It’s tempting to write the obvious. That liberal leaders are having a hard time because of the two evil “I’s” – inflation and immigration. Nor do I want to dismiss their importance. Inflation has forever signaled danger to anyone in power. And for the last decade immigration has been a hot button issue not just in the United States but in most of Europe and now also in Canada.
But to understand the level of our discontent it will not suffice to look just at a few problems, no matter how major. Or for that matter to look just at those at the top. For the answer to the questions of what’s going on – and why – rests primarily not with leaders but with their followers. It is we who are changing – those of us without power and authority not those with.
Look at this lousy week – specifically for liberal leaders:
- In Austria the hard right had a great night. The Kremlin friendly Freedom Party scored its strongest showing since its inception at the end of the Second World War … by former Nazi functionaries and SS officers. The Freedom Party scored over 29% of the vote.
- In France it’s now evident that the power of French President Emannuel Macron has been curbed. Effectively forced in recent weeks to appoint a prime minister who is well to his right, Macron’s control over the levers of government is perceptively less than previously.
- Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – who has held office since 2015 – is running again. But he’s got some problems. Members of his own Liberal Party are ditching him. Canada is struggling with high inflation, soaring housing costs, and a weakened health care system. Most importantly, his poll numbers are dismal. More than 70 percent of Canadians say their country is “broken” under his leadership.
- Kier Starmer is still wet behind the ears. He’s only been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since July. But already one of his own – a member of his own Liberal Party – has unceremoniously ditched him. Two days ago, one Rosie Duffield loudly quit the party charging it, and by extension him, are all about “greed and power.” Seems among the issues is evidence that Starmer and other top Cabinet officials accepted lavish gifts from donors. Not a good look for a chap just starting out.
- Back on campus Brandeis University announced that its president of eight years, Ronald Liebowitz, would not only step down but do so in the middle of the academic year (November 1st). This followed a debasing vote of no confidence in the president by the faculty, which accused him of “damaging errors in judgment and poor leadership.”
- Not far behind is the president of Rutgers University, Jonathan Holloway, who, however, is leaving only next June and then of his own free volition. Why then is he quitting? Because he’s had it. As he put it to a reporter, “It’s a punishing job in normal times…. But the standards we’re [now] being held to are impossible. I had to ask myself, ‘What is it I want to do, how can I do it, and is this the right position?’”
So, what’s going on here? Is it just chance that liberal leaders everywhere are struggling? To wit in the United States, where the Democratic candidate for president is barely holding her own against her Republican opponent who is, among his numberless deficits, a crypto fascist?
In a book I wrote over a decade ago I warned of the trend. It’s not just about those at the top or even the times in which we live. It’s about what anyway has been the historical trajectory. A trajectory in which has been an exceptional expansion of political rights. It is this that explains why liberal leaders have been weakened – and their followers strengthened. As I wrote in the book, tellingly titled, The End of Leadership:
A note about the title: it is meant as a caution about the future of leadership in the twenty-first century. For nearly everywhere leaders are found wanting, followers are restive, and the context is changing – sometimes at warp speed. So, unless we get a grip, the prognosis [for liberal leadership] is grim.
About this, alas, I see no reason to change my mind.