Throughout most of U.S. history, when prosperity and opportunity have been more broadly shared, especially for women and people of colour, it’s been hand-in-hand with the expansion of democracy and individual freedoms, not their curtailment. Structural and systemic economic unfairness in the U.S., and the accompanying severe economic inequities, were brought into sharp relief during the pandemic. Multiple programs were put in place to confront them. The advance of democracy entails a decrease in political inequality but does not guarantee decreases in inequalities of other sorts. Economic (and other) inequalities have historically followed their own dynamic, independent of whether electoral democracy exists. Governments can reduce inequality through tax relief and income support or transfers (government programs like welfare, free health care, and food stamps), among other types of policies. What is the best way to reduce inequality in the society? Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.1
Common explanations of backsliding in the United States have focused on the (assumed) negative impact of globalization and waning ability of citizens to die wealthier than they were born, which along with a growing lack of political tolerance and a surge in misinformation on social media has facilitated the rise of right-wing populist leaders. One reason that there has not been greater resilience against this trend, some have argued, is that Americans have become apathetic about democracy – in part because it is so long since they experienced the downsides of tyranny. Although governments do hold power over countries’ economies, it is the big banks and large corporations that control and essentially fund these governments. This means that the global economy is dominated by large financial institutions. Economic globalization can exacerbate income inequality, as it can lead to job losses and lower wages in developed countries, while wages in developing countries may remain low.2
Globalization, thus, has powerful economic, political, cultural and social implications for sovereignty. Globalization has led to a decline in the power of national governments to direct and influence their economies (especially with regard to macroeconomic management); and to determine their political structures. Studies also suggest that globalization may contribute to income disparity and inequality between the more educated and less educated members of a society. This means that unskilled workers may be affected by declining wages, which are under constant pressure from globalization. This can lead to growing public discontent and calls for protectionist policies. Globalization shocks, often working through culture and identity, have played an important role in driving up support for populist movements, particularly of the right-wing kind. Globalization and the international economic order have undermined economic-human security – that is economic, food and health security – which in turn has contributed to the generation of personal, community and political insecurity.
A recent report published by the Commonwealth Fund reviewed data from 70 healthcare systems in 10 high-income nations: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Among the countries studied, the U.S. ranks last in life expectancy, with the average American living to 77.5 years, and has the highest rate of preventable and treatable deaths. The report reveals roughly 30% of U.S. adults live with two or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes or heart disease, nearly double the rate of other wealthy nations. The lack of affordability was cited as a pervasive problem due to a “fragmented insurance system” that saw 26 million Americans without insurance. Despite spending nearly 17% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care – far more than any other nation – the U.S. ranks last overall in health system performance.3
Finally, the role of crucial events on the global and national level cannot be underestimated. The 2008 financial crisis and its consequences across the world exposed the limitations of contemporary advanced economies, highlighted growing social inequalities, and reduced the resources available for responding to old and new social problems. The COVID-19 pandemic that disproportionately affected Western countries introduced an additional set of challenges and further exposed the weaknesses of their health and welfare systems. All these factors contributed to the rise of populist and radical left- and right-wing parties and movements in many countries, allowing their leaders to deliberately challenge liberal values and democratic norms. Populist politicians mobilized on resentments, grievances, and growing anger toward political institutions. Authoritarian populists have disrupted politics in many societies, as exemplified by Donald Trump in the U.S. and Brexit in the UK.4
Resentment as a cultural response to economic struggle has political consequences. More than half of US workers are unhappy with their jobs. The frustration you experience by not living the life you imagined is created by the resentment that the outcome of an event is less than you imagined it would be. Donald Trump himself is a cauldron of resentment, who has deeply internalized a life-time of deep resentments, and thus is able to tap into, articulate, and mobilize the resentments of his followers. Donald Trump – figured out how to harness their disillusionment and growing anger – is superior to the others in exploiting the narcissism of small differences to recruit the Republican base. His support for lower taxes and smaller government has surrounded himself with enablers. Enablers support Trump’s behavior out of fear, love, or a misguided sense of loyalty. Autocrats, like Trump, surround themselves with their political cronies and lackies rather than competent people – have no way of eliciting, recognizing or assessing useful criticism.
Dictatorial drift emerges from above by authoritarian leaders who, after legitimately winning elections, strive to concentrate executive power, marginalize political opposition and representative institutions, instrumentalize the judicial system, and manipulate electoral institutions to escape constitutional and political constraints and controls. They seek to gradually destroy independent media, civil society organizations, and formal and informal checks and balances, and they actively mobilize anti-liberal forces and incite social and political conflicts. Both the erosion of democracy and dictatorial drift are underpinned by the emergence of conservative and reactionary civil society, which mobilize and channel the demand-side anti-liberal and authoritarian preferences. Economic insecurity refers to a person’s exposure, and vulnerability, to an economic loss. Economic stress obviously activates latent authoritarian tendencies and can render even liberals less tolerant. Economic disruptions can fuel nationalist populism, because belonging to an identity group can restore one’s sense of control and coherence by means of attachment.
According to Foucault ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ are created by those in power. What we take to be true is the dominant worldview that we have been provided with: it is received wisdom, not truth. Foucault rejected the idea that society was progressing. The world is not getting better or getting closer to truth, it is just moving through different worldviews. Foucault’s theory of power: to maintain power, those in positions of authority rely on the production of knowledge. They do this by creating information systems (unrestrained digital markets have given us monopoly, pervasive surveillance, and powerful vectors of disinformation) which allow them to exercise surveillance and control over the population. It has been argued that inequality is not an unintended result but itself an important feature of neoliberal politics because it is supposed to serve as a mechanism to increase competition and productivity (Foucault, 2008; Mirowski, 2014).5
Disinformation can be dangerous on social media because, the sheer amount of information there and the length of readers’ attention spans can allow it to go unchecked. Social media platform algorithms are designed for optimized user retention and engagement, and are not looking for misinformation or disinformation. A combination of lies and religion are used to control the people. There is no difference between the fake news, misinformation, disinformation of today – such lies have been churned out for years, but today it is designed to support the plutocracy. Trump’s victim politics is a complete fraud, an old trick used by economic elite to keep working-class Americans fighting each other rather than focusing on processes to counter the plutocrats who are ripping them off. The truth is that present capitalism creates enormous wealth, but it concentrates into oligopolies and monopolies, to the extent the economic elite creates and normalizes a culture of lying to itself leading to its inherent instability.
The true value of Nineteen Eighty-four is it teaches us that power and tyranny are made possible through the use of words and how they are mediated. The theme of lies in 1984 is: lying, deception and false appearance is usually connected with the want for power and control, the belief that no one will find out, and avoiding punishment, which are evident in 1984. George Orwell observes: “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” Orwell demonstrates how a government’s manipulation of technology, language, media, and history can oppress and degrade its citizens. The book was written as a warning of what could happen if people allowed their governments to obtain too much power after Orwell saw what happened to the people in Nazi Germany. Orwell concludes: “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Speaking truth to power is a non-violent political tactic, is required against the received wisdom or propaganda of the Trump clique regarded as oppressive, authoritarian or a cult. The concept of “speaking truth to power” often requires those who pursue it to confront personal and social risks. Michel Foucault highlights the courage needed to speak out against dominant systems, as doing so can lead to consequences like social isolation, loss of freedom, or even death. For Foucault, to challenge power is not a matter of seeking some absolute truth, but of detaching the power of truth from the forms of hegemony, social, economic and cultural, within which it operates at the present time. There is truly no universal truth at all, only systems of power creating a regime of truth. As US slips into authoritarian democracy, it is key to call out any combination of censoring of the media and restrictions on civil liberties.
1 https://theloop.ecpr.eu/how-income-inequality-threatens-democracy/
2 https://www.exploros.com/summary/How-does-the-global-economy-work-2
5 https://questioningandskepticism.com/how-disinformation-supports-post-truth-and-authoritarianism/
6 https://questioningandskepticism.com/responding-to-a-society-controlled-and-manipulated-by-lies/