I think there are no easy answers.
I know right-wingers always criticize that the discourse hegemony is still in the hands of universities, mainstream media elites, NGOs, international corporations in favor of DEI, international trade organization, so called "globalists".
The irony is right-wingers are still able to portray themselves as innocent victims even though the executive, legislative and even the judiciary is dominated by te GOP, and far-right conservatives (of different colors). The far-right is also split into different divisions. But they have tropes where they can agree on certain topics. And agree on a global or domestic enemy.
I have not discussed the question of the title. The left isn't powerless. In my country the far-right is on the rise, though many voters from other parties agree that the AfD should not govern the country. There are many developments that favor the far-right. The Overton window shifts, media outlets and far-right actors keep moving the goalpost, even in mainstream outlets and in traditional parties there are more and more voices that are in favor of tearing down the Brandmauer. (fire-wall that stigmatizes the cooperation with the AfD)
The left is a broad term. You can consider liberal politicians part of the left. Then there are cultural elites that are moderates when it comes to taxation and income distribution, then there are Marxists, activists like ANTIFA or straight communists.
I recently read a newspaper article about leftwing postliberalism. And for me the article gave me the impression there is a sentiment even on the left in certain circles that there is a tyranny of minorities in our society. Moreover, the scope of the executive and demos is limited by international trade deals, juridification of decisions in our democracy. There are researchers like Philip Manow in Germany who reverse the causality when it comes to populism. The emergence of populism does not threaten liberal democracy with their policies. Instead the inherent flaws of liberal democracy necessarily had to cause an upheaval of populists. The deficiencies of liberal democracy and how it to comes to compromises are not all that democratic if we define democracy as the ruling by the people.
There are people who call this approach delusional. And consider these ideas a gift to the far-right. I can see where far-right outlets and actors can instrumentalize scientists that have a contrarian view on this for their agenda. Personally, I am not sure how to evaluate it. I think it is interesting to reverse the causality.
In certain aspects I can see where they are coming from. The leftwing elites often belittled the people left behind. The people who could not keep up with the pace of globalisation. Preaching them everything becomes better while for example rural areas deindustrialized and fell apart.
My initial thought for this thread was the article that I mentioned. But I also thought of the death of JĆ¼rgen Habermas. He warned about the impact of social media on public discourse. In my opinion the rise of the internet culture is connected to the polarization. I don't want to demonize the internet per se. But the way social platforms were implemented (surveillance, microtargeting, selling and analysis of data). Basically we had the development in our hands. Everything what happened could have turned out differently. I am not sure whether we were too dumb to anticipate of what was going to happen. There were voices that warned us from taking the wrong path at critical junctions. At the same time the imagination of many of us was limited to imagine the mistakes of the past could repeat themselves (in a similar form).
Personally, I have the feeling the world we currently live in could have been shaped differently. But instead of giving up we should remind ourselves of what is at stake and consider the agency we have. Determinism and fatalism is the enemy. And I think not going to vote is exactly what the elites who want to accumulate more wealth want from you.
I will end it here. I could go on and on.
I know right-wingers always criticize that the discourse hegemony is still in the hands of universities, mainstream media elites, NGOs, international corporations in favor of DEI, international trade organization, so called "globalists".
The irony is right-wingers are still able to portray themselves as innocent victims even though the executive, legislative and even the judiciary is dominated by te GOP, and far-right conservatives (of different colors). The far-right is also split into different divisions. But they have tropes where they can agree on certain topics. And agree on a global or domestic enemy.
I have not discussed the question of the title. The left isn't powerless. In my country the far-right is on the rise, though many voters from other parties agree that the AfD should not govern the country. There are many developments that favor the far-right. The Overton window shifts, media outlets and far-right actors keep moving the goalpost, even in mainstream outlets and in traditional parties there are more and more voices that are in favor of tearing down the Brandmauer. (fire-wall that stigmatizes the cooperation with the AfD)
The left is a broad term. You can consider liberal politicians part of the left. Then there are cultural elites that are moderates when it comes to taxation and income distribution, then there are Marxists, activists like ANTIFA or straight communists.
I recently read a newspaper article about leftwing postliberalism. And for me the article gave me the impression there is a sentiment even on the left in certain circles that there is a tyranny of minorities in our society. Moreover, the scope of the executive and demos is limited by international trade deals, juridification of decisions in our democracy. There are researchers like Philip Manow in Germany who reverse the causality when it comes to populism. The emergence of populism does not threaten liberal democracy with their policies. Instead the inherent flaws of liberal democracy necessarily had to cause an upheaval of populists. The deficiencies of liberal democracy and how it to comes to compromises are not all that democratic if we define democracy as the ruling by the people.
There are people who call this approach delusional. And consider these ideas a gift to the far-right. I can see where far-right outlets and actors can instrumentalize scientists that have a contrarian view on this for their agenda. Personally, I am not sure how to evaluate it. I think it is interesting to reverse the causality.
In certain aspects I can see where they are coming from. The leftwing elites often belittled the people left behind. The people who could not keep up with the pace of globalisation. Preaching them everything becomes better while for example rural areas deindustrialized and fell apart.
My initial thought for this thread was the article that I mentioned. But I also thought of the death of JĆ¼rgen Habermas. He warned about the impact of social media on public discourse. In my opinion the rise of the internet culture is connected to the polarization. I don't want to demonize the internet per se. But the way social platforms were implemented (surveillance, microtargeting, selling and analysis of data). Basically we had the development in our hands. Everything what happened could have turned out differently. I am not sure whether we were too dumb to anticipate of what was going to happen. There were voices that warned us from taking the wrong path at critical junctions. At the same time the imagination of many of us was limited to imagine the mistakes of the past could repeat themselves (in a similar form).
Personally, I have the feeling the world we currently live in could have been shaped differently. But instead of giving up we should remind ourselves of what is at stake and consider the agency we have. Determinism and fatalism is the enemy. And I think not going to vote is exactly what the elites who want to accumulate more wealth want from you.
I will end it here. I could go on and on.
