Thirty odd years after the end of the cold war western countries are going through a crisis of confidence. The swagger and euphoria on the back of the peace dividend has stalled and the political consensus over free trade, liberal democracy, economic growth and peace through diplomacy and mutual cooperation is now being called into question. Back in 1992 the European Union embarked on an ambitious program to admit new members into the EU and secondly to pursue greater integration of the existing members. NATO as a defensive organization found a new role providing collective security within Europe and also expanded by incorporating the former Warsaw Pact members. The only blight was the civil war in the Balkans after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Through the use of air power by NATO they eventually forced all parties to the negotiation table and the war eventually came to an end, Bosnia in 1995 and then in Kosovar in 1999. There was also the consolation that at the end of the war many of the belligerents were tracked down and ended up in the international criminal court. Even in Northern Ireland the waring factions eventually called a ceasefire and finally agreed to sit down and negotiate a political settlement. The western countries were riding high, by 2001 a unified Europe led by the EU was a liberal democracy and had peace and prosperity for the first time after decades of Communism, Fascism and wars.
The turn of the new century was a golden age for North America, Europe and the Anglo-sphere. Yet after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent US and UK invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq led to divisions. The neo-conservatives in the United States headed by a think tank titled "The project for the new American century" promoted the idea that part of the spoils of the end of the cold war and the demise of the USSR was to use military force to get rid of dictators and promote the idea of Liberal democracies around the world. Despite this, they would soon be joined by western/NATO incursions into Syria and Libya. The NATO attack on Libya resulted in the toppling of the regime but left complete chaos in the aftermath. There was even less success in Syria whose leader since 2011 has outlasted three US presidents but leads a country left in ruins. After 20 years NATO left Afghanistan and the Talban then returned to power. There was a feeling that western interventions had been unsuccessful and had created more harm than good.
Yet despite that there seemed to be a consensus in western countries regardless of which political party is in power they have all embarked on a policy of continued intervention in overseas conflicts. There has been a shift whereby the traditional opponents of war are now some of the most enthusiastic for using military force. For example in Germany one of the biggest proponents for the continued war between Ukraine and Russia is the Green party, yet it's the Conservative right AFD which is calling the war into question.
However, prior to all this it was the financial crisis in 2008 led to a lack of confidence in the major banking institutions and the globalized economy which was now firmly on the fast track had created winners and losers in the advanced economies. This was exacerbated with deindustrialization, the outsourcing energy sectors and a greater emphasis technology and finance .
By 2016 the general feeling amongst the contemporary political establishment was that the stability and consensus of the center ground in western politics was being challenged, first by the UK voting to leave the European Union followed by the election of Donald Trump in the United States later in the year. Trump a self styled populist who campaigned against both the Republican party in the primary and the Democrats in the general election.
The political institutions in the UK and most of the media opposed Brexit and in effect it caused a constitutional crisis as both chambers of Parliament and the civil service refused to under right the result.
Germany, France, the Netherlands and the UK are seeing a rise in populist parties, labeled far-right by opposition critics. The once self styled left or center left now refer to themselves as progressives and the opposition is now far-right, or right wing. In addition, today anybody whose opponents are described as populist are now associated with the far-right. People on the right will call themselves conservative or patriots and they describe the left as Marxists, globalists or even elites. Anybody who pays attention to politics often hear the charge that the other side is either Communist/Socialist or a Fascist. Fascism has a more chilling feel as you associate it with Nazi Germany or Italy under Mussolini. However I don't think that either of these ideologies are relevant anymore. Moreover it's theocracies and authoritarianism which is the real danger to liberal democracies. Therefore I'd argue that in it's purest form the slogan Fascism and Communism is just a slur.
There are a number of forces driving this. The United States has exported it's racial politics to the Anglosphere egged on by academia and enthusiastically supported by the political class as well as state run institutions. There is a growing opposition to super capitalism, mass immigration and a lack of realistic discussion about the most important commodity in our civilization, energy and power. There is a lot of cynicism in western politics and politicians have never been more despised. A lot of people who are wealthy have always gone into politics, that's not new but over the last 30 years those who have come from modest and even humble origins have got very rich after leaving office. The Clintons in the USA have built their wealth in the super globalized economy using their connections and influence. The same is for the Obama's, and the Blairs and Browns in the UK. They haven't built much or created anything but have been seduced by the Gordon Gecko philosophy that "greed is good" and had made a lot of money through the big donations to their foundations. On the other side there are a lot of people who think that the system is rigged against them and those who claim to hold the middle ground are oblivious to their concerns because they are not effected by the consequences of policy decisions.
Yet if anybody is paying attention there is something else going on. Over the last 20 years in particular there has been a fundamental shift from the attitude of society's major institutions over their role and an elected political class that feel that their duty is towards some grand global approach rather than the country they serve. In the UK and the United States there is a huge gap between the concerns of the people and what the political institutions feel is important. Supra national organizations and Non Government Organizations are viewed as more important than the nation state. These institutions are unaccountable to domestic parliaments and are administered by "the expert class" (many of them self declared), who either are appointed or else, self appointed. The most well known includes NATO, the EU, the UN (and it's various off springs), the World Bank and the WHO. It also includes forums and conferences led by various NGO's i.e. WEF, either supported or heavily promoted by a combination of media and government officials. Political parties in western countries and it's civil services are very much influenced by these forums and global institutions, they are in effect lobbyists.
They don't like outside interference and don't believe in dialogue or discussion which flies in the face of Liberal democracy. The individual has not just a right but an obligation to challenge any conventional wisdom promoted in public policy or indeed the role of government as a whole. The modern class don't believe in accountability by the public. There is very little opposition within the polity and is largely underpinned by the media which seems complicit in this agenda. In fact, I would argue that the media have dissolved investigative journalism and have decided to play cheer leaders. Virtually all state employees are broadly in lockstep with policy such as the green agenda, race politics, diversity goals and transgenderism. I would also point out that they would all support rationing of fuel, meat and other products if they felt that it would "save the planet" one of the most over stated slogans in todays politics. This has also crept into the private sector with corporate America deciding to walk the path of least resistance also adheres and promotes this thinking . All of the things I've outlined is supported by show business, the film industry, celebrities and academia but more importantly the administrative state. All in all it's very much a class fight between those who are financially comfortable and those who are not, so the goal of individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness only applies to them.
Decent and expressing different ideas is part and parcel of liberal democracies which seems to have been lost recently on university campuses where anybody that doesn't agree to the prevailing wisdom might well be on the receiving end of a smear campaign. The banning of certain books at schools and universities is an indication that this has occurred and the promotion of collective thinking is widely promoted. This is a big problem for western countries to overcome, how do you promote social democratic and liberal values but then ascertain that certain things that were once taken for granted are now wrong and should not be countenanced.
