Political Impact of Progressive Democrats in America

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders and his anti-immigration Freedom Party (PVV) lead in the polls and could easily have happened to enter the government after the elections in March. It is expected that the presidential elections in May, Marine Le Pen of the radical right-wing National Front to reach the second round, but it can happen and to win. Angela Merkel, Germany has a good chance to remain in place after the Chancellor and the elections in September, but it is almost certain that the radical right-wing Alternative for Germany (AFD) to win dozens of seats in the Bundestag.

Fears for the future of progressive democracy in 2017 will reach new heights. But they are only partly justified. Liberalism is in crisis, but democracy is in very good condition. It doesn’t imply that the election results will always be “good”. The point of the democratic process and is in its unpredictability. Democracy we need because they are thinking about which policies are “good” and which candidate is “real” is often sharply conflicting. It is true that Donald Trump and Le Pen reactionary candidates and their policies can contribute to the further decomposition of liberal tolerance, but their success indicates a problem in the sphere of politics, but not in the democratic process and it is also neassary to improveing finance of USA which has tanked after 2007 reccsion ..


We are so accustomed to talking about the “proggressive democracy” that often lose sight deeply strained relationship between the two: liberalism and democracy. At the heart of liberalism is individual. Classical liberalism means that restrictions placed freedoms of the individual must be reasonable and minimal. Liberals wary of weight, fear of “the rule of the mob” and “tyranny of the majority” as a potential threat to freedom of the individual. Despite the deep resentment of the restrictions imposed by the state, more liberals are turning state institutions as a means of control of the majority, which inevitably leads to an ambivalent attitude towards the achievements of democracy.

Many liberals had expected that after the Cold War tension between liberalism and democracy to be resolved. They believed that the liberal institutions can finally be paid to the management and implementation of the “right” policy, while the grassroots, released dreams of socialism, transformed into an obedient electorate that will vote to use their democratic right and enjoy the benefits that it provides technocratic established government. But quite the opposite happened. The tension between liberalism and democracy is more physical.

Democracy can’t be reduced to a rounding number on the ballot paper. Its essence is the denial of power. In the privacy of voting booths vote as individuals, of course, but in order to defend democracy and express your views act as a community. This requires a developed public sphere and democracy that is practiced in the streets and at work just as much as at the polling station. The decline in power of workers’ organizations and social movements contributed to the collapse of democracy in the broadest sense. The decline of these organizations contributed to the transfer of power from democratic institutions such as parliament, the non-political institutions as well as international courts and the central bank for car repair plans .

Many liberals believe that it is desirable and necessary to ensure good governance and to essentially protect important policy of the vagaries of the democratic process. This change to greet the representatives of the Left who have given up class politics old school, because the trans-national orgzanizacijama as EU seen key drivers of social change. However, many segments of the public have the impression that they both take away the voice. Since there are no other traditional channels to give vent to his displeasure, at a time when class politics lost its importance, voters from the working class accept the language of identity politics, not the left than the right policy of nationalism and xenophobia, which is a fuel populist movements.

Critics of liberalism have long noticed that the biggest failure of liberals that ignores the fact that people are never just individuals. We are primarily social beings. Their individuality and sense reveals only through other people. Therefore, the political life is important, and not only individuals but also the collective. In the political sphere, the sense of community is manifested in two basic forms: as identity politics as a policy of solidarity. The first emphasizes attachment to a common identity based on categories such as race, nation, gender or culture. Privacy solidarity connects people in the team, not on the basis of a given identity, but as a means of achieving political or social objectives.

While identity politics deepen divisions, the policy of solidarity introduced objectives that transcend racial, gender, cultural and ethnic differences. But with the decline of the Left policy of solidarity in the past two decades, virtually disappeared. Therefore, a policy based on the identity of many recognize as the last remaining form of collective policies. Hence the rise of populist movements that insist on identity. In such movements are reactionary identity politics is often linked to economic and social policies that had once represented the Left: the protection of jobs, support the welfare state, opposition to austerity measures.

Take the example of the presidential elections in France. The two candidates with the highest chances of entering the second round are Fran├žois Fillon, a representative of the center-right, and Marine Le Pen, a representative of the radical right. Fillon is socially conservative and economically “liberal”. He wants to destroy all that is left of the French “social model” to reduce the cost of state and abolish the workers’ rights. Marine Le Pen stands as the protector of the working class, oppose the budget cuts and committed to the welfare state.

Populists are today and as fighters for personal freedom. Wilders is found guilty of “inciting discrimination” when the crowd at a rally called to declare whether they want “more or less Moroccans” in the Netherlands. Instead of his fanaticism challenge the political means, liberals are met by applying the law, but Wilders can serve as a fighter for freedom of speech, despite extremely illiberal attitudes, including a ban on the request of the Koran. Figures such as Le Pen and Wilders out the political field and address the groups of which the left has given up. The failure of the Left to defend the broadest-based sovereignty enabled the radical right wing that the question of sovereignty is translated from the field of politics solidarity in the field of language nationalism and fanaticism.

Polarization of liberalism and democracy shows that key aspects of the progressive view of the world destroyed. Those who justifiably complain about the collapse of the social movements and community problem often seen in excessive immigration or preterjanom insistence on individual freedoms. Those who hold liberal views on immigration and other social issues usually do not see a problem in the further atomization of society.

If we find a way to build a new politics of solidarity that will liberal idea of individual rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of movement, combine with progressive economic arguments and faith in society, not 2018, is not much different from 2017. On the contrary.