Political Realignment of People

 

Recently I watched a video that declared that UK's Conservatives are doomed. It was broadly correct when it came to facts, but I felt that it missed to the overall trend behind this phenomenon. After all, not only Conservative party is failing, but new parties spring left and right and become popular near overnight. The whole political system is in disarray.

However, why it is in disarray? Why now suddenly public became discontent with two main parties and frantically jumps at almost any alternative? What have suddenly changed.

To put it short, the traditional political alignments of different segments of population have changed. Original party system was built around idea that poor and working class are left wing while rich business owners are conservative. Nowadays however rich have become increasingly progressive on social issues while continuing to be conservative on fiscal ones. On the other hand, working class became increasingly conservative on social and pretty much every other issue with exception of workplace relationships. An alignment most parties and politicians struggle to understand and by extension find their way to work with.

To explain how or why that happened we need to look at history. Throughout the 20th century what we mean by left and right was constant and did not change much at all. However back in 19th century political landscape was rather different.

For example, in Australia, before Labour party became a thing, politics were a contest between Protectionist and Free Trade parties. Neither of these two parties could be conventionally classified as either left or fight. Both represented business interests, just Free Trade represented those who import and trade in foreign goods whole Protectionists instead represented local producers. None of these two parties were more conservative or progressive than the other, these monikers only came later. Neither could be called left or right wing in a conventional sense of the word.

Things have changed when Labor became a thing and eventually won its first government. Both traditional parties found it expedient to put their former differences aside and unite against Labor. That is when we first got now traditional left vs right division. Labor that brought sweeping change was dubbed left and their opponents right.

At first these divisions were only about economic interests. Labor represented hired labor, and their policies represented interests of this social class. Both Protectionists and Free Trade represented employers instead. With advent of Labor, this unifying factor allowed them to unite into one party to oppose Labor. When in power Labor will expand powers and protections for the working people and limit the power, their bosses have over them. Labor's right-wing opponents (that changed their name several times in Australia) would instead try to roll at least some of these provisions back to bring back power in the hands of management.

However, as time went on, each side of politics were adding more and more policies to their agendas. Since Labor was more open to changes, regulations or raising taxes, most reform minded people of all flocks favored them over the right wing. Labor was the "cool" party that gets things done while "boring" tories only oppose things. So, if one wanted any kind of social change, Labour was the party to join. Government bureaucrats too prefer labour as it was more open to taxes compare to right wing. Eventually this transformation left original values, and both parties bases far behind, and they got completely engrossed into their own bubble.

Throughout the 20th century this worked. Shell-shocked by power of labour movement, rich business owners had no agenda beyond crawling some of their former power back. Labour remained the progressive force.

However, that does not mean that these alignments are natural: that working class is naturally progressive and change minded or business owners are naturally conservative and averse of change. Already in early 20th century Gregor Strasser and Benito Mussolini proven that working class is fully open to support a conservative nationalist agenda so long as their economic interests are looked after. However, fascism was defeated in WWII and these facts were forgotten. Strasser's and Mussolini's experience was dismissed as abnormality. Traditional alignment continued throughout the 20th century.

As time went on, both major parties were further departing from their roots, Labor started seeing itself as a party of change, fighting against backward tories, who do not even have policies to speak of. Tories were too lazy to even refute it as their anti-change do nothing policy of no polices were winning them elections anyhow. 

As parties stagnated, further and further petrified into their molds, their core bases evolved as economy and technology changed. From the start not very attached to the whole progressive thing, working class gradually became more and more conservative as time went on. Technological transformation and resulting automation put many jobs in jeopardy. Immigration, that is often seen as left-wing policy, actually benefited rich business owners while exposing working class to increased competition for jobs and housing. Pro-LGBT policies also do not benefit working class that much as most of them straight and wish their children will be so as well. It is rich who can benefit from more colourful and diverse cast of people. 

Working class instinctively reacted by opposing change and insisting that jobs and workplace privileges have to be preserved. That put them at odds with their own "progressive" party that by that point so used to be pro-change and progressive, getting back to roots seemed too alien to even consider. The reaction in Australia was a formation of One Nation. While media dubs this party far-right, it is actually closer to Labor's base than to Liberal one.

As working class became more conservative, rich went the other way around. They became more and more progressive. Not only technological change opened new avenues for them to manage their business better and differently but many of progressive social changes came to appeal to them as well. From opposing the change Labor brought in early 20th century, rich came to advocate many new ideas from progressive playbook. Some even coined a term SPEC (socially progressive, economically conservative) to mark this change.

Despite change in social values and attitudes, the core economic interests of each class remained the same. That somewhat anchored electoral system to traditional allegiances. No matter how socially progressive rich has become, they still prefer low taxes and fiscal conservatism of the right wing. At the same time working class still needs its trade unions and workplace laws to protect their economic interests.

However, when leaders like BoJo, Liz Truss or Starmer in UK take their negligence of the base too far, the base finally decides enough is enough and goes shopping for alternatives. Current British 5 party and more coming extravaganza is direct result of this realignment of political system. It is the same in the US where Trump won working class with his socially conservative but economically syncretic policies. 

In Australia so far traditional alignments still holds as parties have not moved too far from their bases yet. Yet the same underling factors exist here as well. Parties are still either broadly left or right on both social and economic issues. Meanwhile voters are increasingly either, socially progressive and economically conservative (SPEC) or socially conservative and economically progressive (anti-SPEC). There are parties somewhat corresponding to new alignment as well: If teal independents are SPEC then PHON or NXT is somewhat anti-SPEC. Who knows how long this mismatch between parties' policies and electorate alignment will continue.

In the end of the day parties will have to realign themselves with the economic realities on the ground. A socially progressive, pro-immigration, pro-LGBT, fiscally conservative party will represent rich business owners as well as the minorities in question. At the same time anti-immigration, traditionalist, nationalist, but economically hard left distributist party will represent working class and poor. The question is how long it will take for parties and politicians to fully grasp these current political alignments. So far there is no party that meaningfully represent either side of this debate, some get certain bits and pieces correctly, but none fully aligned with this new political reality. 

This re-alignment of parties is hard to understand because its cuts across the usual divides. New parties will be stitched out of parts of old ones, like Frankenstein. Nonetheless it is a very likely future we all have to deal with. However, if it would be different, then it likely will be even more strange that what I have described. Voters have changed and parties have to adapt of their will lose to those who will get new political realities better than them.