Samuelson on Putin

Robert J Samuelson's column in the Washington Post on Putin's "liberalism is dead" comments seems pretty fair to me.

First, he says post WW2 liberalism is strapped for cash, due to slowing economic growth, an ageing population and uncertainty as to how far budget deficits can stretch.   (He probably could have added things like the revival of Lafferism, the race to the bottom in terms of international competition to reduce tax takes, and gigantic companies that play the "hide the pea" shell game to avoid paying tax.)

Secondly, he writes this, which is worth quoting in full (with my emphasis):

We’ve long governed by hope: a better life. In its loftiest state, postwar liberalism was expected to have a cleansing effect on countries’ social climate, liberating people from prejudice and small-mindedness. The liberal appeal spanned the ideological spectrum. In the United States and Europe, centrist governments of the left and right ruled.

It is this promise of a morally elevated electorate that Putin panned. The trouble, professor Putin lectured to the Financial Times, is that many people have lost faith in the liberal idea. They have moved on. Now, Putin and his fellow travelers, including President Trump and others, propose that we govern by fear: a dread of outsiders.

No one should suppose that Putin’s nationalistic substitute for lapsed liberalism will make the world a kinder, gentler or more stable place. The liberal ideal presumed, perhaps naively, that people could be brought together by common interests and common values. The nationalistic alternative takes as its starting point the view that there will be winners and losers.

People feel threatened. Liberal high-mindedness has created a backlash by justifying policies and practices that are unpopular with large swaths of the population — open borders, unwanted immigration, globalization and multiculturalism. Liberal policies “come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population,” Putin said.

 

People value their national identities. They generally fear policies and practices that would erode these identities. One question in a 2016 Pew study asked whether increases in the number of ethnic groups, races and nationalities made their countries “a worse place to live.” Large shares of Greeks (63 percent), Italians (53 percent) and Germans (31 percent) said “yes.”

We are straddled between two systems. The daunting task is to salvage the best of postwar liberalism while, at the same time, acknowledging the importance of national identities and sovereignty. It may be a mission impossible.

I tend to think that this is too pessimistic.   I reckon that the West has had a fright over two things - immigration surges from war torn and economically savaged regions, ironically sometimes contributed to by interventions from the West; and the unevenness in global economic growth (also, somewhat ironically, caused by the globalisation as promoted by Western economists as a good thing overall - which it is.)  

It's hard to "cure" continued conflict in the Middle East and within Islam, which has remarkably wide-reaching effects.   But I find it hard to believe that the swing to conservatism in parts of Islam will continue to have long term wins.   And the irony is that increased isolationism internationally of one type (economic) can worsen internal conflict and encourage the unwanted immigration.   It's all very tricky to balance, but I don't see that the retreat into all forms of isolationism can do anything other than hurt.

As for the economic problem - the cure for that is probably more "liberalism" in economics policy, not less - with inequality being addressed by better tax targetting, and (to be honest) reduced expectations of unending growth.   As many on the Right like to point out, most of the poor being poor in the West is not the same thing as it was 100 years ago.   That shouldn't be used as an excuse for not caring about inequality, but it is relevant to the questions of expectations of growth.   (Yes, I know, growth lifts all boats; but ageing and then declining populations change the picture somewhat.)