I think that the left has solutions, but there are additional problems, as well.
Not only does the left need "to rebuild institutions and policies that have been in retreat for decades", but decades of neoliberalism have led to an internalization among the voters that collective solutions cannot work. And this is combined with actions by some of those in power (both hard neoliberals and tribalists) to sabotage attempts at collective solutions.
Additionally, the soft neoliberalis, who might have cause to join with the left, have been tarnished by their association with neoliberal policies, making forming a common cause difficult. While many "third way" soft neoliberals are fearful of forming such a common cause, based on their experience with the rise of hard neoliberalism.
Finally, it is difficult for the left to act collectively, because there are too many ideological sub-groups among the left, in too many cases insisting that their specific focus must be the only focus of any action.
Nearly all voters, except rusted on Labor and Greens, believe the right are better at managing the economy. Why, I don't know.
The other issue is when we 'have to pay for it' (which we don't) we complain about taxes, Asutralia is quite a low tax country, it's just that most of our tax comes from income tax. I don't like the GST, why tax spending you then do less of it, and it's regressive, tax land and wealth
The economy (and defense) are coded as masculine. Masculinists are attracted to tribalism or hard neoliberalism. The left is very actively opposed to masculinism, but accepts the general coding. So the left finds it hard to take the economy and defense as seriously as it should.
As per usual, I find myself frustrated with this (ie. Packer's) analysis. It's all very well to talk about where parties have been and where they should go, but I think it's essentially moot without a discussion of *how* they got there, or might get there.
An analysis which identifies the corporatist, bloodless policy of the Democrats and the impotence of unions but doesn't at least acknowledge that they might arise from the same source - democratic stagnation and Michel's iron law of oligarchy - is infuriating to me.
Jeremy Corbyn arose not from an ideological shift but from a change in democratic processes in the Labour Party. Similarly, Bernie Sanders fell short because of the power of entrenched Democratic party interests, not ideology.
The only really important questions in politics are how we deal with climate change and how we deal with wealth/income inequality by making the wealthy pay a lot more tax. None of the major parties in the West are capable of this because of the power of vested interests within each party and the inability of their party processes to shift them.
So the important discussion in progressive politics is how to reform progressive parties, not the niceties of ideology. There are so many low hanging fruit, conversations about ideology can be ignored for a decade or two.
I think that the left has solutions, but there are additional problems, as well.
Not only does the left need "to rebuild institutions and policies that have been in retreat for decades", but decades of neoliberalism have led to an internalization among the voters that collective solutions cannot work. And this is combined with actions by some of those in power (both hard neoliberals and tribalists) to sabotage attempts at collective solutions.
Additionally, the soft neoliberalis, who might have cause to join with the left, have been tarnished by their association with neoliberal policies, making forming a common cause difficult. While many "third way" soft neoliberals are fearful of forming such a common cause, based on their experience with the rise of hard neoliberalism.
Finally, it is difficult for the left to act collectively, because there are too many ideological sub-groups among the left, in too many cases insisting that their specific focus must be the only focus of any action.
Nearly all voters, except rusted on Labor and Greens, believe the right are better at managing the economy. Why, I don't know.
The other issue is when we 'have to pay for it' (which we don't) we complain about taxes, Asutralia is quite a low tax country, it's just that most of our tax comes from income tax. I don't like the GST, why tax spending you then do less of it, and it's regressive, tax land and wealth
The economy (and defense) are coded as masculine. Masculinists are attracted to tribalism or hard neoliberalism. The left is very actively opposed to masculinism, but accepts the general coding. So the left finds it hard to take the economy and defense as seriously as it should.
As per usual, I find myself frustrated with this (ie. Packer's) analysis. It's all very well to talk about where parties have been and where they should go, but I think it's essentially moot without a discussion of *how* they got there, or might get there.
An analysis which identifies the corporatist, bloodless policy of the Democrats and the impotence of unions but doesn't at least acknowledge that they might arise from the same source - democratic stagnation and Michel's iron law of oligarchy - is infuriating to me.
Jeremy Corbyn arose not from an ideological shift but from a change in democratic processes in the Labour Party. Similarly, Bernie Sanders fell short because of the power of entrenched Democratic party interests, not ideology.
The only really important questions in politics are how we deal with climate change and how we deal with wealth/income inequality by making the wealthy pay a lot more tax. None of the major parties in the West are capable of this because of the power of vested interests within each party and the inability of their party processes to shift them.
So the important discussion in progressive politics is how to reform progressive parties, not the niceties of ideology. There are so many low hanging fruit, conversations about ideology can be ignored for a decade or two.