In politics, there are some ‘truths’ that are universally accepted to be self evident. The typically closed minded nature of human beings is never better reflected than in the manifestation of these truths, yet through this we will forever live in a constrained political sphere devoid of the ability to achieve what we may otherwise do if we were less rigid. For example, it is universally accepted – particularly in Great Britain and the Anglosphere – that economic and social policy are inseparable, that free market capitalism is the domain of the political right with all that goes along with that, such as conservative social views, a respect for the Christian Church, individual liberty, a hard-working attitude and so on. Similarly, it is accepted that economic socialism is the domain of the political left which is inseparable from other Marxist concepts such as feminism, minority empowerment, a sense of entitlement from the proletariat and so on.
The problem with this is that we have taken these concepts not on merit as we find them, but from the world view of the original inventor of said concepts. Marx, for example, viewed every injustice in an economic sense, so that now minority concerns and ‘progressive social causes’ are advanced as weapons to be wielded against the capitalist elite. The same can be said on the opposite side of the spectrum of somebody like former US President Ronald Reagan and of course, Margaret Thatcher, who both viewed individual freedom as the highest virtue of a civilised society and inseparable from economic freedom.
The difficulty with this notion of conjoined socio-economic policy is that it further restricts the electorate and therefore further diminishes the representative mandate a government can achieve. This is because elections are often fought and won on bloc votes, in America for example a candidate will talk of the ‘Latino vote’, in the United Kingdom it’s the ‘ordinary working class’ – if you restrict the framework within which a person can define his political views, you create apathy and ensure that these bloc votes vote for the least bad party as opposed to what best represents them. This is evident in the United Kingdom, where the working classes with traditionally conservative views have been disenfranchised by a Labour Party that, whilst supporting their economic interests, aims for a society with values that do not resonate with these people.
There needs to be more flexibility within the traditional left-right spectrum in order to enable people to define their politics based not on what ‘best fits’ with their interests, but through a comprehensive set of economic and social policies that are individually as important as the whole.
This poses a question of socialism in particular. It is undeniable that socialism has been an overwhelming force for good for a great many people, particularly in the United Kingdom, yet it is also true that socialist parties in government have enacted social policies that are an overwhelming force for bad for the very same people. Take the National Health Service for example; a revolutionary socialised health care system created in 1946 to provide health services free at the point of use – in the first year alone, 8 million people received dental treatment for the first time, whilst 5.5 million pairs of spectacles were issued to those who previously did not have the means. On the other hand, we have mass immigration which is often accredited to the socialist parties for their worldview that ‘race is a social construct’. Immigration has been a force for bad by making once-safe communities less so, by destroying the peoples’ identities and by over-populating the labour market, thus allowing banks and big business to drive down wages and decrease job security.
Just by taking the two aforementioned examples, one can see how this rigid structure of economic and social inseparability causes political parties to legislate in diametrically opposed ways in order to follow the historical ideology on which they are based. Should it not be the case that policy is based on pragmatism and reality as opposed to the ideological ramblings of long-dead men of the 19th century?
Surely, a ‘mix and match’ approach to ideological grounding is much more appropriate, for it gives the people the ability to argue for and vote in favour of policy that reflects both their economic and social interests, rather than forcing them to choose between the two. To play devil’s advocate; why can one not be an economic socialist and a social conservative? Why must a person choose between areas of interest that have no relevance to one another? It is not intellectually sound to tell the worker that for redistribution of wealth to occur, he or she must accept the breakdown of the traditional family structure or transgenders using the wrong bathroom.
In some parts of the European continent, political parties are gradually coming to realise that it is through this destruction of rigid spectrum politics that elections can now be more hotly contested. The Front National in France is a good example, who now argue for very socially conservative and nationalistic values, but who’s economics could be considered to be firmly on the left of the spectrum. Similarly the FPÖ (Freedom Party) in Austria have recognised this problem and have (rightly) argued that in order to preserve the welfare state, it is necessary to curb immigration.
The crux of the matter is that these people who tell you that you can achieve economic justice through social degeneracy, or that you can achieve individual liberty with economic liberalism, often have an agenda they won’t readily admit to. For example, the metropolitan socialists know that a ‘dumbed-down’ society of degenerates are easier to control than a strong, healthy conservative group, whilst the free market capitalists know that they can sell you wealth remaining with the top 1% as a price to pay for individual liberty. It is only if we analyse these policies for the results they produce in practise that we can break free of this left-right spectrum rigidity, then we will be more able to take each policy on merit as opposed to policies being conjoined to offer the lesser of two evils.
The most likely outcome of this when the great masses of people begin to take policy on merit as opposed to as a caveat of another, is that economic socialism and social conservatism will prevail. For it is the case that in hard-working, intellectually powerful European societies, socialism has brought clear tangible results, except it has been employed by those who wrongly believe, as Marx did, that the breakdown of our traditional societies is necessary to achieve the economic empowerment of the general public. The best example of this is the ‘Scandinavian socialism’ phenomenon that has gripped the Nordic nations since the 1970’s – in economic terms, the policies brought initial success to the people, but then the governments decided that mass, non-white immigration was a noble socialist aim along with a breakdown of traditional social values – the result is evident in a place like Sweden for example, which is now the rape capital of the world barring Lesotho, thanks to this rigid ideological socialism employed by the government that deem it virtuous to allow third world migrants free reign in their countries.
Thus we can see the clear errors of the political elite who pursue ideological objectives devoid of continuous evaluation, something which all theories should be subject too. If their policies do not stand up to comprehensive and rigorous testing – which they clearly do not – then politicians should act in a more pragmatic manner to fit with new information that presents itself or a change in circumstances. Rather than accept that their policies do not stand up to scrutiny, they employ the typically Marxian argument that only through their (failing) social policies can economic salvation be achieved – it is only when the people stop buying this utter nonsense they are being sold, that change reflecting data, evidence and reasoning can be implemented.