Liberal Establishment – Radical behaviorist leftist

In our times of economic and social inequality it is inevitable that various nationalist and religious movements that promote “traditional” or “family” values spring up. The main point of these groups is to oppose the liberal globalist establishment, that is unable to provide the majority with economic safety. These campaigns are gaining a foothold almost everywhere and Lithuania is no exception. The Great Family Defence March in Vilnius took place on the 15th of May, 2021. An examination of the movements, of the event and the propounded ideas is called for.

To start with, critical flaws haunt the traditionalist front. The nationalist movements have some valid criticisms of the liberal establishment. It is correctly stated that the globalist consensus that has prevailed for a few decades is failing the majority. Seemingly high aspirations are pursued – establishing the prosperity of the nation, state and family. This is often packaged as returning to a time when all was better – just like taking back the UK during Brexit or making America great again. Regrettably, even though economic issues are raised and wealth inequality is criticised, the solutions never include any meaningful economic reforms, such as progressive taxation, expansion of affordable housing, worker rights etc. In the end, all the proclamations result in the same impoverishment of the many with the enrichment of the few.

Focusing on Lithuania, consider a picture that is provided in the official site of the aforementioned campaign:

The campaign to defend traditional families might sound nice, but with closer inspection we find that the ideas boil down to:

Establishing imaginary enemies in the LGBT community or the philosophy of “genderism”
Plain homophobia
Opposition to the Istanbul convention
Focus on familial duties and responsibilities
Paucity of economic solutions

Even more significant than the caption is the depiction of a family with 4 (!) children. Such an ideal is unrealistic. Nowadays, in most European countries fertility rates are significantly lower than 2, families of multiple children are becoming rarer. Anyone promoting such families must also comment on the most salient issues:

Who can provide financially for such a family?
Who can afford enough living space – apartment or house – to accommodate so many people?
What about the living costs?
Should the money come from one or two full-time salaries?
If both parents work, who is going to care for the children?

We have to look at sinking birth rates from the correct angle which is predominantly economic. I believe the main problem is real estate being too expensive for the majority. Neither mini-houses or mini-apartments, nor renting, can be considered compatible for life with children. People do not “choose” to not have children – they don’t have the conditions for children rearing. Just consider urbanization, longer average commute times (maybe reduced for some working from home in times of COVID), the same 40h or even longer work-week that has been absurdly unchanged for a century, unaffordable housing, wage stagnation, economic inequality, lack of secure and well-paying jobs. Is this a favourable environment for families?

If families are being attacked or threatened, it’s not because of “genderism”, not because of minority rights or disregard for traditional values. The threat is economic.

At this point we can visit fitting ideas of others:

The largest Lithuanian news site “Delfi” published an article on the topic – The Great Family Defense March has sown conflict in the Peasants and Green Party, where the Lithuanian MP Tomas Tomilinas had a say:

In his opinion, such an event will not help the traditional family whatsoever.
It is no better for the family, if people who speak up for it do not show any respect for the same values with their political message, which often is just banal homophobia, hate for other sexual minorities and, overall, who don’t have anything to say in politics, are ignorant of the law and do not delve into difficult social, economic problems
So, according to T. Tomilinas, “more calories do not appear on the dinner table of the family” as a result of fierce public declarations by the organisers of the march.
If you ask me, all this commotion is very favorable for the ruling parties, because it distracts attention from the essential problems, from the fact that people are losing their jobs, from the poor handling of the pandemic.
Tomas Tomilinas (2021)

Now zooming out a bit, the same issues were visited by Elizabeth Warren:

But economics are nestled at the core of family values. Any group that is serious about lowering divorce rates should focus on reducing the economic stress that strains a marriage. Any group that cares about children should be vitally interested in how home mortgages are marketed and how tens of thousands of kids are getting kicked out of their houses. And any group that thinks Mom ought to have the option to stay home with the kids should be powerfully concerned about the debt trap that chains millions of middle-class women to their offices.
Elizabeth Warren & Amelia Warren Tyagi (2004) – The Two-Income Trap (p. 110-111)

Finally, Richard Seymour explains how the traditionalist ideology serves as a foundation for regressive reforms. Furthermore, reliance on familial care ends up being sexist – unpaid labour in families is predominantly performed by women:

In the government’s attempt to reorganise production and change the balance of class forces, it is attacking the social wage, the remuneration one receives for a contribution to reproducing society that is otherwise unwaged. In doing so, it falls back on traditional ‘family values’ ideology, the ideology of patriarchy. As David Cameron put it: ‘Family is the most important thing in my life. And I think, family should be the most important thing in the country’s life, because it’s the best welfare state we ever had. The family is what looks after the children and cares for the elderly and all the rest of it.’ The changes to housing benefit, of which the ‘bedroom tax’ is only one, are justified in part by an attempt to force dispersed family back together, so that the young and old are not the responsibility of the state but of working adults.
Richard Seymour (2014) – Against Austerity: How We Can Fix the Crisis They Made (p. 147)

People often ask – who are the people in these nationalist movements? Where do they come from? Having in mind the religious wing (the Church), the Russian elements in Lithuania and of course big business interests, we can appreciate the categorisation provided by Yanis Varoufakis. He identifies that we live in an age of Twin Authoritarianism, where the twins are the Liberal Establishment on the one side and the Nationalist International on the other. The nationalist, traditionalist, “family values” movements neatly fit into the latter category.

As a rule of thumb, when family values begin to be visibly promoted, we can be sure that “shit is hitting the fan”. This means that state and social services are becoming so weak, that they are not sufficient to properly service everyone and as a result these functions are delegated to the last bastion of care in the society that is the family. This further contributes to the overburdening of the family which can only exacerbate societal problems.

To sum up, traditionalist movements are a reaction to economic inequality. The reason for participation is not necessarily complete approval but the search of political alternatives as the liberals are in the pocket of corporate interests and are unable to solve economic injustice. Thus calling the people stupid, manipulated, uneducated, hillbillies, vatniks, alcoholics is simply a refusal to recognize the deeper problem.

As Yanis Varoufakis says: our times are of Twin Authoritarianism – the Liberal Establishment on the one side and the Nationalist International on the other. Thomas Piketty (2020) refers to these as Brahmin Left and Merchant Right.

In this short post, I would like to provide an observation about the Nationalist International that sometimes is called alt-right. This movement can be recognized by nationalist policies, homophobia, “family values”, “taking one’s country back” (as Reagan, Trump, Brexit etc.), as well as ultra-rich donors hiding behind the scenes. What is interesting, is that this side often peddles to the views of the unprivileged people. The rhetoric is often brazen and direct. Among various nonsense, they talk about oligarchs controlling the government or media, mention failures of the system, they also identify the helplessness and hopelessness of the people and the systemic inability of the liberal establishment to improve the quality of life of most people. These are basically the things that many people in the context of deepening inequality so desperately want to hear. Alas, the nationalist international are not saviours as it stems from a very rich background and only represent the interests of the privileged.

Now, this post is no way a promotion of the right wingers, nor of the liberals, because it is true that they are incapable of properly addressing inequality issues – both liberals and nationalists are different sides of the same establishment coin. Nevertheless, it seems interesting to me, to listen to what the right-wingers sometimes say.

Christian Lüth

The first example, is the former press officer of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party in Germany – Christian Lüth. Let’s see his statements from the documentary Rechts. Deutsch. Radikal, and reported in this Zeit article (from German):

The worse it is for Germany, the better it is for the AfD.
If everything went fine <…>, then the AfD would be at 3%. That’s not what we want. Therefore, we have to come up with a strategy: How bad can it be for Germany? And: How can we provoke it? It is so. <..> It’s difficult, very difficult.
It does seem so, that it would be in your interest, that more migrants came?
Lüth’s answer: “Yes. Because then it goes better for the AfD. Afterwards, we can shoot all of them. That is no problem. Or gassing them, however you want. It’s all the same to me!”
Christian Lüth (2020)

Now, we can more clearly see the schism between public declarations of hate for the immigrants and silent Realpolitik. The AfD and right-wing pundits (which are often obscenely rich from propaganda, dirty money, worker exploitation) need the immigrants for cheap labor, social unrest and scapegoating. The problems of society are not caused by immigrants but by systemic exploitation and undercutting of wages. The only way to fix this is to address socio-economic inequality, improve conditions for all workers, as well as ensuring a proper minimum wage in the immigrant’s countries of origin.

Roger Stone

The second example, is the infamous political consultant for the Republican Party in the US – Roger Stone. Some quotes from the movie Get me Roger Stone (2017) for closer inspection:

This is the elites of the Republican and Democratic party who have driven this country into the ditch versus Donald J. Trump and the rest of America.
I’m proud of the job I did at Black, Manafort & Stone [lobbying organisation], because I made a lot of money, and I can’t think of anything I did that was either illegal or immoral. You play by the rules as they’re written. When they change the rules, you change the way you play the game.
Donald Trump is riding a crest of voter anger over 30 years of failed policies. Voter anger explains the entire rise of Trump.
If you look at the crime rate in place like Chicago, it’s out of control, yes. Trump is the law and order candidate. He does speak to the silent majority.
He (Alex Jones) has a bully pulpit that allows him to reach millions of people and they are Trump’s people. They are outsiders, skeptical about government, skeptical about the bullshit government is always trying to peddle you. Sure, it’s a non-elitist crowd, but they’re Americans and they vote.
Get me Roger Stone (2017)

As mentioned in the introduction, we see loads of references to the failing establishment and the discontent of many people. Also, we see the tautological, but in the mainstream presented as cynical, admission that one acts according to one’s conditions, order of society and power imbalances – “rules of the game”.

The conclusion

These were just a few excerpts of their statements and we can find many more that are ridiculous and preposterous. Talking about these statements, they provide reflection on political and social conditions. There is no useless talk about choice, morality, ethics, no ill-founded thoughts that elections and “going to vote” may challenge those in power. Right-wingers know (as do marketing specialists), despite their public statements to the contrary (choice etc.), that people are influenced by their living conditions and by advertisements and act accordingly. If the system is failing us, right-wing, nationalist, fascist movements will inevitably spring up and gather support.

One may call these people racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist etc., but it would be missing the point. In this case let’s listen to what these people say – they know the system, they know that the system is not working for most and they know that the worse it gets, the better it is for them. The only way forward is to end the psychologisation of all the issues and to focus on the socio-economic conditions. It’s not racism/sexism/homophobia that causes the proliferation of hate and violence – it’s the gaping social/political/economic inequalities.