More on the decline of the middle class

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama argued in 2012′s first edition of “Foreign Affairs” that the absence of ideological competition in modern times has resulted in ultra-liberal policies that contribute to the decline of the middle class in developed countries and puts the future of democracy at risk. We have blogged about this.

Fukuyama explored the idea further in an interview with columnist Claudia Antunes, of the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo, with whom he talked openly about his fear of the “Latin-Americanization” of the US. “Im shocked at how much the US is starting to look like old Latin America”, he says. “If you ask the rich to pay more taxes, they will say no, arguing that the government will waste the money with corruption and bad services. The government’s performance cannot get better, since it does not have enough money, but no one wants to pay more exactly because the performance is bad. The US got out of this trap in the 30′s and now we are falling back into it.”

Fukuyama sees a “democratic deficit” in the US and affirms that it is related to the power of money and interest groups, which have a disproportional weight in the political system when compared to the social groups they represent. He insists that liberal democracy is still the best system available, but that it is dying and must be revived somehow.

The middle class dilemma, of course, is not exclusive of the US. And not all middle classes are for democracy. “Strengthening democracy is tied to the amount of people in a society who reach the middle class. When the middle class is small and part of traditional elites, it sees government as a protector of its interests and fears total democracy, which could threaten their gains. That is what is happening in China right now”, he declared.

Here are a few other interesting excerpts of the interview:

“I am not saying we should abandon liberalism; it is a matter of degree. The revolution led by [Ronald] Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 80′s (…) was necessary, but went too far and imprisoned the US in an ideology that is too rigid. A liberal society will always be necessary, but we need to go back to state regulation and social policies that preserve middle class gains and encourage the rise of the poor to the middle class.”

“Old recipes of social democracy will not work, since in many cases the state is problematic and is not able to implement policies. That explains to a great extent the weakness of the left in the US and in Europe. (…) A simple return to old formats of social democracy is no longer fiscally sustainable, nor could it improve public services.”

“I do not see in the US forces capable of building an alternative ideology. That is why I wrote the article.”

“There is a great controversy around the “Occupy Wall Street” movement because it is populated mainly by young people with a leftish ideology, who do not represent syndicates or the working middle class in a larger sense. I do not believe in the prospects of the movement in the long run. Its social base is too narrow. [But] if the working middle class mobilizes for more progressive policies, then we will have a powerful populist movement.”

“In the US, it is the right that has been populist. We see that in the way they attack cultural elites and powerful players. At the same time, the right is against economic regulation and tax increases. Now, why is the left resisting a more populist rhetoric? It is another idiosyncrasy of American politics.”

It will be interesting to see how this rhetoric will play out in this year’s election.