> So here is the agenda of the new, progressive equality-of-choice
> Left: in favour of globalisation, free trade, lower taxes, private
> providers in the public sector, and education vouchers; against state
> monopolies and newly concerned about mass immigration.
>
> Perhaps there is no need for the world's conservative leaders to hold
> conferences to set a right-wing agenda. The Left seems to be doing it
> for them.
He raises a very interesting point, namely that the traditional "left" and "right" lost much of their empirical meaning. Much of the Euro-left is like radishes - red outside, white inside - at least when the "line items" are concerned. That is to say, specific policies pursued by the so called left do not differ that much from those pursued by the so-called "right."
In one way, this convergence of "left" and "right" policies should not be surprising. One of the chief reasons is the professionalization of public policy. Since the 1930s, policies are crafted mainly by technical experts who tend to follow certain widely accepted professional standards and practices. This leads to the proliferation of sameness (cf. literature on organizational isomorphism) similar to other engineered products. Policies, like cars, may differ in their appearances, sex appeal and technical minutiae - but their essential structure is basically the same, and dictated mainly be technical efficiency and expediency.
This is not to say that there is no politics in technical designs. Certainly, politics affects how cost and benefits of technology are distributed and determine who wins and who looses - a nontrivial influence indeed. But any policy proposal must pass the "global test" of plausibility, soundness and efficiency - and these are determined largely by the experts.
So the bottom line is that policy proposals, crafted mainly by experts and thus showing a considerable degree of isomorphism must be marketed to the public and appeal to very divergent tastes, preferences, expectations and value systems. In the commodity markets, this is resolved by adapting a product to various market niches - old, young, men, women, urban professional, suburban, countercultural etc. - by changing it appearance and appeal, but not essential fundamental features. A car can be a hippiemobile, a yuppiemobile, a redneckmobile, a suburbansoccermommobile and so on - but in all its cultural incarnations its essentially an automobile bult by same engineering principles. Ditto for public policies.
One paradox of that situation is that while the policies converge in their essential features, the culture wars surrounding them intensify. It is so, because cultural appearances appeal to different cognitive styles, and these styles - not "practical" or "rational" considerations determine political preferences. As I previously argued on this forum, there essentially two cognitive styles, one based on rigid boundaries, conventional norms, and strict adherence to those boundaries and norms, and the other one based on general principles and flexible interpretation and implementation of these principles in every day life.
The same policy -i.e. banning a certain commodity - is almost always accepted or rejected based on their appeal to these cognitive styles. Guns symbolically represent strictness and power - so ban on guns is detested by the rigid-boundary types and favored by the flexible interpretation of principles types. Marijuana symbolically represents fuzziness, free-wheeling, and permissiveness - so the ban on weed is detested by the flexible types and favored by the rigid types. Same holds for most, if not all, political preferences and choices.
If I were to make a prediction, I would say that politics will follow the footsteps of commodity marketing. The differences in the basic product designs will keep diminishing and what used be the conventional "left" socialist and "right" capitalist designs will be vastly reduced, if not eliminated altogether. At the same time, this homogenized policy product will be marketed to different niches. That will result in changing the superficial appearances of that homogenized policy product to meet various tastes and preferences. That will result in substantial "mélange-ing" or compartmentalization of the political spectrum.
That means two things:
1. The mass-mobilization politics in the traditional left sense is over - the material and cultural conditions (e.g. occupational and residential patterns, cultural homogeneity) that made such mobilization possible are no more - and mass mobilization will not occur, save for cataclysmic events (in which the right can usually mobilize more effective than the left).
2. The culture wars over policy issues will intensify, and the key deciding factor in deciding which side people will take in those wars is the appeal of these policy products to their cognitive styles. That is to say, psychology and marketing, not material interests and reasons will become more and more important in making political choices.
That means more spin, less reason. Terrible - but then the worst enemy of the humankind is the human nature itself. Only a disaster of epic proportion can put a halt on this madness, but only temporarily.
Wojtek