{"id":3515122,"date":"2025-07-31T08:01:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-31T08:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/?p=3515122"},"modified":"2025-08-05T09:58:25","modified_gmt":"2025-08-05T09:58:25","slug":"human-nature-odyssey-episode-14-the-king-is-dead-now-what-the-250-year-struggle-for-democracy-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/stories\/2025-07-31\/human-nature-odyssey-episode-14-the-king-is-dead-now-what-the-250-year-struggle-for-democracy-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Human Nature Odyssey: Episode 14. The King Is Dead, Now What? The 250-Year Struggle for Democracy (Part 3)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div style=\"height:15px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-embed-handler wp-block-embed-embed-handler\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<!--[if lt IE 9]><script>document.createElement('audio');<\/script><![endif]-->\n<audio class=\"wp-audio-shortcode\" id=\"audio-3515122-1\" preload=\"none\" style=\"width: 100%;\" controls=\"controls\"><source type=\"audio\/mpeg\" src=\"https:\/\/traffic.libsyn.com\/a209e7d1-3aad-4c73-a173-b84a891831ad\/King_is_Dead_Part_3_Final.mp3?_=1\" \/><a href=\"https:\/\/traffic.libsyn.com\/a209e7d1-3aad-4c73-a173-b84a891831ad\/King_is_Dead_Part_3_Final.mp3\">https:\/\/traffic.libsyn.com\/a209e7d1-3aad-4c73-a173-b84a891831ad\/King_is_Dead_Part_3_Final.mp3<\/a><\/audio>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n<div class=\"gb-button-wrapper gb-button-wrapper-af35d9a5\">\n\n<a class=\"gb-button gb-button-736fa41c gb-button-text btn res-btn-blue\" href=\"https:\/\/open.spotify.com\/show\/0OCr2WUCRcRStp8GflvTqF\">Listen on Spotify<\/a>\n\n\n\n<a class=\"gb-button gb-button-f8db5292 gb-button-text res-btn-yellow\" href=\"\/human-nature-odyssey\/hno-episodes\/\">See all episodes<\/a>\n\n<\/div>\n\n<div class=\"gb-container gb-container-b18365bc\">\n\n<h3 class=\"gb-headline gb-headline-0f710104 gb-headline-text\">Show Notes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Breaking news: The Soviet Union has collapsed! The Berlin Wall has crumbled! Communism has fallen! Capitalism wins! USA! USA!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But wait\u2026 what\u2019s this? Russia has been overtaken by oligarchs and an authoritarian dictator. Oh no\u2026 Well, at least that could never happen in the United States. Right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is the climactic Part Three of our three-part series on the history of the left\/right political spectrum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After the youth protests of the 1960s failed to topple governments, left-wing radicalism shifted its focus\u2014from revolution to championing social equality through pop culture. But as culture wars raged, neoliberalism\u2014liberalism and capitalism\u2019s love child\u2014conquered the globe, fueling deregulation, rising corporate power, and deepening economic divides that hollowed out democracy itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Just three decades after the Cold War, the old adversaries\u2014Russia and the U.S.\u2014found themselves on eerily parallel paths, ushering in a new era of oligarchy and a return to right-wing rule\u2014like the one the French Revolution fought against all those years ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Join us as we trace how the world drifted from dreams of liberation to authoritarian control\u2014and how a new generation began planting the seeds of liberty and equality once again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"gb-headline gb-headline-26c5b97c gb-headline-text\">Citations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Articles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cVietnam War.\u201d Encyclopaedia Britannica.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cVietnam War U.S. Military Fatal Casualty Statistics.\u201d National Archives.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thatcher, Margaret. Speech to the Conservative Women\u2019s Conference. May 21, 1980.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Wong, Edward. \u201cChina\u2019s Black Cat, White Cat Diplomacy.\u201d Foreign Policy, July 10, 2009.<a href=\"https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/2009\/07\/10\/chinas-black-cat-white-cat-diplomacy\/\">&nbsp;<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reagan, Ronald. Speech at Reagan-Bush Rally in Warren, Michigan. October 10, 1984.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cDistribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989.\u201d Federal Reserve.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Davidson, Amy. \u201cExploring Occupy Wall Street\u2019s Adbusters Origins.\u201d NPR, October 20, 2011.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cYouth Voting in 2016 Primaries and Caucuses.\u201d CIRCLE, Tufts University.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Kestenbaum, David. \u201cHow Shock Therapy Created Russian Oligarchs and Paved the Path for Putin.\u201d NPR, March 22, 2022.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Steele, Jonathan. \u201cHow Football Conquered Russia.\u201d The Guardian, July 2, 2003.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Harding, Luke. \u201cRoman Abramovich: The Billionaire Oligarch with a Backstory Shrouded in Secrecy.\u201d The Guardian, March 21, 2022.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Keats, Jonathon. \u201cDesign of Dissent.\u201d Forbes, October 28, 2019.<a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/jonathonkeats\/2019\/10\/28\/design-of-dissent\/\">&nbsp;<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Birnbaum, Michael. \u201cOccupy Wall Street Protests Go Global.\u201d The Washington Post, October 15, 2011.<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/europe\/occupy-wall-street-protests-go-global\/2011\/10\/15\/gIQAp7kimL_story.html\">&nbsp;<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Jojo Rabbit. 2019. Directed by Taika Waititi.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n<\/div>\n\n<div class=\"gb-container gb-container-3cd5d471\">\n<div class=\"gb-grid-wrapper gb-grid-wrapper-06dd3dcf\">\n<div class=\"gb-grid-column gb-grid-column-db5cb743\"><div class=\"gb-container gb-container-db5cb743\">\n\n<h3 class=\"gb-headline gb-headline-feb2560d gb-headline-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/stories\/2025-08-04\/the-king-is-dead-now-what-the-250-year-struggle-for-democracy\/\">Live Event: The King Is Dead, Now What?: The 250-Year Struggle for Democracy<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"gb-headline gb-headline-87245627\"><span class=\"gb-icon\"><svg width=\"28\" height=\"28\" viewBox=\"0 0 28 28\" fill=\"none\"> <path d=\"M19 4H5C3.89543 4 3 4.89543 3 6V20C3 21.1046 3.89543 22 5 22H19C20.1046 22 21 21.1046 21 20V6C21 4.89543 20.1046 4 19 4Z\" stroke=\"#333\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\" fill=\"none\"><\/path> <path d=\"M16 2V6\" stroke=\"#333\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\" fill=\"none\"><\/path> <path d=\"M8 2V6\" stroke=\"#333\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\" fill=\"none\"><\/path> <path d=\"M3 10H21\" stroke=\"#333\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\" fill=\"none\"><\/path> <\/svg><\/span><span class=\"gb-headline-text\"><strong>September 10, 2025<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"font-size:16px\">Join us for a&nbsp;<strong>live online conversation<\/strong>&nbsp;inspired by&nbsp;the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/human-nature-odyssey-podcast\/\"><strong>Human Nature Odyssey podcast<\/strong><\/a> tracing the long arc of the global battle between monarchy and revolution, authoritarianism and democracy, hierarchy and equality. Featuring podcast host <strong>Alex Leff<\/strong>, historian <strong>Dan Hoyer<\/strong>, and Post Carbon Institute&#8217;s <strong>Asher Miller<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n<div class=\"gb-grid-column gb-grid-column-8c5d6f76\"><div class=\"gb-container gb-container-8c5d6f76\">\n\n<figure class=\"gb-block-image gb-block-image-19564f23\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/stories\/2025-08-04\/the-king-is-dead-now-what-the-250-year-struggle-for-democracy\/\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1021\" height=\"718\" class=\"gb-image gb-image-19564f23 inset-image\" src=\"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Pierre-Antoine_Demachy_Une_execution_capitale_place_de_Revolution_ca_1793.jpg\" alt=\"Pierre-Antoine Demachy (1723-1807). &quot;Ex\u00e9cution capitale, place de la R\u00e9volution&quot;.\" title=\"EXECUTION CAPITALE, PLACE DE LA REVOLUTION\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Pierre-Antoine_Demachy_Une_execution_capitale_place_de_Revolution_ca_1793.jpg 1021w, https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Pierre-Antoine_Demachy_Une_execution_capitale_place_de_Revolution_ca_1793-284x200.jpg 284w, https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Pierre-Antoine_Demachy_Une_execution_capitale_place_de_Revolution_ca_1793-768x540.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Pierre-Antoine_Demachy_Une_execution_capitale_place_de_Revolution_ca_1793-600x422.jpg 600w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1021px) 100vw, 1021px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<a class=\"gb-button gb-button-70e07321 gb-button-text res-btn-yellow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/stories\/2025-08-04\/the-king-is-dead-now-what-the-250-year-struggle-for-democracy\/\">Register Now<\/a>\n\n<\/div>\n\n<div class=\"gb-container gb-container-56563437\">\n\n<h3 class=\"gb-headline gb-headline-a2455810 gb-headline-text\">Credits<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Theme Music is \u201cCelestial Soda Pop\u201d (<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/amazon.com\/music\/player\/albums\/B000QQXURI\"><em>Amazon<\/em><\/a><em>, <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/music.apple.com\/us\/album\/celestial-soda-pop\/3242445?i=3242425\"><em>iTunes<\/em><\/a><em>, <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/open.spotify.com\/track\/2THDVIVytLuGX7S7UghuC1?si=20ea63807bba401f\"><em>Spotify<\/em><\/a><em>) by Ray Lynch, from the album: Deep Breakfast. Courtesy Ray Lynch Productions (C)(P) 1984\/BMI. All rights reserved.<\/em><\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-pb-accordion-item c-accordion__item js-accordion-item no-js\" data-initially-open=\"false\" data-click-to-close=\"true\" data-auto-close=\"true\" data-scroll=\"false\" data-scroll-offset=\"0\"><h3 id=\"at-35151220\" class=\"c-accordion__title js-accordion-controller\" role=\"button\">Transcript<\/h3><div id=\"ac-35151220\" class=\"c-accordion__content\">\n<pre class=\"wp-block-preformatted\">Hey, how\u2019s it going? Welcome to France in the year 1789. Everyone\u2019s got an opinion on the king these days. You know the king: Louis the 16th! Yeah I know that\u2019s a lot of Louis\u2019s. But that\u2019s because we\u2019ve had a lot of kings.<br><br>And it\u2019s not just us - there\u2019s been kings all over the world. For thousands of years, there\u2019s been people living under one king or another - one guy who more or less tells everyone else what to do. <br><br>And I know I\u2019m just a baguette baker living off a modest income in the suburbs of Paris [pronounce it \u2018Paree\u2019] but it seems to me only natural to have a king. <br><br>What, you don\u2019t like kings? Well, it\u2019s easy to hate the idea of there being a king when you hate the actual king, but what if the king was a really great guy? What if the king did everything pretty much how you\u2019d want him to? Heck, exactly how you\u2019d want him to! What if the king\u2019s top priorities were YOUR top priorities, and he was going to take care of them right away? Doesn\u2019t sound so bad after all, huh? <br><br>Nowadays, people \u2018round town are calling the king a tyrant. But hey\u2026 what\u2019s so wrong with a tyrant? It\u2019s like a stern father. My pops always told me, \u201cthis house is not a democracy!\u201d You know, I was a rambunctious little lad. Always spoke my mind. Papa would give me the ol\u2019 strap, and get me back in line - and I didn\u2019t turn out too shabby! The king is like a disciplinary father for the whole country. And I don\u2019t see any problem with that, do you?<br><br>Ah I see, you\u2019re thinking\u2026 but what if you\u2019re stuck with a king you don\u2019t like? Well then just swap him out for a king you do like. [like it\u2019s the most obvious, easy thing] You know, perform a little coup d'etat, a quick little royal overhaul. Maybe a bit of poison here, a minor beheading there, and install the king you\u2019ve always dreamed of. <br><br>It\u2019s a perfect system. Well, unless someone else doesn\u2019t like the new king you picked and they perform their own royal overhaul, stage their own little violent coup, and boom, just like that, you\u2019re back to another king you don\u2019t like. That does happen. Guess you gotta just do another coup again.<br><br>No, I know, I\u2019m no dummy - this is ridiculous. Endless violence! Okay, let\u2019s simplify things: how bout the next king will be this current king\u2019s son - end of conversation. We\u2019ll call it a holy mandate from heaven. And hey, I bet the king\u2019s son certainly thinks that\u2019s a good idea. Keep it in the family. It\u2019s like a mom and pop family business. Some families own a laundromat, some families own a kingdom.<br><br>But damn, I gotta say, some of these sons end up being real duds. Louis the 16th ain\u2019t nothing like Louis the 14th. Is it just me or is Louis the 16th, the current King of France, just not up to the task?<br><br>Oh wow, it is not just me. Woah! Did they just? Holy crap, did they just kill ol\u2019 King Louis? Oh man, oh man, it\u2019s been a while since we had a king killing. Back to the drawing board. Who\u2019s gonna king it up, next? <br><br>Alright, they\u2019re calling a National Assembly. Not sure what that is but my landlord asked me to go in his place. Sounds important\u2026 I should probably go to this thing. Jeez, this place is packed. The clergy\u2019s here, yep, aristocracy, hey guys, [whistles] they even let other commoners in. At least it\u2019s the wealthier ones. [under the breath]<br><br>C\u2019mon, there\u2019s barely any seats left. Okay, I\u2019ll sit on the left side of the hall over here. Is this - is this chair wobbly? Hey, hey how\u2019s it going? <br><br>Jacques: Bonjour monsieur, je m\u2019appelle Jacques. <br><br>Hey Jack, nice to meet ya. Thanks, yeah, I\u2019ll have a swig of that. So, uh, who you think the next king should be? <br><br>Jacques: Moi? Non. I don\u2019t think there should be a king at all. I believe France should be a democracy! <br><br>A what?!<br><br>[intro theme music]<br><br>Welcome to Human Nature Odyssey. In this three part series we\u2019re exploring the history of the left \/ right political spectrum and the 250 year struggle for democracy. This is part three. <br><br>I\u2019m Alex Leff.<br><br>This is part three in our three part series on the ideologies that shaped our modern world-system: liberalism, conservatism, and radicalism. <br><br>Before we get to the next part of our story, first we need a summary of the ground we\u2019ve already covered.<br><br>As you may recall, at the onset of the French Revolution in 1789, a National Assembly was \u2026 assembled. Those in favor of keeping the monarchy sat on the literal right-wing of the hall, and those in favor of democracy sat on the left-wing. Yup, that\u2019s where we get the whole right-wing \/ left-wing thing. <br><br>We often think of the political spectrum as a binary between two poles, the left and the right. But sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein (who we\u2019ve discussed in previous episodes), suggests politics since the French Revolution hasn\u2019t been shaped just by two poles, but three separate ideologies: the right, the left, and a third thing. A political triad rather than a binary. <br><br>First let\u2019s talk about the right, which since the early 1800s has also been known as conservatism. Generally speaking, right-wing conservatism believes that traditional values, social hierarchy, and strong authority bring prosperity, keep people safe, and help society run smoothly. <br><br>Then, there\u2019s the left, which originally was also known as radicalism. Now, in this historical context, radicalism doesn\u2019t mean extremism. Every ideology can be more extreme or more moderate, flexible or rigid. <br><br>The reason radicalism was originally called radicalism was because the word \u201cradical\u201d comes from the Latin radix, which means \u201croot\u201d and left-wing radicals wanted root-level changes. What kind of root level changes? Well, left-wing radicalism - also generally speaking - believes that social and economic equality are the best way to bring prosperity, keep people safe, and society running smoothly. <br><br>So that\u2019s the right wing and the left wing. But there\u2019s another wing, or\u2026 thing, uh, ideology. It\u2019s liberalism. <br><br>Liberalism is different from the right-wing or left-wing. Sometimes people call it \u201cthe center.\u201d But I think that actually just confuses things. Liberalism isn\u2019t just the middle ground between the right and left - it\u2019s its own ideology with its own beliefs. What beliefs? Liberalism - again, general speaking - believes in individual freedom, laws that apply to everyone, and a society based on merit, not bloodlines. The best way to do that, most liberals agreed, was by letting the market decide who contributed the most value to society and let those people rise through the ranks. Therefore capitalism, which also relied on the market, became liberalism\u2019s best friend. Individual freedom, universal laws, and merit - liberalism believes - that\u2019s the best way to bring prosperity, keep people safe, and society running smoothly. <br><br>Oh dang, wait, we all want safety, prosperity, and a well-functioning society? Oh wow, we should all get together and work on this sometime. Maybe we could even get along. <br><br>These three ideologies, three perspectives, three strategies, have been competing for the last two and half centuries, to implement their vision on creating a better society.<br><br>Now, if you\u2019re thinking to yourself, this guy\u2019s got it all wrong, what\u2019s he talking about, three ideologies? Liberal, conservative, and radicals, that\u2019s not how I would explain it. Well that makes sense. For something as widespread and personal as politics, we all have our own associations and definitions for these common terms. I\u2019m proposing this as one framework among many. Not necessarily better, but hopefully illuminating some things other frameworks can't. And of course this framework is by necessity simplistic. These ideologies are not monoliths. Conservatives can disagree with conservatives. Radicals can be at odds with other radicals - in fact, they often are. Reality is always messier and more complicated. This framework is just a map, really. A good map can help us navigate but it's not the real territory, just symbols. If you don\u2019t take your eyes off the map, and look at where you actually are, you might fall down a manhole or drive into a lake. <br><br>That being said, it\u2019s easy to get lost without a map. And if we\u2019re trying to tell the story of the last 250 year long struggle for democracy, this three ideology map may illuminate some details and nuance other maps can\u2019t. <br><br>So we\u2019re two thirds of the way through our story. If you haven\u2019t listened to Part One or Part Two, hey that\u2019s fine. I\u2019m not here to judge. How \u2018bout this? I\u2019ll give ya a quick summary and then we\u2019ll all be up to speed. <br><br>Okay, so, in Part One we watched as the ideals of the French Revolution spread like wildfire across Europe. In 1848, most countries in Europe were ablaze in revolution, with liberals and radicals teaming up to overthrow the conservative monarchies. But when liberals felt radicals were going too far, liberals joined with conservatives to reinstall the right-wing monarchies and the revolutions smoldered.  <br><br>Liberalism - which again, wasn\u2019t left or right but its own ideology - found a few countries where their ideal form of government could take hold on its own. <br><br>The United States\u2013that up and coming new nation across the ocean\u2013demonstrated what a liberal democracy could look like\u2013even if only a segment of the population was initially allowed to participate. And here\u2019s something crucial to remember: what Americans call liberal and conservative, the left and the right, were essentially just different shades of liberalism. That means support for free markets, individual freedoms, and a constitutional government. Democrats and Republicans alike have generally upheld these core ideals of liberalism.<br><br>So if you\u2019re someone who identifies as a conservative because you support free markets and individual freedoms, within this framework we can consider that still a part of liberalism. Maybe we can call it conservative liberalism. Actual right-wing conservatism, like the right-wing of the French National Assembly, believes in top down authoritarian rule. And for much of American history, the actual right-wing and actual left-wing were only marginally influential. Most of American history is a history of what we\u2019re calling liberalism.<br><br>By the end of the 1800s, the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands had adopted versions of liberalism as well. <br><br>Various forms of left-wing radicalism, like communism, socialism, and anarchism were pushed underground, mostly organizing in secret. That was until World War I. In 1917, there was a revolution in Russia. Well actually, there were two. And by the end, Vladimir Lenin\u2019s radical Bolshevik party seized power and within a few years, formed the Soviet Union. Left-wing Radicalism, in the form of Soviet-style communism, finally had its own government to implement its ideals.<br><br>World War I ended in 1919, and as a result, many conservative monarchies either collapsed or had their power greatly reduced. But those who longed for a return to the more traditional strong top-down authority of the monarchies, rallied around a new expression of right-wing ideology: fascism. <br><br>Like we talked about in the last episode, fascism is kind of like first fen monarchy, same dictatorial power, emphasis on hierarchy, and conservative social values, just without the long history to back it up. <br><br>Then came World War II. The liberal countries allied with the radical Soviet Union and ultimately, the allies defeated the right-wing regimes.<br><br>After the war\u2019s global devastation, two superpowers emerged: the United States and the Soviet Union. Liberalism and radicalism\u2019s temporary alliance to fight right-wing fascism was over. <br><br>Since a direct war between the US and Soviet Union would risk global nuclear annihilation, these two superpowers fought each other indirectly, often by supporting their ideological allies in local civil wars, like in Vietnam.<br><br>Before long, The Soviet Union seemed to abandon its radical principles and ended up looking an awful lot like an authoritarian state. And the United States - with its violent meddling in other countries\u2019 democracies, and crackdowns against its own social movements - wasn't really living up to its ideals of freedom and democracy either. <br><br>By the 1960s, a new generation protested the hypocrisy of both liberal and radical governments for abandoning the principles of freedom, democracy, or equality they claimed to be committed to. <br><br>And that\u2019s where we last left off. <br><br>In Taiko Watiti\u2019s 2019 satirical film, Jojo Rabbit, we follow a boy named Jojo, who\u2019s a member of the Hitler Youth during World War II. Jojo has been fully indoctrinated into the Nazi Party and he frequently talks with his imaginary best friend: a goofy version of Adolf Hitler. But when Jojo finds a Jewish girl named Elsa hiding in his attic, his entire worldview is thrown into question. He actually likes this Jewish girl, even though he\u2019s been brought up to hate her. He can\u2019t be friends with her. He\u2019s a Nazi.<br><br>But Elsa is a few years older than Jojo and a lot wiser. She tells him, \u201cYou're not a Nazi, Jojo. You're a ten-year-old kid who likes dressing up in a funny uniform and wants to be part of a club.\u201d<br><br>People are not their ideology. People are people. People can wear ideology like a funny uniform and they can change the clothes they wear. <br><br>When we talk about the three ideologies: liberals, conservatives, and radicals, know that we are talking about people whose opinions and perspectives have been shaped by the world around them. No matter what we think of their ideology, we can learn a lot more by always seeing their humanity. If we want to curse or condemn anyone, it\u2019s the ideological gods who are to blame. The gods? Oh don\u2019t worry, we\u2019ll hear from them again in a bit. <br><br>Okay so finally we can start Part 3 of the story. Where were we? Ah yeah, 1960s, youth protests, got it. The youth protests of the 1960s, along with the social movements of its time,  could be considered part of the left-wing radical tradition, which originally called for a total restructuring of society around social and economic equality. <br><br>By the 1960s, the word radical often meant extremism, instead of referring to the left wing ideology. So, for the sake of clarity, I\u2019m going to refer to left-wing radicalism as simply the left from here on out. <br><br>But while the left didn\u2019t topple any governments, it found it could shift the system from within through various social movements of the time: like the antiwar protests, civil rights movement, second-wave feminism, the gay rights movement, the early environmental movement.<br><br>In the United States, the terms \u201cleft-wing\u201d and \u201cliberal\u201d are often used interchangeably. But this isn\u2019t the case in many similar countries and blurs an important distinction. Remember, using our three ideology map, we can see the left and liberalism are separate ideologies with their own goals and perspectives. The left was focused on equality. Liberalism became increasingly focused on capitalism. <br><br>And here\u2019s why that distinction matters. After the 1960s, the left learned it was much easier to win fights for social equality \u2014 like civil rights or gay rights \u2014 than it was to win fights for economic equality. Social change could fit into capitalism. Economic change could not.<br><br>The left found that if it couldn\u2019t hold economic or political power, it could at least shape the culture. Rather than toppling governments, activists focused on changing people\u2019s minds\u2013through art, education, and pop culture. This long, peaceful campaign came to be called the culture wars. Culture wars are not fought with bullets, but with cool. And in many ways, this was a battle the left was actually winning. <br><br>This wasn\u2019t organized by some top-down strategy. It unfolded gradually, through a decentralized, non-hierarchical movement over the course of decades. <br><br>By the time I was growing up in the 1990s and early 2000s, classic left-wing ideals of equality and inclusion were pretty much the cultural norm. Posters on our classroom walls promoted multiracial diversity, you know the ones, with all the different colored hands reaching around the globe. Star Wars, which had only become more culturally influential since its release in the 1970s, portrayed authoritarian empire as the ultimate evil. The once controversial left-wing radical Martin Luther King Jr. had become universally revered. It seemed to me that outright sexism and racism (though of course still prevalent) were not generally taught as cool or to be admired. <br><br>But while the left defined cultural cool in the United States, liberalism still dominated its government, the politicians, and its policies. Liberalism and left-wing started this interesting dance. And liberalism continued to argue that free-market capitalism was simply the most effective economic system. So while advocating for economic equality was a no-go for liberalism, liberalism could stomach the left-wing\u2019s cultural influence\u2026 if the left was willing to accept capitalism. In fact, liberalism found that plenty of the left-wing\u2019s cultural changes worked in capitalism\u2019s favor. Instead of women staying at home, now the workforce has doubled! And thank god because soon the cost of living will be so high few families will be able to survive off of just one paycheck anyway. <br><br>And you know what? Diversity isn\u2019t so bad after all. We can sell all sorts of products to the groups we used to pretend didn\u2019t exist. On Pride Month our rainbow flag sales will be through the roof! It turned out capitalism was totally fine with you criticizing capitalism. \u2018Yeah go ahead, protest me, it\u2019ll be fun. I have some anti-capitalist shirts you can buy.\u2019. <br><br>While authoritarianism resists change, capitalism co-opts it.<br>And compared to communism, by the late 20th century capitalism was looking pretty dang good. <br><br>Remember the Vietnam War back in the 1960s? The United States had spent over a trillion dollars (in today\u2019s money) fighting communism in Vietnam. Nearly 60,000 Americans and over a million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed. But the United States, with all its military might, could not defeat communism in Vietnam. When the US withdrew in 1973, communists soon took control and named the country the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. But by the 1980s, Vietnam was struggling with serious economic challenges. <br><br>Decades of war and international isolation had left Vietnam\u2019s economy painfully slow to recover. The government\u2019s system \u2014 a centrally planned economy modeled after Soviet Communism \u2014 only made things harder, eventually pushing Vietnam to embrace private enterprise and foreign investment. After all that, communism in Vietnam wasn\u2019t defeated by military force, but by economic pressure. <br><br>In 1980, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said of capitalism\u2019s mix with liberalism, \u201cthere is no alternative,\u201d and when the Soviet Union finally fell in 1991 and the brand new Russian Federation embraced capitalism, it seemed she might be right. <br>Just like that the Cold War was over. To many people around the world, capitalism appeared undeniably more efficient and stable, promising greater prosperity for more people. <br><br>Deng Xiaoping, leader of the Communist Party in China, had helped reform China\u2019s economy to allow more free-market policies. Deng quoted an old Chinese proverb that says \u2018it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, if it catches mice it is a good cat.\u2019\u201d Capitalism seemed to work better than Communism, and that was good enough for Deng.  <br><br>And in South Africa, Nelson Mandela\u2019s African National Congress had long been closely aligned with communism. But when Mandela was released from prison and elected president in 1994, he too found himself pressured into embracing capitalism. <br>With communism in decline around the world, and capitalism seen as the only functioning model, even leaders who once imagined different futures faced enormous pressure to stick to the dominant capitalist system. <br><br>Remember those ideological gods from the last episode? Well at this point in history, we can imagine the god of liberalism was feeling pretty dang good. <br><br>Liberalism: So uh, Right-Wing Conservatism, you haven\u2019t really been a global super power since World War II. And Left-Wing Radicalism, ever since the Soviet Union collapsed, you lost your super power as well, since let\u2019s face it, your system didn\u2019t work. Your people couldn\u2019t even get reliable cars, let alone enough food to eat <br><br>Radicalism: Well actually in Scandinavian countries, they use a mix of capitalism and socialism-<br><br>Liberalism: Shut up, shut up\u2026 That\u2019s not radicalism. <br><br>Radicalism: Sure it is. Left wing economics, strong social safety nets.<br><br>Conservatism: Doesn\u2019t sound so radical. That sounds pragmatic. <br><br>Radicalism: Yeah that\u2019s what I\u2019m talking about! Radicalism doesn\u2019t mean extremism, it means social and economic equality. Haven\u2019t you been listening to the podcast?<br><br>Liberalism: Listen, Scandinavia Shmandanavia\u2026 that\u2019s just some little social experiments. Looks like I\u2019m the last one standing. And you know how I did it? You wanna know how I kicked your guys\u2019 ass? I owe it all to capitalism. Gimme dat free market and private enterprise. Mmm, I love me some capitalism. In fact, I\u2019d like to announce it right now [clears throat] me and capitalism? We\u2019re getting married. Yep, and I\u2019m changing my name. I would like to now be known\u2026 as neoliberalism. <br><br>Radicalism: Oh great, what a cool name\u2026 <br><br>Liberalism: Shut up Commie - why don\u2019t you go back to the Soviet Union if you hate capitalism so much? Oh wait, you can\u2019t! The Soviet Union doesn\u2019t exist anymore! And how\u2019s Communist China doing? I hear they\u2019re becoming pretttttty capitalistic these days\u2026<br><br>Radicalism: Man, will you let it go? The Soviet Union and China don\u2019t have a monopoly on what it means to be left-wing. <br><br>Liberalism: Oh hey radicalism? You know what neoliberalism is gonna do next? <br><br>Radicalism: \u2026what?<br><br>Liberalism: The exact opposite of whatever the Soviet Union did! The Soviet Union tried to control its market, suffocating it with authoritarian policies. But me? Neoliberalism? I\u2019m the ideology of freedom, man. That\u2019s what I\u2019m all about. Private enterprise has to be free to do its thing. The government\u2019s got to get out of the way and I know the US, the world\u2019s hegemonic superpower, my knight in shining armor, understands me, right guys?<br><br>In the 1980s, US President Ronald Reagan, one of the patron saints of neoliberalism, liked to say, \u201cthat government is best which governs least\u201d. There are all these regulations out there that are just holding business back. So when Reaganites set about cutting regulations, and as a result, the stock market soared. Some people made a lot of money. But for most of the country, wages stagnated and public services were cut. But don\u2019t worry, Reagan said, we gotta let businesses make as much money as possible so their wealth can trickle down. I mean, who wouldn\u2019t want to be trickled on? <br><br>Oh and we need free trade. We gotta make sure goods and services can move freely across borders. <br><br>And by the 1990s, both major U.S. parties\u2013Democrats and Republicans\u2013were fully onboard with neoliberalism. <br><br>Democratic President Bill Clinton agreed. Different party but same neoliberal ideology. So in the 1990s, Clinton passed some free trade agreements with other countries which sped up the rise of multinational corporations. Those corporations relocated their production to whatever countries had fewest regulations and the cheapest labor. This was great for CEOs and shareholders but it wasn\u2019t that great for workers whose jobs got shipped overseas. <br><br>Then in the 2000s, Republican President - George W. Bush - picked up neoliberalism where Reagan and Clinton left off. \u201cAlright guys, just a few more free trade agreements to sign. Oh, gotta cut these taxes for the high-income earners. I\u2019m sure that wealth will start trickling down anytime now. And, what\u2019s this? Hey guys, I found some regulations you missed! Don\u2019t worry, don\u2019t worry, I got it. Slashed \u2018em. <br><br>Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, were all true believers of neoliberalism - of course, it didn\u2019t hurt that their corporate donors and lobbyists were fans of neoliberalism too. <br>Liberalism: Man, these US Presidents are geniuses! This is so great! Now companies can finally be free to make as much money as humanly possible. <br><br>Radicalism: Uh, Liberalism? <br><br>Liberalism: Check out all these housing loans banks are offering! <br><br>Conservatism: Liberalism\u2026<br><br>Liberalism: Do you see these interest rates? The banks are gonna make a fortune!<br><br>Conservatism and Radicalism: Liberalism!!<br><br>Liberalism: What?!<br><br>In 2007, the housing bubble began to burst, which is such a fun childlike metaphor for a very serious adult disaster. <br>One of the largest investment banks went bankrupt, with ripple effects around the world. <br><br>Liberalism: No, no, no! Shit, shit! My beautiful stock market!<br><br>People lost their jobs. Families lost their homes. The entire global capitalist economy went into what would be called the Great Recession. <br><br>And in 2008 Democratic President Barack Obama was elected, and despite being called a leftist communist radical by his Republican opponents, Obama\u2019s economic policies, were very similar to his predecessors: neoliberal as apple pie. <br><br>The Obama Administration implemented the bailout that the George W Bush administration had proposed. This wasn\u2019t a bailout for the average person - it was a bailout for the same financial institutions that caused the recession in the first place. <br>While this averted a more serious economic collapse, most Americans still felt the effects of the recession for years. Even after Obama\u2019s stimulus package for the middle class a year later, the recovery was slow. By the 2010s, the top 1% of the country\u2019s population held over a third of the wealth.<br><br>Radicalism: Wow Liberalism, are you happy now? Wasn\u2019t free market capitalism supposed to make the world better for everyone? All this wealth inequality reminds me a little bit of France under Louis the 16th.<br><br>Conservatism: Pretty ironic\u2026 wouldn\u2019t you say, liberalism?.<br><br>In Part One of this series, we talked about how in 1848 in Palermo, Sicily, a radical prankster put up flyers that said \u2018tomorrow there will be a revolution\u2019 and that helped spark the revolutions of 1848. Well, in the summer of 2011, the radical magazine Adbusters put out a provocative flyer that read \u201c#occupywallstreet. September 17th. Bring tent.\u201d<br><br>Now just the day before, if you asked almost anyone they would\u2019ve dismissed this as some sort of performance art. But, on September 17th, over a thousand people showed up to occupy a public square near Wall Street - the US\u2019s financial capital in New York. And they brought a tent. <br><br>There wasn\u2019t one leader and people participated for a wide range of reasons. But a major rallying cry was to protest wealth inequality. <br><br>Occupy  took inspiration from the pro-democracy mass protests of the short-lived Arab Spring earlier that year, when millions of people across the Middle East and North Africa protested their authoritarian governments. Within a month, there were over 900 occupy protests in over 80 countries. <br><br>I had just graduated high school and was working on a conservation corps in the Pacific Northwest. We only got occasional news about it all when we\u2019d head into town once every other week and caught a glimpse of a newspaper. I was eager to see what it was all about when I got out. But I read how protesters were met with riot police and tear gas canisters. Cities brought in bulldozers to clear the demonstrations. By the time I returned from the woods, just a few months later, the occupations had mostly come to a snuffed out end. <br><br>Occupy did not fix wealth inequality or dismantle capitalism but it did bring the classic economic left-wing critiques that had been sidelined for so long, back from the political fringes into the mainstream. <br><br>So during the 2016 US presidential campaign for the Democratic nomination, a grumpy old senator with unkempt white hair named Bernie Sanders shocked the country with his overwhelming popularity with young people \u2013 among 18 to 29 year olds, he won 60-80% of the vote depending on the state. <br><br>Bernie\u2019s politics, unlike almost every other major presidential candidate for over half a century, came from the actual left-wing. But rather than calling for a completely new system\u2013as traditional radicalism would\u2013he pushed for reforms from within\u2013through peaceful and democratic means. So does this make him a liberal or radical? Well, somewhere in between. <br><br>While communism seeks collective or state control of the market, and neoliberalism promotes deregulation and privatization, Bernie advocated for a kind of a balance \u2013 encouraging a competitive free market but with strong regulations, higher taxes on the wealthy, and expanding social programs like healthcare, education, affordable housing, and social security. He called this\u2026 democratic socialism. <br><br>In other countries, this is usually called social democracy, and versions of it have been in place since the post\u2013World War II era in countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, and Uruguay.<br><br>These kinds of policies even once had a home in the United States, believe it or not, through Franklin D. Roosevelt\u2019s New Deal, which significantly expanded government programs to help Americans recover from the Great Depression. <br><br>While many older Americans were used to socialism being associated with Soviet Union authoritarianism, a new generation was free of that Cold War baggage. And though Bernie Sanders lost in the Democratic primary, It was the closest the left-wing had come to real power in the United States for decades. But Bernie Sanders\u2019s neoliberal Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton didn\u2019t win that election either. Someone else did. <br><br>But before we get to that, let\u2019s check in on the US\u2019s old Cold War rival Russia, and see what they\u2019ve been up to. <br><br>At one time, Russia had been the last place in Europe you\u2019d have expected a communist revolution. And at the height of the Soviet Union, it was the last place you\u2019d have expected capitalism to flourish. But Russia likes to surprise you.<br><br>By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union\u2019s economy was seriously struggling, so it began gradually allowing people to open small-scale businesses for the very first time. You know, just a touch of private enterprise, a little dash of the free market. <br><br>But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia\u2019s leader, Boris Yeltsin, decided what Russia needed was some of its own neoliberalism. He called it \u2018shock therapy\u2019 capitalism. The old Soviet-run industries, like manufacturing, mining, the media, all of a sudden were sold to the highest bidder. It was like Russia was having an estate sale for the now dead Soviet Union. Russia even brought in western advisors to help show them how to do capitalism.<br><br>LIBERALISM: Oh thank god! Russia is finally a capitalist country. Nothing strengthens democracy like capitalism. This is amazing! Russia will finally be free! <br><br>CONSERVATISM AND RADICALISM: Yeah, yeah, yeah\u2026<br><br>LIBERALISM: Oh, and now that Russia is capitalist, it can finally have its own rags to riches stories! <br><br>And boy did it. Here\u2019s one of them. <br><br>Poor little Roman Abramovich, born in 1966, orphaned at the age of three, grew up in the howling cold of northern Russia. By the time he was a young man, the Soviet Union had started allowing people to open their own small businesses, so he started selling rubber duckies out of his apartment. It was an honest living. (this is a true story by the way)<br><br>When communism collapsed, Abramovich graduated from duckies to bigger and better, but less fun and whimsical things\u2013 like oil, aluminum, and airlines. And when Russia started auctioning off its old state-run industries, he bought them. A lot of them. He soon became one of the wealthiest men in the country. He bought his fair share of sports cars, a couple superyachts, the UK\u2019s Chelsea soccer team, a 15-bedroom mansion and penthouse suites around the world, and then spent hundreds of millions of dollars worth of his own money to be elected governor of Russia\u2019s Chukotka region. <br><br>Not every Russian was so fortunate. Basic food prices soared. Many went hungry. But this wasn\u2019t communism anymore - this was the free market baby - you wanna eat? You gotta compete. <br><br>And Abramovich and his fellow extremely rich businessmen were winning the competition. They owned the news, they bribed - uh, I mean influenced - politicians to pass the laws they wanted, and like Abramovich became politicians themselves. <br><br>Soon a lot of people argued that Russia wasn\u2019t really a democracy, but an oligarchy\u2013a government run by the wealthy.<br><br>LIBERALISM: Damn\u2026 so does neoliberalism inevitably accumulate wealth in fewer and fewer hands that control more and more of the government until democracy is completely eroded? That\u2019s such a bummer \u2018cause I always liked to think of myself as the ideal ideology of democracy. Conservatism, whether you were monarchism or fascism, you were openly authoritarian. <br><br>CONSERVATISM: So what?<br><br>LIBERALISM: And radicalism, I know you said you didn\u2019t want to become authoritarian, but the Soviet Union certainly was. But it turns out\u2026 I can become authoritarian too?! That capitalism without limits doesn\u2019t lead to more democracy but to oligarchy?! Man, I was so focused on the government not being authoritarian that I didn\u2019t realize that the wealthy could become authoritarian through their wealth and end up buying the government. <br><br>RADICALISM: I tried to warn you, when a system prioritizes accumulating more wealth for the wealthy, eroding the social safety net, shipping jobs overseas or exploiting workers at home, the masses suffer.<br><br>CONSERVATISM: And when populations become desperate, strong leaders become more popular. <br><br>When Boris Yeltsin resigned, Russians turned to this charming bald guy named Vladimir Putin and elected him president in 2000.<br><br>CONSERVATISM: You know I like this Putin guy. He stands up for traditional values, not all those radical ones. Plus have you seen that pic with him riding a horse without his shirt on? Pretty manly\u2026<br><br>Putin promised to restore Russia\u2019s economy and stand up to the oligarchy. In reality, he worked with it\u2013punishing oligarchs who opposed him and rewarding those who were loyal. <br><br>Putin was only allowed to be president for a maximum of eight years. But with help from his trusty oligarchs, eight years turned to fourteen, fourteen years turned to twenty-four, and just like that\u2013oops, if Putin keeps this up he\u2019ll be in power as long as Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin combined. <br><br>Also, isn\u2019t it a weird coincidence that his critics and political opponents keep dying of poison, falling out of windows, or being sent to prison?<br><br>Neoliberal oligarchy, it turned out, was actually the perfect breeding ground for right-wing authoritarianism, mirroring the relationship between the monarchs and aristocratic nobility of old. <br><br>LIBERALISM: Then that means\u2026 oh god, we gotta go tell the United States! Those guys love Neoliberalism! <br><br>In the United States, while the left-wing was gaining some modest political momentum in its critique of capitalism by the late 2010s and early 2020s, the real right-wing (the kind that would have sat on the right wing of the old French national assembly) started gaining traction with an almost similar critique\u2013but using used different words. <br><br>Instead of railing against the 1%, the right-wing resurgence blamed coastal elites. Instead of saying they opposed free trade, they said they were for economic nationalism. Instead of denouncing neoliberalism, denounced globalism. Their enemies weren\u2019t \u2018capitalists\u2019 \u2013 they were globalists. <br><br>While the left shared memes like \u201ceat the rich,\u201d the right chanted \u201cdrain the swamp\u201d - calling out a corrupt, self-serving establishment that had betrayed the country. Kinda sounds like the left-wing view, doesn\u2019t it?<br><br>But this wasn\u2019t just a difference in rhetoric. You say tomato, I say tamahto. This was a crucial ideological difference in priorities. <br><br>In the right\u2019s view, the real problem with society wasn\u2019t economic injustice\u2013it was the left-wing\u2019s cultural influence. You know\u2013multiculturalism, feminism, all that LGBTQ, and Black Lives Matter stuff, Christianity being less culturally dominant\u2013these things weren\u2019t signs of progress, but symptoms of a country losing the identity the right-wing believes is best. <br><br>Those drawn to right-wing conservatism didn\u2019t want to dismantle hierarchy\u2013they wanted to reshape it. To them, the problem wasn\u2019t inequality itself\u2013but who was on top. <br><br>Putin reshaped Russia\u2019s oligarchy to serve his rule. But the American right-wing found a shortcut. Instead of reshaping the oligarchy, they elected one of its members: a billionaire who campaigned on fighting the elites. And to fight those elites, the American billionaire filled his new administration with some of the wealthiest people on the planet. To the left-wing, this might seem like a contradiction. But to the right-wing this makes perfect sense: of course the richest and most powerful men should rule. Who else could stand up to the other rich and powerful men? And this new billionaire candidate wasn\u2019t just any rich and powerful man, he spoke on behalf of right-wing conservatism\u2019s cultural values as well.<br><br>And you know what\u2013I like to think I\u2019m an open minded guy. Maybe a billionaire president and a handful of oligarchs are the best people to represent the common folk. King Louis the 16th and Tsar Nicholas the 2nd thought they were the best guys for the job as well. <br><br>During the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, the right-wing billionaire and former president ran for reelection, four years after losing his bid for a second term. Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson spoke at a rally about the dangers of unruly left-wing radicalism and how he believed a proper leader should deal with them. I\u2019ll let Tucker speak for himself:<br><br>\u201cIf you allow your hormone-addled 15 year old daughter to, like, slam the bedroom door and give you the finger, you're going to get more of it. And those kids are going to wind up in rehab. It's not good for you, and it's not good for them. No! There has to be a point at which dad comes home. Yeah, that's right. Dad comes home. And he's pissed. Dad is pissed. He's not vengeful. He loves his children, disobedient as they may be, he loves them, because they're his children, they live in his house, but he's very disappointed in their behavior. And he's going to have to let them know. Get to your room - right now and think about what you did. And when dad gets home you know what he says? You\u2019ve been a bad girl. You\u2019ve been a bad little girl and you\u2019re getting a vigorous spanking, right now. And no, it\u2019s not gonna hurt me more than it\u2019s going to hurt you - no it\u2019s not, I\u2019m not going to lie - it\u2019s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this. You\u2019re getting a vigorous spanking because you\u2019ve been a bad girl. And it has to be this way. It has to be this way because it\u2019s true, and you\u2019re only gonna get better when you take responsibility for what you did. That\u2019s not said in the spirit of hate. It\u2019s not said in the spirit of vengeance or bigotry - far from it. It\u2019s said in the spirit of justice. Which is the purest and best thing there is. And without it, things fall apart.\u201d<br><br>GUY FROM BEGINNING: Oh man. Anyone else getting goosebumps? This guy shoulda spoken at the National Assembly. Exactly! He\u2019s so right - that\u2019s the kind of leader society needs, not someone bound by checks and balances, restrained by laws that commoners have to follow, but a strongman. A dictator. A king. Right-wing conservatism is back, baby! <br><br>The re-emergence of the right-wing is a global pattern seen in many countries. From the United States, to Russia, China, India, the Philippines, Brazil, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, right-wing leaders and movements have gained increasing political power, often challenging democratic checks and balances and individual freedom. <br><br>Capitalism has rapidly industrialized much of the world, destabilizing local economies, increasing migration, bringing cultural change (not to mention climate change). Many people feel anxious about these changes and want safety, security, and what\u2019s familiar. Right-wing conservatism answers these concerns. <br><br>Many people are fed up with governments that don\u2019t seem to work for the average person. So in response, rather than blaming money in politics for corruption and dysfunction, the right-wing views democracy\u2019s checks and balances as obstacles to efficiency\u2014barriers that need to be dismantled.<br><br>As people feel more desperate, many grow wary of newcomers and minorities. To address worries that there\u2019s not enough to go around, the right-wing promises to prioritize the people who they believe belong and push out those who don\u2019t. <br>  <br>And in response to all the social change of recent years, the right-wing promises a return to more traditional values. It\u2019s a vision of a familiar, more secure world.<br><br>It\u2019s clear that these are very real, tangible fears and anxieties. But do these proposed fixes actually address the underlying problems?<br><br>Another common thread of the return of the right-wing is nationalism - an ideology in and of itself that could and should be a whole other episode. But a key part of nationalism is the belief that a country should act only for its own interests. That\u2019s why you hear slogans like America First. Screw this whole global village cooperation thing. I\u2019m gonna only care about my country. <br><br>Essentially, it\u2019s individualism for countries. And you know, I think Individualism can be a beautiful thing. Thinking for yourself, marching to the beat of your own drummer, it\u2019s an important way to resist authoritarianism and it is what makes humanity so diverse. And there is wisdom in prioritizing yourself - that\u2019s why the airplane pilot reminds you to put your oxygen mask on first - how else will you help someone else to breathe as freely as you do? <br><br>Nationalism tells us we need to choose between protecting ourselves and protecting our neighbor. But it seems to me my family is much safer when my neighbor is well fed and taken care of. When people are desperate, they\u2019re the most dangerous. In that sense, equality isn\u2019t just about being moral, it\u2019s about being pragmatic. <br><br>And now, here we are, right in the present moment. If you listen closely, you can still hear those gods going at it up in the ideological heavens. But we\u2019ve listened to those gods enough. We now have the vantage point of 250 years of history. The future is still foggy but hopefully the past is a little more clear. Here\u2019s what I see from where I\u2019m looking. <br><br>After all this time, the over two centuries of history since the French Revolution, it seems like, in a way, we\u2019re coming back around. Some of the most powerful people in the world are embracing authoritarianism as a more effective form of government. Some, like the increasingly prominent right-wing thinker Curtis Yarvin, are openly calling for monarchy. The kings are back. Or trying to be. <br><br>It\u2019s like we\u2019ve completed some sort of strange cycle. But we don\u2019t have to be stuck in it. We can learn from what\u2019s happened here. Is it possible to create a more equal, more free society that works for everyone?<br><br>It seems we\u2019ve reached a fork in the road - similar to the one they debated all the way back during the French Revolution\u2019s national assembly. Either we dip back into authoritarianism or create more resilient forms of democracy. <br><br>And if we\u2019ve learned anything from the last few centuries, it\u2019s that even the ideologies that claim to be for democracy can fall into the authoritarian temptation - recreating similar oppressive hierarchies they tried to dismantle.<br><br>The Soviet Union is a prime example. Even though it claimed to champion equality, it had its own ingroups and outgroups and imprisoned those they believed didn\u2019t have the correct radical views. <br><br>So what gives? Is authoritarianism\u2013whether we like it or not\u2013just a more effective form of government?<br>Well, sure, authoritarianism has its strengths. A strong leader can cut through the red tape of bureaucracy and act decisively. But when power is concentrated in one person\u2013or even one party\u2013leaders tend to favor loyalty over merit, surround themselves with people who only tell them what they want to hear, and end up with a pretty limited view of the country they\u2019re supposed to govern. <br>King Louis the 16th, Tsar Nicholas the 2nd, and Joseph Stalin ended up being more out of touch with the struggles of the people than they realized.<br><br>Now, after all this, you might be tempted to say, \u201cScrew it\u2013let\u2019s just forget all these ideologies. I don\u2019t wanna have any ideology.\u201d I get that. Ideologies come with a lot of limitations and historical weight. But it\u2019s important to understand that historical entangling if we\u2019re gonna try and untangle it. The ideologies are just one map to go by. People don\u2019t fall neatly into one category - no matter what flags they raise or uniforms they wear. Reality is complex. We can\u2019t get so stuck to our side that we can\u2019t recognize the fear and pain and values of others. <br><br>Maybe the best way to chart a path is to be guided not by ideology, but values. Make sure you\u2019re driven by your values, not just following a group because it claims to represent an ideology. And I\u2019d say beware of groups that tell you you\u2019ve got to be a card carrying member, or if you disagree with them on one or two or three points then you\u2019re against the ideology. No one person or group can speak for a whole ideology. The truth is far more complex and interesting than that.<br><br>If we want to live in a world without endless war, we have to remember the lesson in Jojo Rabbit. People are not their ideology. People are people. And if that\u2019s true, how do we act like we\u2019re all in this together? <br><br>And if we\u2019re all in this together, seems to me it makes the most sense if everyone has a say - you know, like a democracy. <br><br>Democracy can\u2019t be about good guys and bad guys. Or about banishing the bad people with the bad ideas, but how do we create a system that works for all people?<br><br>Because here\u2019s the thing: authoritarianism seems to be the most effective because you can just go in one direction and not care what other people think. But real effectiveness\u2013effectiveness that lasts and works for everybody\u2013comes from a system that doesn\u2019t view dissent as an inherent threat but actually welcomes feedback. Because that\u2019s the only way you can self correct from making errors. It\u2019s not just that freedom of speech is just a nice thing to do, it\u2019s the only way a system can adapt and evolve. <br><br>Because any system is going to have criticism. Being criticized isn\u2019t a bad thing. It\u2019s how you respond to it. Do you wanna spend your time and energy imprisoning people you disagree with or find ways to address peoples\u2019 grievances and needs?<br><br>A well-functioning democracy allows for the greatest perspectives, resolves political conflicts peacefully, and is more adaptable and dynamic is actually more effective than an authoritarian system focused on silencing critics and staying in power. The reason neoliberal democracies became so corrupt and ineffective wasn\u2019t a flaw of democracy itself, but the result of money\u2019s corruption of the democratic process. <br><br>While the term \u2018democracy\u2019 comes from the Greeks, the phenomenon itself started long before them and existed all over the world. Many indigenous cultures, or who Daniel Quinn calls Leavers in the book Ishmael (the book the first 8 episodes of this podcast are about), have governed based on representative councils, direct assemblies, and consensus building. There are countless ways to do democracy - some we\u2019ve barely begun to imagine. <br><br>What happens next? That\u2019s up to us. History is a relay race and the baton has been passed down to us. It\u2019s in our hands now. We\u2019re the ones who will find the better path. So\u2014where will we go from here?<br><br>Thanks for listening.<br><br>This was part three of a three part series. But the fun doesn\u2019t stop here! Stay tuned for the next episode of Human Nature Odyssey where we\u2019ll take the lessons of this  political history and integrate it with deeper civilizational questions about our species\u2019 relationship to the natural world. <br><br>Until next time, I hope you\u2019ll consider what values are most important to you, how can we work towards a system - even imagine a system - that holds those values and others as well? What lessons can be learned from the political history of the last 250 years? What can be learned from what came before? How might the future be different? <br><br>If you enjoy Human Nature Odyssey please share it with a friend. Leave a friendly review. And come say hi on the Human Nature Odyssey Patreon. There you\u2019ll have access to bonus episodes, additional thoughts and writings, and audiobook readings. And I just wanted to thank all the folks that have reaching out on the Patreon, adding their thoughts and comments, or suggestions on what I should explore next. It means a lot and your support makes this podcast possible. <br><br>Thank you to Brian, Nare, Mark, Honan, Maggie, Nina, Joe, Jessie, Steven, Sheer, Michael, Charley, Nic, and Asher for your input and feedback on this episode. <br><br>This series was made in association with the Post Carbon Institute. You can learn more at Resilience.org<br><br>And as always, our theme music is Celestial Soda Pop by Ray Lynch. You can find a link in our show notes.<br><br>Talk with you soon.<br><br><\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Several decades after the Cold War, Russia and the U.S. found themselves on eerily parallel oligarchic paths. In this episode, we trace how the world drifted from dreams of liberation to authoritarian control\u2014and how a new generation began planting the seeds of liberty and equality once again.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":128248,"featured_media":3515123,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[213524,252037,251746,79720,213535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3515122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-editors-picks","category-human-nature-odyssey","category-podcasts","category-society","category-society-featured"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3515122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/128248"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3515122"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3515122\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3515314,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3515122\/revisions\/3515314"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3515123"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3515122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3515122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3515122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}