Globalist Restoration in progress: will it be “totalitarian”, or will it have to deal with reality (and its adversaries)?
After the end of the Trump presidency, starting with the United States, what appears to all intents and purposes a real "restoration" of the globalist and politically correct "no ifs and buts" worldview began in all Western countries. , aimed at restoring and strengthening the principles and rules that characterize it worldwide: overcoming national sovereignty, freedom of action of international organizations, absolute right of "migrants" to be welcomed and "minorities" to be "protected" with any means, ideological environmentalism. For those who do not share the excesses of this conception of civil and political life, even if they recognize many of its good reasons and would hope that a non-dogmatic confrontation would develop instead on the aforementioned topics, the future prospect seems not very cheerful.
While waiting to be re-educated (as some commentators have proposed to do, for example with the voters who voted republican in the United States), the only way forward would seem to be that of an increasingly difficult dissent not only to practice, but sometimes even from to express. History (also fascinating for this reason) teaches us, however, that sometimes the development of human societies takes place in ways that are not aligned with the official statements of the rulers and the ideologies of intellectuals or mainstream commentators, but leads to more multifaceted, less clear-cut and less "categorical" than one might have expected, if not with largely unforeseen consequences.
For example, speaking of the restoration par excellence, that is, the one that took place in France after the fall of Napoleon, almost fifty years after the events, the great writer Victor Hugo in "The miserable" argued that the reactionary movement, which started to totally eradicate all traces of revolutionary and Napoleonic decades had necessarily had to stop, on pain of the destruction of a social reality by now irremediably changed, and even went so far as to affirm that the restoration "was involuntarily liberal". Which in many ways is true: in fact Louis XVIII left standing almost the entire Napoleonic state apparatus as well as many of the political and civil reforms undertaken under the Bonapartist regime, and even came to enact, albeit in the form of a graceful " concession ”, a constitution that placed limits on the power of the monarch, which was formally reaffirmed as absolute and of divine origin.
One wonders if something similar could happen today in the shadow of the globalist restoration, which is faced in all Western countries with a social situation which, due to the economic crisis, creates the problems created by coexistence with ever larger groups of people. coming from other parts of the world unwilling to integrate or unable to do so, and not least because of the pandemic still underway, it is irremediably different from that of twenty years ago.
Of course, Trump is not comparable to Napoleon: to do so would be too flattering towards him on the one hand and unfair on the other. Too flattering because even if he will have his place in future schoolbooks, the former American president certainly does not come close to the epochal role of the watershed of modern European history covered by the great course; unfair because, unlike Napoleon (who was one of the greatest political and military geniuses of all time, but also a ferocious tyrant who brought repression throughout the continent) Trump, despite some serious errors, governed in a democratic way, respectful of individual rights at home and the independence of foreign states.
The fact remains that the Trump presidency, as well as Brexit , a political phenomenon parallel to it from this point of view, has given voice, exposing its excesses, to the crisis of Western societies inspired by globalist and politically correct values. A crisis that most likely cannot be remedied by restoring and perhaps exasperating, thanks to political decisions and / or media campaigns, the often irresponsible utopian conceptions of past decades. The hope would be that it would be possible to reach, beyond the facade claims, and inevitably after a series of errors and questionable choices, to establish democratically and empirically the limits beyond which globalist and politically correct values are transformed into negative values. , as mentioned in terms of environmental policies, irregular immigration, the regulation of financial and non-financial economic activities, the protection of subjective views on religion and private life and so on.
But is this a realistic hope? There is some possibility that, perhaps "involuntarily" (to take Hugo's expression) the absolute principles of the globalist restoration confront reality and lead to less radical and Manichaean decisions than those supported by the "ultras" of the politically unique correct? Perhaps this is a wrong impression of the writer, but it seems that some recent events, if desired, can be interpreted in this sense, which I submit for the evaluation of the reader.
The new American president Biden, in words champion and first protagonist of the re-globalization and the resumption of politically correctness, on the one hand has made his own with some changes, more flashy than real, some of the most important choices of the previous administration (from the strategy of economic containment of Chinese expansion to Middle Eastern policy; from the development of new oil technologies to support activities for the non-financial industrial economy), on the other hand, where it has made substantial changes, it has done so for now in a very "soft " , As in terms of environmental policy, immigration or the protection of religious and / or sexual minorities, through provisions that are as peremptory from a formal point of view as they are susceptible of concrete adaptations in the course of work in order to temper their excesses.
At the same time, on this side of the Atlantic, despite the chants of execration and pity on the part of the mass media, the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union has, so to speak, "stabilized", resulting in a situation that realistically does not seem too much unwelcome neither to the hierarchies of Brussels nor to those of the governments of the states remaining in the Union.
The country, however, where this combination of a return, in words without compromises, to the values of politically correct globalism and an underground tendency to concretely identify its limits and therefore to recognize and protect in some way even the opposite needs is most evident (although without giving them a formal voice) is in my opinion just ours. The new government chaired by Mario Draghi, in the official declarations made, so to speak, a peremptory and unexceptionable profession of faith from the point of view of the globalist restoration: from the "irreversibility" of the Euro, to the naming of a ministry to the "ecological transition"; from the enhancement of the welcome of immigrants to the recognition of the predominant role of financial markets as a factor in the development of society. In concrete terms, however, it can reasonably be assumed that the trend lines on which the new Executive will move will be those of a series of compromises between the different needs. This is clearly demonstrated by the very composition of the government, in which alongside the "hard and pure" advocates of globalization and politically correct sit exponents of parties led by political leaders who have always been considered roughly as the embodiment of evil, as supporters of opposite principles. What these compromises will be and which of the two trends will reap the greatest successes is obviously all to be seen, but in my opinion it is very difficult to escape this logic.
Moreover, even if what has just been said were true, the situation could certainly not be defined as rosy. In fact, this new phase seems to make its own, particularly in our country, the elitist tendency typical of the globalist and politically correct movement, within which a small circle of technicians and "experts" in the economic, legal, cultural and even religious, he feels obliged (without asking himself whether or not he has the right) to "dictate the line" to economic and social development. If, therefore, it is probable that the new Italian political direction will be much more balanced than the extreme tendencies expressed in words, it is equally probable that the reconciliation between the different needs will be operated "from above" and not on the basis of a mandate expressed by the voters.
This tendency to a government of the elites also characterizes all continental European countries, but not the Anglo-Saxon ones, heirs of a representative tradition that dates back uninterrupted to the Middle Ages, on the basis of which the governing elites respond to the people for their choices. Despite the known degeneration, the recent American presidential elections, where citizens were able to choose between alternative political programs, demonstrate this; and the Brexit referendum proves this even more (and its value would have been the same even if the outcome had been the opposite), thanks to which voters were able to decide on fundamental choices made by their rulers.
Modern Western history teaches that decisions taken unilaterally from above, even if adopted by personalities “enlightened” by their technical and / or political abilities, often have a short life and almost always in the long run create more harm than good to the population. The "involuntary" liberalism of the nineteenth-century French restoration was the result of a unilateral choice by the elites who, with a partly cynical sense of realism (Talleyrand was its symbol), adapted the restoration of the monarchy to post-Napoleonic society, and consequently proved to be a liberalism very weak that, as the following history teaches, needed other popular uprisings and other wars to assert itself in a complete and approved way "from below".
For this reason, even if, as I personally believe, the globalist restoration will not be so "totalitarian" in its concrete contents, it would be good (and this is particularly true for our country) that the exponents of the various parties, instead of governing alongside side after having often insulted each other (sometimes beyond the limits of good taste), they brought forward opposing political proposals, alternatives to each other, to allow voters to choose clearly by which people and on the basis of which programs to be governed, which gives too long does not happen in Italy.
The post Globalist Restoration in progress: will it be “totalitarian”, or will it have to deal with reality (and its adversaries)? appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/restaurazione-globalista-in-atto-sara-totalitaria-o-dovra-fare-i-conti-con-la-realta-e-con-i-suoi-avversari/ on Fri, 26 Feb 2021 05:02:00 +0000.