taz.de
Fracturing Liberalism: Economic Deregulation and the 2020 Election
The 2020 US election results are analyzed as reflecting a shift within the liberal paradigm, where the alliance between economic, social, and political liberalism is fracturing, leading to a more authoritarian form of economic liberalism.
- What role did the previous alignment of "wokeness" and big business play in shaping the current political landscape?
- Previously, "wokeness" was often aligned with big business, as seen in Silicon Valley, sportswear brands using transgender models, and breweries partnering with Black activists. This alliance was criticized by some leftists, like Slavoj Žižek, who viewed it as a capitalist tactic.
- How did the perceived rejection of "wokeness" in the 2020 US election reflect a broader shift within the liberal paradigm?
- Following the 2020 US presidential election, Trump's victory was interpreted by some as a rejection of "wokeness," a broad term encompassing various progressive movements. This interpretation, however, oversimplifies the situation; the opposition wasn't simply capitalist right against woke left.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the decoupling of economic liberalism from social and political liberalism, and how might this impact democratic institutions?
- The relationship between economic liberalism (neoliberalism), social liberalism (wokeness), and political liberalism (liberal democracy) is currently shifting. Some tech giants, like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, are distancing themselves from "woke" causes, revealing a more authoritarian face of unfettered economic liberalism, characterized by deregulation and a disregard for established norms.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing presents a narrative of a fracturing liberal paradigm, emphasizing the conflict between economic liberalism (unfettered capitalism) and the other two forms (wokeness and political liberalism). This framing positions the rise of Trump as a consequence of this internal conflict within liberalism, potentially downplaying other significant factors contributing to his success. The headline (if one were to be added) could reinforce this framing by emphasizing the internal struggle within liberalism. For example, a headline like "The Liberal Fracture: How Trump Won" would strongly convey this perspective.
Language Bias
While the language is generally analytical, terms like "woke" and "liberal" are used repeatedly with negative connotations. Describing the shift away from woke ideals as shedding "feigenblätter" (fig leaves) suggests a disingenuous or hypocritical nature, a loaded term. Suggesting neutral alternatives requires careful consideration of the author's intent but aiming for more neutral descriptions of the ideological shifts would enhance objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the relationship between economic liberalism, wokeness, and political liberalism, potentially omitting other contributing factors to Trump's success or the complexities of the political landscape. While it mentions the Silicon Valley's shift, it doesn't delve into the nuances of why this shift occurred or explore other significant contributing factors beyond the described fracturing of the liberal paradigm. The article's limited scope might unintentionally omit crucial perspectives.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the opposition to Trump's success as simply "capitalist rights against woke leftists." This simplifies a complex political landscape and ignores the numerous other factors and ideologies at play. The author acknowledges this simplification but doesn't fully explore the multifaceted nature of the opposition.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the alliance between wokeness and big business, and how that alliance has fractured. This fracture contributes to increased inequality as the economic liberalism (neoliberalism) abandons any pretense of social responsibility ('woke') leading to deregulation and potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. The rise of anti-competence as a criterion for political appointments further undermines fair and equitable systems.