TODAY marks exactly 20 days until the US presidential election, which is shaping up to be the most consequential election anywhere in the world, ever. The anticipated result of the voting is by now fairly certain, despite news reporting that is striving to portray the contest as still undecided. What happens after the votes are cast, however, is definitely uncertain, and more than a bit worrisome.
No matter how the US election turns out, the contest itself has cast an unflattering spotlight on a number of wrong assumptions we have made about the state of the world in the 21st century. When I say “we,” I mean people in general, although the wrong assumptions are probably held by more liberal-minded folks than those with conservative views. Even so, despite impressions to the contrary, there are still a few conservatives who have a moral rudder and are capable of critical thinking who can be counted. To be clear, the warning signs and alarming trends have been there for years, maybe this entire century so far; it has just taken the horrifying comic opera of the US election to bring them into focus.
Democracy isn’t irresistible
Obviously, the assumption that democracy is the natural desire of people everywhere was entirely too optimistic; that an openly fascist, racist candidate who has promised “you won’t ever have to vote again” if he is elected, even has a chance of winning the US election is a deafening rebuttal of that notion. We should have recognized it before now, however, because the rise of leaders such as China’s Xi, India’s Modi, Türkiye’s Erdogan, and especially Vladimir Putin in Russia were all clear enough indications that the world was not generally on the path to democracy.
Even in this country, which continues to cultivate the pretense that it fought for and champions democracy, the idea is a complete sham, as the roster of candidates for next May’s midterm elections shows. This country is led by a political class that is so narrow and exclusive that it makes the Hapsburgs look diverse. Those who defend this system claim that it is what the people have chosen, and while it is tempting to counter by pointing out that the people are not given any other choice, they are actually correct, because we have seen the same thing in other countries — hence the staying power of the aforementioned Xi, Modi, Erdogan, Putin, and other “strongmen” around the world, and the gains in popularity of “right-wing” parties in deeply liberal European countries such as the Netherlands, Norway and Italy.
Globalization’s failure
Globalization was supposed to loosen borders, increase economic interdependence among countries so that conflicts would be impossible, or at least much less likely, and diffuse consumer and artistic culture around the world. Globalization has done some of those things, but if it has not completely failed yet, it is quickly heading in that direction. The rejection of democracy has led to increased nationalism and isolationism, and even before the primacy of strongman rulers became glaringly obvious, the response of many nations — in fact, almost all of them — to globalization was to seek to limit it, to set new boundaries in the form of so-called free trade agreements with individual countries and the creation of exclusive clubs such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) led by China, or its moribund rival, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Nationalism and protectionism have now become the main goals, not more globalization. A certain degree of self-interest is healthy for a nation, but too much leads to isolation and stagnation. Unfortunately, most of the world will have to get to that point before it learns the value of balance and moderation in policies.
The Information Age is a farce
The explosive rise of the internet and digital technologies that put access to information in everyone’s hands and allowed ordinary people to communicate with the entire world was supposed to usher in a new age of enlightenment. Governments could no longer control what their people know, the people’s access to information would no longer be constrained to what was provided by a few big corporations, and everyone would be wiser and able to make better choices because of it.
Right. Log on to Facebook, or Twitter, or TikTok, or YouTube, or Instagram, and ask yourself how well all that’s working out. Information is more controlled than ever by a few big corporations, whose determination about what sort of information they permit is based solely on its revenue-generating potential. This is why a post from a nutcase ranting about migrant gangs overrunning American towns, or Chinese spies overrunning Philippine ones are spread more widely than accurate, thoughtful news; crazy sells better than honesty. Furthermore, these big corporations have made it easier than ever for governments to control what their people read and hear, because the governments hold them by the neck; but in most cases willingly, like someone with a choke fetish.
So, where do we go from here? The inevitable result of the world’s current tension will be some sort of conflagration. History does not necessarily repeat itself, but it rhymes; humanity goes through these paroxysms on about a 30-year cycle. The last one happened between 1989 and 1993 (or thereabouts), and so we’re due. What form it will take I cannot guess; we managed to avoid a world war the last two times (although some very ugly things did happen), and so we can hope we’ll keep that streak alive. But that is not certain, and whatever happens, it is going to be unpleasant.
ben.kritz@manilatimes.net
