With the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall having come and gone I’ve reflected on the changes that came with the post-wall world. One of the most interesting development that followed from 1989 was ideological, in the era of Thatcher and Reagan the fall of the wall to some proved that a capitalist economic system was inevitable and that liberal thought reigned supreme. Francis Fukuyama’s famous assertation that the end of history was here could be seen as a product of its time in the sense that it reflected the euphoria the victory in the Cold War, but it could also be read in light of the geopolitical realities the post Cold War era brought. In this week’s blog post I will propose a model for explaining broad ideological preferences based on the geopolitical situation, and how such a model would match up against reality since 1989.
The most common scale for explaining where different groups fall ideologically compared to each other is the left-right scale where the predominant political cleavage is the view on the economy, should the state interfere in the economy and if so how? But another common scale is the GAL-TAN scale where the predominant cleavage is how open or closed the society should be to put it simply. GAL stands for Green, Alternative, and Liberal and represents the ‘open’ end of the spectrum whereas TAN stands for Traditional, Authoritarian, and Nationalist which represents the ‘closed’ end of the spectrum. Generally, the TAN side of the scale tends try to appeal to historically significant demographies in their societies, for example Christian whites in America and blue collar workers in Sweden and foster unity in the communities which traditionally are the most important politically. GAL on the other side is less focused on unity and more focused on what is considered higher values than unity, which has the potential to bring innovation as more diverse societies can produce a wider range of ideas. In times where the world feels safe GAL is more appealing whereas TAN is more popular in dangerous times.
Now let’s give some historical examples. In the aftermath of the second world war the West broadly builds welfare systems designed to include and foster solidarity which would be crucial should there be a confrontation between the superpowers. After the wall falls the political climate shifts to be more liberal, privatisation and freer migration is considered good as the climate focuses on the potential economic gains rather than the potential social divisions. When history makes a dramatic and violent comeback in 2008 political attitudes once again start to tend more towards TAN as the unipolar moment is over and the world is slowly but surely starting to once again become multipolar.
Obviously this model is crude, political attitudes are shaped by history, demographics, religion, history and many more factors in addition to the geopolitical situation, but it might be a useful complement to more sophisticated models to explain broad changes in attitudes. The takeaway then, assuming this model is somewhat accurate, is that the liberal moment was brief and unlikely to return any time soon.
As always, the goal on the blog is to start a conversation, I have no idea if I’m right but I find this model intuitive. I believe the only way to develop intellectually is to debate so I encourage you to challenge the view I’ve laid out here and propose other models, as well as inform me of the facts I’ve overlooked.
If you want to find me I’m on Twitter @ipolecoblog, and you can find me here next week for a new blog post. If you’ve enjoyed what I’ve written please recommend the blog to anyone who might appreciate it and consider reading last week’s blog post here.
Written by Karl Johansson, founder of Ipoleco
Comments