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.

Egypt and D&G in the New York Times

In his New York Times column today, Thomas Friedman, while talking about Egypt, mentioned professor Daniel Brumberg and the MA in Democracy & Governance program. Those who are curious can check it out here.

Growing pains

John Briley for the Washington Post

Most accounts about Brazil fall into one of two categories: they either talk about the country’s booming economy and rising political importance, or about rampant corruption, crime and delusional megalomania. Those are the more “serious” accounts, of course. I prefer not to delve into popular myths about pristine beaches populated by supermodels and endless parties (I have yet to meet someone who, after finding out I am Brazilian, does not talk about how he/she plans to visit this “idyllic” place very soon).

That is why I enjoyed the story the Washington Post published on its travel section this saturday. It was a realistic narrative about Rio, its problems and wonders, without falling into the temptation of seeing only the good or the bad nor gloating about the “country of the future”. No glorification of poverty, but a seemingly balanced appreciation for its culture.

When the reporter visited favelas (slums), he commented about how his initial fear turned into a sense of safety, a real change for the city. But he also talked about locals concerns about losing recent security gains after the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016, which would echo previous experiences. We all remember how Rio was “cleansed” before the “Eco 92” conference on climate and before the Pope’s visit in 97 (theme of the celebrated movie Elite Squad, which I recommend).

There is a joke that says that “Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be”. The joke is outdated: it is common now to say that the future has arrived. It is undeniable that we have risen considerably in political relevance in the past decade, much due to the diligence and ambition of our former chancellor, Celso Amorim, who currently serves as Defense minister. We also benefited greatly from the financial crisis: Brazil became an even more attractive destination for foreign investment, to the point where capital flows turned into a problem and forced the government to implement taxes and other measures to try to slow it down.

Obviously, these improvements come with caveats. We feel the pressure to be more present in general world affairs, which are sometimes beyond our capacity. And Brazilians are suffering from a generalized process of “gentrification”. Growing foreign interest in the country is bringing inflation (already above the Central Bank’s target) and a housing bubble. Rent prices are sky rocketing. When I visited Sao Paulo for the holidays a few weeks ago, I saw several friends looking to move into cheaper neighborhoods, not being able to keep up with the jump in living expenses in the nice areas they used to live.

It is not clear yet how much regular Brazilians will benefit from all the attention the country is getting abroad. We now talk with a certain longing about the days when “things were more simple and we weren’t on the cover of  The Economist every other week”, as one of my friends put it.

I do think it is all for the better. But we are clearly having growing pains.

A comment on comments

Because I believe in Internet freedom, I have no problem allowing comments like this one and this one. I would like to make a comment on comments, however. I think we here at D&S have a preference for sound arguments and good grammar over juvenile nonsense.

“Principled and Purposeful Engagement:” US Policy on Supporting Human Rights and Rule of Law in Russia

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Melia, co-chair of the Civil Society Working Group of the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission, today argued for “principled and purposeful engagement” with Russia in a Senate hearing on “The State of Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Russia: U.S. Policy Options.” DAS Melia and Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon outlined the Obama Administration’s position in regard to Russia. Their testimony can be downloaded and watched here. From a civil society perspective, Freedom House Executive David Kramer, Human Rights Watch Washington Director Tom Malinowski, and President and CEO of the US-Russia Business Council, Edward Verona, testified as well; while their testimony is not yet uploaded on the Foreign Relations website, it should be up within 24 hours of this posting.

Recognizing the backdrop of the Duma elections and dramatic citizen protests that have swept Russia, four US policy-specific issues emerged in the hearing:

The Obama Administration’s Policy of Dual-track Engagement: Bi-lateral Relations and Civil Society Support. ”We firmly believe that a credible dialogue about democracy and human rights should involve not only contacts between the American and Russian governments, but also direct communication and linkages between American and Russian non-governmental organizations, independent policy experts, and regular citizens to confront common challenges,” Melia’s written testimony stated. Further, in addition to the $160 million provided in civil society strengthening and civil society assistance since 2009, “the Obama Administration submitted Congressional Notification for the creation of a new $50 million fund to support Russian civil society” in October 2011. “The new fund would not require additional appropriations because the $50 million would come from liquidated proceeds of the U.S. Russia Investment Fund.” (also from Melia’s written testimony). Both Gordon and Melia provided statements that reflect the Administration’s new-found voice in support of democracy and human rights; while the voice had existed previously, it was arguably muffled to a whisper under the “reset” policy.

Trade: Terminate Jackson Vanik. Both Republican and Democratic Senators expressed support for the repeal, as did the Administration through Assistant Secretary Gordon and DAS Melia. The Jackson Vanik legislation, passed in 1974, has been a barrier to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization; Senator Corker provided a moment of levity by asking Gordon whether he agreed that Jackson Vanik is now causing us to “shoot ourselves in the foot” by restricting US trade with Russia with little to no benefit or human rights leverage in return. Gordon diplomatically repeated the Administration’s support for its termination. Kramer advocated for parallel legislation in support of human rights (in the form of the Sergei Magnitsky legislation or comparable legislation) to be passed if Jackson Vanik is terminated.

S. 1039: The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act. A bi-partisan cadre of senators has supported this legislation, which would impose US visa bans on individual human rights abusers, most notably those involved in Sergei Magnitsky’s tragic death.  Melia noted that the Obama administration has and is “taking action to deny human rights abusers entry into the United States…Consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and President Obama’s “Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Non-immigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights Abuses and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses.” Essentially, the position taken by the Administration is that this is already underway. The concern is perhaps that passing the legislation can open a Pandora’s Box of difficult questions: who in the US government maintains the list? What if a name is added by mistake? Is this duplicating the already successful Human Rights Reports produced by DRL? Is it going to bureaucratize issues that are too important to bureaucratize? Further, it has also been reported that the Russian government, in particular the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with orders from the top, may respond with its own list of Americans blacklisted from Russia should that legislation pass. Sponsors of the legislation, its supporters (including Kramer), and those debating whether to support it must be wary of paving the foreign relations road with good intentions. That said, this policy difference between the congress, which is seeking to institutionalize support for human rights (as Senator Cardin articulated), and the executive branch, which is seeking to proceed with dual-track diplomacy to include human rights, should not be taken as a reflection of wavering US support for justice for the 37 year old lawyer –  Sergei Magnitsky - who died because he dared to investigate state corruption and because of acts of commission and omission perpetrated by the Russian authorities. Gordon, Melia, and Senators Cardin and Shaheen recognized this terrible truth, though they may differ on how the US should respond.

Appointment of Michael McFaul. McFaul was nominated to be US Ambassador to Russia and a confirmation hearing was held in the senate on October 12^th. Gordon, Melia, and Kramer agreed that the US needs a permanent Ambassador – our man in Moscow – now more than ever, and asked the Senate to confirm McFaul as soon as possible. The conservative right mobilized against McFaul after his hearing, mobilization that is arguably dangerous to foreign policy goals in the region at such a critical time.