Tuesday, 6 November 2018

Madeleine Albright's Fascism: A Warning

Madeleine Albright: 'The things that are happening are genuinely, seriously bad'

Excerpts from the interview conducted by Andrew Rawnsley

Where we might be going is the chilling theme of Fascism: A Warning. The book is a cry of anguish about the global resurgence of authoritarianism and a lament over the decay of the liberal internationalist politics to which Albright has devoted her career. The work is also an act of homage to her father who wrote books about the perils of tyranny and worried that Americans were so accustomed to liberty – so “very, very free,” he wrote – that they might take democracy for granted. She quotes Primo Levi – “Every age has its own fascism” – and makes her case with observations about the autocrats she has dealt with and brisk histories of past dictators and the horrors that they unleashed. A devil’s portrait gallery includes Benito Mussolini, the original fascist, and Adolf Hitler, the most destructive. Then there’s Donald Trump.

She agrees that we ought to be careful not to casually throw around the F-word lest we drain the potency from what should be a powerful term. “I’m not calling Trump a fascist,” she says. Yet she seems to be doing all but that when she puts him in the same company as historical fascists in a book that seeks to sound “an alarm bell” about a fascist revival.
She frequently nudges the reader to make connections between the president of the United States and past dictatorships. She reminds us who first coined the Trumpian phrase “drain the swamp”. It was drenare la paludein the original, Mussolini Italian. She quotes Hitler talking about the secret of his success: “I will tell you what has carried me to the position I have reached. Our political problems appeared complicated. The German people could make nothing of them… I…reduced them to the simplest terms. The masses realised this and followed me.” Sound familiar?
I suggest to her that the book struggles to offer a satisfactory definition of fascism. “Defining fascism is difficult,” she responds. “First of all, I don’t think fascism is an ideology. I think it is a method, it’s a system.”
It is in his methods that Trump can be compared with, if not precisely likened to, the dictators of the 1930s. Fascists are typically masters of political theatre. They feed on and inflame grievances by setting “the people” against their “enemies”. Fascists tell their supporters that there are simple fixes for complex problems. They present as national saviours and conflate themselves with the state. They seek to subvert, discredit and eliminate liberal institutions. She reminds us that they have often ascended to power through the ballot box and then undermined democracy from within. She is especially fond of a Mussolini quote about “plucking a chicken feather by feather” so that people will not notice the loss of their freedoms until it is too late.
In her book, Trump is one nasty plucker. She labels him “the first anti-democratic president in modern US history”. Those Trumpians who know their history might retort that previous American presidents have been accused of being enemies of democracy, including some who have become the most revered holders of the office. Abraham Lincoln was charged with tyranny by his opponents during the civil war. So was Franklin D Roosevelt when he was implementing the New Deal.
Trump is different, she insists. Look at his attacks on the institutions of liberal society as he Twitter-lashes the judiciary and the media. “Outrageous,” says Albright. “It was Stalin who talked about the press being the enemy of the people.
“I also think Trump does act as though he’s above the law.” He lies without shame, she says. He threatens to jail political competitors. He foments bigotry. He lavishes admiration on autocrats like Putin and by doing so encourages the worldwide drift to authoritarianism. Observe also, she adds, how Trump exploits a crowd.
“He uses rallies in a strange way. We all, most of us that are public people, have somebody interrupting our speeches. There’s always somebody yelling something. And the question is: what do you do about it? Sometimes people are just escorted out or you don’t pay any attention to it. What is fascinating in watching Trump is he loves the people yelling and he uses them so that it looks as though he is having conversations with the people on TV. Trump is, I think he’s actually really smart – evil smart, is what I think.”
The founding fathers endowed the US with a constitution that was forged to protect the country from leaders with tyrannical impulses. America has survived some dreadful presidents. When Trump is gone, does she not think it possible that we will eventually look back on him not as a crypto-dictator, but as an embarrassing spasm?
“In the book I write that there are people who say this is alarmist. It is. That’s the purpose. I’m concerned about complacency about it. This is a very deliberate warning.”
The fear that Trump induces in American liberals is matched by the alarm he arouses among the United States’ traditional allies in the democracies. From Nato to the World Trade Organisation, he threatens to rip up institutions that have ordered the planet over many decades. Albright argues that the doctrine of “America First”, which “conceives of the world as a battlefield in which every country is intent on dominating every other”, encourages a Darwinian competition of tribal nationalisms. During her time as Washington’s chief diplomat, Albright was an unabashed exponent of America as the global beacon of liberty: “the indispensable nation”, as she once called her country. Should Europeans conclude that Trumpian America has become an unreliable ally? Regretfully, she agrees.
“At the moment, it is hard to say to any European that the US is a reliable ally, which makes me furious because I do believe in the importance of American engagement. I always thought we were reliable.”
True, the international architecture established in the late 1940s does require “refurbishing”. Institutions founded seven decades ago “need fixing”. Trump “does have a point” when he complains that Americans pay a lot more to sustain Nato than do the European countries, which rely on the defence pact for their security. The trouble with Trump, though, is “he sees it all as transactional, as if it were a hotel where you keep raising the price and if you want to stay there, you’re going to have to pay. That is not what it’s about.
“There’s no sin about updating these things, but I don’t understand, I truly don’t, what the purpose is to destroy the system. What is the purpose of having destruction as an ideology?”
The Trumpian rampage through the international order has been particularly challenging for Britain, which clings to a conceit that it has a special bond with the United States. Trying to navigate any sort of relationship, never mind a special one, has been a nightmare for Theresa May. This week Trump will land on these shores, where he will be greeted by hot protests on the streets and British officials in a cold sweat. “It’ll be interesting to see how he deals with the Queen since he really doesn’t like women,” remarks Albright. “He’s unbelievable to Angela Merkel.”
The Queen, who has a lifetime of experience dealing with strange and unsavoury characters, will probably handle Trump with her customary glacial implacability. May is the one facing the biggest challenge of Trump management. Can Albright, who teaches international statecraft at Georgetown University, offer the prime minister some guidance?
“I have no idea,” Albright confesses. “I don’t have advice. The device, theoretically, is to tell him how wonderful he is. And to agree with whatever he says – and that’s distasteful. He is unpredictable except when people flatter him and allow him to dominate. I know what it’s like to be in diplomatic discussions with people that you don’t respect. You do begin in some kind of civilised way, but ultimately you have to say what you think.”
Memo to Mrs May: say what you think. It may not get you anywhere with Trump, but at least you will preserve your self-respect.
Albright is a friend to the country which took in her family when she was a young girl, but believes that true friends owe you their candour. She’s clear that Brexit – “an exercise in economic masochism that Britons will long regret” – is a terrible mistake.
“I happen to think it’s a tragedy. I’m not sure how or why it happened. I think some of it was miscalculation. From an American perspective – and this is somewhat selfish and self-centred – the UK has always been our bridge to the continent and very important in all kinds of aspects.” Burning down that bridge is not sensible. “I think it’s unfortunate, I really do.” Much of politics and diplomacy is a story of “unintended consequences of decisions and this is one of the big ones”.
Had Albright had her way, the world would not be riding the wild rollercoaster that is Trump. He would have been sent back to reality TV and Hillary Clinton would be in the White House. She was a vigorous campaigner for her old friend and Albright’s passion got the better of her when she coined the phrase: “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” That landed her in some trouble during the 2016 campaign. Like many of Hillary’s chums, she is defensive about the campaign’s failure and still struggling to make sense of it. “Hillary did win the popular vote,” she points out. 


Germany has had a female leader for more than a decade. Britain is on its second female prime minister. A woman has never been president of the United States. Does America have a problem with women in politics?
“Must have,” she replies. “I don’t understand it, frankly. We are very good at being No 1 in many things and yet we are not in this and I don’t know the answer. Because there are certainly very qualified women.
At least part of the explanation for Clinton’s defeat was not to do with gender. It was failing to understand the forces powering her opponent. Clinton notoriously called his supporters “the deplorables”. Albright sounds similarly guilty of seeing the world through an elitist’s prism when she writes in her book: “Globalisation… is not an ideological choice, but a fact of life.”
Opponents retort that globalisation is an ideological choice. It was a very good choice for transnational corporations, for prosperous members of western societies, and for many developing countries which have seen their growth accelerated by free trade and the exchange of technology. Globalisation turned out to be – or has certainly come to be seen as being – a very bad choice for less affluent sections of western societies. Many folk felt dislocated and disadvantaged. Lecturing them that globalisation is just “a fact of life” – so suck it up – was surely one of the incitements for those people who voted for Trump, who chose Brexit and who support the rightwing populists surging across Europe.
“It isn’t just favouring the rich,” she insists. “Most of us are beneficiaries of globalisation, but a lot of people were not prepared for it in terms of their skill-set and we didn’t consider that enough.”
She also concedes that globalisation is “faceless” and “everybody wants to have an identity”.
“But it’s one thing to be patriotic, it’s another if my identity hates your identity and then it’s nationalism and hyper-nationalism. That’s the very dangerous part.”

Albright is a sage woman, but also one taken by mortified surprise by the turn the world has taken. In common with most liberal internationalists, she hadn’t expected the arc of history to bend in this dark direction. When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, liberal capitalist democracy was thought to be irreversibly triumphant. Francis Fukuyama even wrote a book entitled The End of History.
History had other ideas. I suggest that it is not good enough for liberal internationalists to simply bewail Trump and his fellow travellers. They need to examine what they got wrong. Maybe there were too many complacent assumptions that the world had become permanently safe for democracy.
“I don’t know whether complacent [is the right word],” she says. “We were all initially enthusiastic, but then we became euphoric.” One conclusion she draws is that “democracy is obviously harder than we think.
“Democracy is not the easiest form of government. It does require attention and participation and carrying out the social contract. And it doesn’t deliver immediately. What we have to learn is how to get democracy to deliver because people want to vote and eat. But it just took me 10 minutes to explain it and that’s the problem.
“The things that are happening are genuinely, seriously bad. Some of them are really bad. They’re not to do with Trump; it is the evolution of a number of different trends. All the various problems that we have, they can’t be solved by simple slogans. But it’s easier to listen to some simple slogan.”
Albright is far from alone in worrying about the future of liberal democracy. This anxiety is felt more acutely by a woman who was born in the time of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, who reached the peaks of international diplomacy when freedom seemed ascendant and has since observed the unravelling of so much hope. At the end of our conversation, I am left unsure whether she thinks democracy has the resilience to survive this testing time.
“You ask if I’m an optimist or a pessimist,” she responds. “I am an optimist who worries a lot.”
That is probably as sensible a position as any in today’s troubled and troubling world.
 Fascism: A Warning is published by William Collins (£16.99). To buy it for £14.44 go to guardianbookshop.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99
 This article was amended on 11 July 2018 to clarify a detail about US citizenship.

Thursday, 27 September 2018

6th Conference EE&S - Autumn 2018

6th Conference EE&S - Autumn 2018

Individualism and the travails of neoliberalism

Ralph Fevre, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University


A essência do neoliberalismo é o facto de a política se posicionar ao serviço do capital internacional. O populismo ou viragem à direita alimenta-se da crença, cada vez mais ampla, na subserviência e aliança da política relativamente ao capitalismo internacional. O descontentamento que se tem feito sentir parece ter que ver com o tudo o que tem acontecido desde finais da década de 1970, como sugere a investigação realizada por por Arlie Hochschild (Strangers In Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right). Não existem estudos, no entanto, sobre os chamados progressistas, isto é, os que acreditam que tem havido progresso social. Estes progressistas são, com grande probabilidade, licenciados. Ora os que estão descontentes porque sentem que ‘ficaram para trás’ e votaram em Trump e no Brexit, não gostam do modo como a formação universitária se transformou na condição necessária para uma vida bem sucedida. Muitas destas pessoas decidiram, há muito tempo, que a política os tinha abandonado e, por isso, desistiram de votar. Até Trump, Farage, Le Penn e Orbán, etc., nenhum candidato lhes prometeu um mundo concebido quase à imagem daquele em inspirava as suas crenças e que teria existido antes de finais da década de 1970. Nessa altura, a nacionalidade e frequentemente a raça e o género, mas não a educação,  determinavam o sucesso e do valor das pessoas. Quer dizer, o destino decidia-se pela pertença, desde o nascimento, a algo mais vasto do que o indivíduo. Deste modo, uma versão dos direitos naturais, assegurava direitos e alguns privilégios.
As economias avançadas concretizaram esta promessa durante grande parte do século XX, quando grandes empresas, frequentemente estatais, asseguravam o bem-estar dos cidadãos. Porém, na década de 1970 as mudanças já se anunciavam por todo o lado. Na economia com o crescimento do sector dos serviços, os choques petrolíferos, o início da ’nova divisão internacional do trabalho’ devido à ‘deslocalização’ da indústria, mas também na educação e nos locais de trabalho. Estas transformações significaram a criação de instituições necessárias para tornar realidade o individualismo para um grande número de pessoas, e não uma pequena minoria. Isto é, as oportunidades para o desenvolvimento da autonomia e o desenvolvimento pessoal, não se deveriam confinar a uma pequena elite, antes, deveriam generalizar-se.
 A revolta populista envolve pessoas que não sentem que tenham beneficiado com as instituições que foram criadas para disseminar as vantagens do individualismo. Em oposição, estão as pessoas que beneficiaram. Os que se opõem a Trump e ao Brexit, por exemplo, fazem-no a partir de uma posição de superioridade moral, porque acreditam que estão a defender os direitos humanos, a meritocracia e a igualdade de oportunidades. Esta superioridade moral pode não estar devidamente fundamentada. Pode, todavia, ser compreendida se estudarmos o modo como o neoliberalismo se apropriou do individualismo. A investigação  internacional, que tem estado a decorrer desde 2015, já sugere que os que pensam que poderão continuar a beneficiar com as instituições do capitalismo neoliberal, é ilusória.
A apresentação irá aprofundar estas ideias, apresentando os diversos tipos de individualismo, partindo da comparação de duas matrizes, a dos Estados Unidos da América e da Europa, para depois considerar os casos dos EUA e do Reino Unido. 

Agradecemos a sua participação. Continue connosco, siga-nos no blog  e no Facebook 

Saturday, 22 September 2018

6th EE&S Conference - Individualism and Inequality

The 6th EE&S Conference takes place this Thursday at Católica Porto Business School. It is happening in room #001, building Américo Amorim, at 5h45 pm. We hope to see you there.

Professor Ralph Fevre, from Cardiff University, is going to talk about individualism, inequality and work, drawing on ongoing international research. Participate in the debate that follows the talk.

A 6ª Conferência do grupo EE&S acontece esta quinta-feria, na Católica Porto Business School. é na sala 001 do Ed. Américo Amorim, às 5h45. Contamos com a sua participação.

O professor Ralph Fevre, da Universidade de Cardiff, virá falar-nos sobre individualismo, desigualdade e trabalho. Também divulgará alguns dados obtidos na investigação em curso  que dirige e que abrange diversos países, entre eles, Portugal.  Participe no debate que se segue à apresentação.