conservative reformers vs. left-wing conservationists

Seeing recent election results in other countries, does it appear that Europe's conservatives are the better socialists? At least that's what the recent New York Times article, "In Bad Times for Capitalism, Socialists in Europe Suffer" says.

In 1957, the German conservatives went into the federal election with the slogan "No Experiments". This was at a time when massive economic changes made every political move an experiment anyway, but I digress. In 2009, the slogan "We Have the Strength" - intriguingly, a loose translation of Obama's "Yes We Can" - hands German conservatives a big win.

"No Experiments" can still be heard from conservative politians, although the failure of financial markets makes the need for reforms obvious. Record bailouts, carried by conservatives and liberals alike, show that this need is recognized and met. What then makes "No Experiments" so successful?

Germany has turned grayish-black

To quote the NYT article,

The Socialists have, in this contest, become conservatives, fighting to preserve systems that voters think need to be improved, though not abandoned.

This statement makes some big assumptions on what voters think, but be that as it may. Could it be that socialists have turned from reformers into defenders of the social support systems' status quo because they were gullible enough to allow conservatives to tell them what not to think in the wake of the collapse of the eastern bloc? Not to speak of the unrelenting onslaught of the neo-liberal reform agenda that seems to preclude any extension of these systems since Reagan and Thatcher dominated the west. After conservative outrage at the thought, German Social Democrats (SPD) excluded cooperation with the Left Party (a coalition of western socialists disappointed by their party's right-shift and eastern post-communists). By doing this, the SPD made themselves an impotent appendage of the conservatives. At the same time, they failed to recognize that, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, conservatives give post-communists much less credit for their ability for democratic reform than they gave their own former Nazi members only five years after the war.

The NYT article further quotes Giovanni Sartori as saying

The Socialists can’t adapt to the loss of their basic electorate, and with globalism, the welfare state can no longer exist in the same way

This statement is, however, based on the assumption that society as a whole values profits higher than lifestyle. Seeing as, even in the boom before the bust, only the highest 10% of German incomes saw an increase*, the purported view that socialists are losing their basic electorate is a myth. A bank teller is no less a worker than her manual labour compatriot, even though she might over-ambitiously vote like her bank's CEO. The real question is, through what deception do conservative parties manage to coax a majority to vote against their own interests?

To reclaim their voter base, left-wing parties need to liberate themselves from the denkverbot/crimethink laws set by conservatives and find common ground with partners in other parties everywhere. They need to build their own forward-facing reform agenda adapted to modern conditions, giving the common man chances to profit from the efficiency gains of globalization just as much as the corporation. The discussion among socialists in the coming years will be interesting. It remains to be seen whether the right wing of the SPD will relinquish the power they have easily.

Food for thought, if corporations sell movie dics so cheaply in east asia, why can't you buy them at asian market prices over the internet and play them in your player in the west? (Technical answer: because they have a region code. How is it that region codes are ok?)

* Sources:
Einkommen stagnieren - nur die Reichen werden reicher
Die Mittelschicht schrumpft
Studie: Aufschwung an meisten Haushalten vorbeigegangen

as healthcare debated, oil lobby chips away at restrictions

under the green banner of energy reform, the oil industry is at it again, as if to demonstrate that no-one should ever take their eyes off the ball, ever.

today i saw another article of the "did you know" type, linked by a friend (thank you). this time, it is about the dependence of the US on foreign oil. the avid reader will know that I am sceptical of such articles.

consequences of oil
production (canada)

i feel that it's worth putting this article in perspective. it purports that restrictions on US domestic production unnecessarily drive up cost (and US trade deficit). in truth, if those restrictions were lifted, the savings would be in the sub-percent range, while the environmental and health costs would be enormous. a large part, as the graphics shows, is already imported from canada, where, the environmental damage caused by the extraction of oil from tar sands is readily visible.

at the same time, advances in efficiency are made out to be noticeable, when in fact they are more than eaten up by the insatiable hunger for auto-mobility, always-on electrical devices, and air conditioning caused by America's love affair with living in the deserts of the south. (not to mention the consumption of limited water supplies.)

at the end of the article, the rhetorical question is asked

Until we find the renewables capable of replacing fossil fuels, oil and gas will remain the world's most important commodities, meaning the US will continue to import great volumes from overseas. But just how reliant is the US on the importing of foreign oil?

so as take-home message, are we to understand that the oil industry is too big to fail? seriously???

this, by the way, is one of two similar articles on the main page of the same online trade magazine right now (the other talks about how US trade balance would be ok of it weren't for those pesky oil restrictions). while they seem to provide factual information, they downplay some and talk others up, so all they really do is contribute to the smoke-and-mirrors, drill-baby-drill campaign of the oil lobby.

do you think the articles are informative and harmless? well, let's compare this to a situation we are better acquainted with. say you swing by your pharmacist's on the way home to get some cough-drops, and since you'd be bored on your train ride, you pick up their free magazine. in it, you find a gushing article about this new drug for your cough. back at the pharmacists the next day later you ask about it, and find that it is ten times as expensive as your cough-drops. do you really believe it will cure your ailment ten times better? well, we all know that these articles in trade magazines are written, and paid for, by marketing companies. so why should we be more trusting when it comes to reading articles on subjects that touch on the political?