The return of ideology

The selection of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as the running mate of Mitt Romney has intensified, and made more bare, the ideological divide in the United States presidential elections. The selection of this disciple of virtue-of-selfishness guru Ayn Rand should make the choice facing Americans crystal clear.

While Ryan's selection has energised the Republican base and given new impetus to the Romney campaign, it has been a virtual godsend to Barack Obama and the Democrats who are seizing on Ryan's Right-wing views on Medicare (and Medicaid) and other issues to pull popular support from the Republican Party and paint that party as inimical to Main Street's interests.

Ryan is young, handsome, charismatic and articulate, but his platform is one that invites critical thinking and analysis and anyone who believes that electorates are sophisticated, cerebral and contemplative had better not put their own fortune on entering electoral contests. Even if Ryan's Right-wing views are correct and good for the American economy, they are counter-intuitive to many working-class and middle-class Americans and can easily be squelched on the altar of populism.

Indeed, it is felt that this is the real challenge and crisis of democratic politics: that it is easily susceptible to demagoguery and histrionics and always vulnerable to passions rather than principles. The American elections are coming down to an old discredited word: ideology.

That famed Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell had proclaimed The End of Ideology in his famous book decades ago, but his thesis has been overturned. Ideology is alive and well, just that it is more disguised and subtle today - and, hence, more pernicious. In many countries, ideology is the unspoken narrative in political and economic discourse.

END OF HISTORY

In Jamaica, debate over ideology is, indeed, dead and we are witnessing a kind of end-of-history phenomenon compared to the 1970s. The two major political parties have basically accepted the International Monetary Fund's neoliberal framework, and while Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller is seen by some as a hold-out, she herself is not taking an ideological approach to her pro-poor advocacy.

The triumph of the Right in Jamaica is almost complete. The University of the West Indies, once the hotbed of radicalism, is now populated largely by pragmatists and careerists seeking their place in the market economy, and its Department of Economics, once the citadel of left-wing thinking, is now chaired by an unabashed and highly articulate neoliberal, Dr Damien King.

King, in a recent Emancipation lecture based on his paper 'On the Origins of the Political Economy of Underdevelopment in Jamaica', advanced his thesis that our history has produced a type of political economy which favours populism. He will further defend this thesis this week when the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies meets at the Pegasus hotel for its major 50-50 conference. King is the most engaging and provocative non-Leftist (lest he be offended by 'Right-wing') economist I know. Whatever you think of Damien King, you can't ignore him or the force of his ideas.

"Populist policies that appeal to the mass of the poor tend to be redistributive rather than productive," says King in his paper on political underdevelopment in Jamaica. "For most of the island's colonial history, the threat of social upheaval was controlled by extreme violence. But even that is insufficient in the face of sufficiently egregious social injustice. So appeasement of the immediate desires of the masses has long been a critical and perhaps ultimate means of social control ... . It is the need to appease the poor in a social order in which they constitute an electoral majority that underlies the relentlessly populist politics of Jamaica and the near impossibility of implementing economic reform which can more effectively reduce poverty and facilitate economic growth."

King continues in his paper, up for discussion on Tuesday: "The social structure established on the plantation and by demographic failure continues to hold Jamaica back. It is the foundation of the politics of pandering to the poor, which continues to the present day to favour handouts over economic opportunity. And so it is the root of Jamaica's economic failure."

'Motty' Perkins would have been delighted with this paper were he alive, and he would be sure, as did his ideological successor Ronnie Mason, to invite him for an interview on his talk show; the breath of fresh air at that "intellectual ghetto". (Perkins' characterisation).

If you intend to hear Damien defend his thesis on Tuesday, as I do, it would be good to read Joseph Stiglitz's just-released book, The Price of Inequality. I have read all of Stiglitz's always-delightful books, and this one is definitely the best. It is in this work that the MIT-educated, Nobel Prize-winning former chief World Bank economist brilliantly unmasks the ideology of the Right, which masquerades as common sense. Stiglitz, in this work, deals with every major argument and assumption of neoliberal economics, and with empirical precision and intellectual rigour debunks every one. Its scholarship at its best.

"A central theme of this book," notes Stiglitz, "is that there has been a battle of ideas - over what kinds of society, what kinds of policies are best for most citizens - and that this battle has seen an attempt to persuade everyone that what's good for the one per cent, what the top cares about and wants, is good for everyone: lower tax rates, reduce the deficit, downsize the government."

Damien King, in his paper, says, "Populist programmes, however, are necessarily hostile to the prospects for sustained economic growth. Generally, when people talk about 'populist' policies, they are usually referring to pro-poor policies. Populism becomes a caricature for policies in the interest of the masses. Dr King continues in his paper: "Financing redistribution imposes a cost in terms of higher taxation, accumulating debt or inflation, all of which are discounted by the disadvantaged masses but all of which are inimical to economic growth."

Damien King and Stiglitz agree that inequality is bad for society and economy. I would love to see King critique Stiglitz's book. For in it he will encounter a robust refutation of his philosophical assumptions and economic views.

One of the glaring weaknesses I find in reading and listening to combatants is that they have this annoying tendency of talking past one another and not engaging the best arguments of one another. I find that either they are not sufficiently acquainted with the best arguments of their opponents or they are too easily dismissive of them.

Thorough Analysis

The most refreshing feature of Stiglitz's 414-page book is that he shows very intimate acquaintance - and profound engagement - with the main arguments of his Right-wing opponents. He leaves no stone unturned in smashing his opponents' views.

Anyone serious about political economy has to get this book. It is statistically rich and cogently argued. It is Stiglitz at his absolute best.

When Damien says, for example, "Populist policies that appeal to the mass of the poor tend to be redistributive rather than productive," he is constructing a false dichotomy, as Stiglitz demonstrates. I am assuming "populist", in Damien's usage, really means pro-poor rather than patently irresponsible and reckless economic policies.

Stiglitz shows how governments do interfere with the market to protect and advance the interests of the one per cent. He shows how a more broadly equitable society, where the masses benefit more, would indeed be more productive. So redistribution and productivity are not necessarily at cross-purposes, contrary to neoliberals like Damien King.

"Part of the conventional wisdom in economics of the past three decades is that flexible labour markets contribute to economic growth. I would argue, in contrast, that strong worker protections correct what would be an imbalance of economic power. Such protection leads to a higher-quality labour force, with workers who are more loyal to their firms and more  willing to invest in themselves and in their jobs. It also makes for a more cohesive society and better workplaces." Every neoliberal doctrine is exposed as a fraud in The Price of Inequality.

Stiglitz shows how the siren calls for lower tax rates for the private sector have harmed economic growth. Stiglitz does not merely assert, he cites data. Stiglitz shows the dangers of independent central banks (a creed of the former Jamaica Labour Party regime) he shows how neoliberalism undermines democracy and popular rule by the people. (Reading Damien King's paper raises those fears).

I believe that America, during this election, faces precisely the choice which Stiglitz enumerates in his book: "One is a society more divided between the haves and the have-nots, a country in which the rich live in gated communities, send their children to expensive schools and have access to first-rate medical care. Meanwhile, the rest live in a world marked by insecurity, at best mediocre education and, in effect, rationed health care - they hope and pray they don't get seriously sick."

But as the one per cent strengthens its stranglehold over societies all over the world, ruling by what Stiglitz insightfully calls "cognitive capture" - passing off its ideas as natural, commonsensical - it is not just America's dilemma. It's the same struggle in Jamaica, as we move into our next 50 years.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.