of their earnings in indirect taxes, such as VAT. Thus, diluting claims of fiscal limitation and so-called “Labour realism”.

The solution to mitigate the rise of the far right lies in what mainstream parties are currently avoiding: a push for greater economic equality. The rich should bear a heavier tax burden, and the proceeds must be allocated towards enhancing the lives of the impoverished. This fundamental shift is the only viable pathway forward.

George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist

His book, The Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism, co-authored with Peter Hutchison, was released in paperback earlier this month.

Source
www.theguardian.com