The Centre Cannot Hold
The heyday of the nineties and noughties is over — Pasokification has meant that the centre cannot hold. Things can only get worse for centrists.
A noticeable trend in recent years has been the decline of the centre-ground. The heyday of Blairism and Clintonism allowed for triangulation, a ‘Third Way” which combined a large dose of neoliberal economics with a heavily-diluted social democratic programme. The financial crash, a stagnation in wages and the increasing alienation of working class voters now mean this is no longer viable. “Pasokification” refers to a process that began in Greece but is now happening across the Western world. The social democratic PASOK party lost its working class base after it embraced free-market economics. This was replicated in Spain as the PSOE passed austerity onto its working class voters and unemployment soared. Leftist upstarts Podemos outflanked PSOE from the left and saw their electoral prospects rise exponentially, winning over many of their alienated voters as well as non-voters. Despite the short-term, electoral success of “the Third Way” at the turn of the century, “Pasokification” has now become the political trend our of time. In essence, it means that the centre cannot hold.
Many have suggested that French President Emmanuel Macron bucks this trend, offering a viable programme of 21st century centrism. For a start, there is a distinct failure to analyse the reasons why the French Socialist Party have tanked so spectacularly. Hollande ended his tenure woefully unpopular. Much like PASOK and PSOE, he struggled to reconcile the demands of neoliberal capitalism with a viable social democratic agenda. Only 6% of the vote went to the Socialists in the presidential elections and the legislative elections were even worse. This is in line with the wider decline of centrist, social democratic parties. The record-low turnout of the recent French legislative elections also give us reason to be sceptical of a long-term centrist rebirth. Statistics like this will hardly encourage Marine Le Pen and Jen-Luc Melenchon to give up the ghost. Neither will Macron’s summer plans to “battle” France’s trade unions.
Then there’s the personality of Macron himself who comes across as arrogant and slightly baffling. He recently explained that he wouldn’t speak to journalists since his “thoughts were too complex”. Despite touting his progressive credentials, Macron recently expressed concern about absence of the “King, a King whom, fundamentally, I don’t think the French people wanted dead”. Macron recently compared his presidential style to that of Jupiter, the Roman King of the Gods. His statement that Africa’s poverty is “civilisational” and his support for the burqa ban in “certain areas” also raises the question of how Anglo-American liberals can square that particular circle. Macron then, cuts a figure more David Brent than Tony Blair. Given all this — as well the rise of the Left and far-right — it’s difficult how to see how the centre can hold in France.
In the UK, Labour’s significant and unexpected gains in the general election — and a hugely popular manifesto — have put Jeremy Corbyn in a stronger position than ever. Paul Mason instructed the Blairite faction of the Labour Party to “form your own party” that is “centrist”, “pro-Remain” and “in favour of illegal war” and “privatisation”. Many British centrists are still waiting for an unapologetically pro-EU, Macron-like figure to come along. A former speechwriter for Blair took Mason’s advice and proposed a new party in Macron’s mould. Yet it’s unclear what this party will offer that the Liberal Democrats didn’t just badly lose the election with. Even if the British people aren’t exactly looking forward to leaving the EU, only a loud minority are attracted by the rigmarole of reversing the process entirely. Indeed, Remainers opted for Labour over the Liberal Democrats in seats such as Leeds North West and Norwich South.
Because of this, centrist commentators are now constantly expressing their dismay at politics. Brexit and the rise of Corbyn, have left them alienated. Throwing caution to the wind, they’ve abandoned their pragmatic, sensible realism and are acting on impulsive. They want to create a new party and/or reverse the referendum, political realities be damned. Perhaps, they’ve received a small taste of their own medicine.
Other centrists have a preoccupation with a racialized and classist notion of a white (and often Northern) working class. As argued elsewhere, many in the Labour Party — Rachel Reeves and Caroline Flint, for instance — have succumbed to stereotyping of Leave voters, failing to acknowledge their economic anxiety while amplifying their “legitimate concerns” about immigration. In this vein, Graham Jones MP recently said:
“We have to talk about their concerns — counter-terrorism, nationalism, defence and community, the nuclear deterrent and patriotism.”
Perhaps, the interests of arms company BAE whose presence he welcomes with open arms, is also a factor in his decision to amplify concerns about “defence”. While the point that Labour has failed to make enough headway with C2 — skilled manual workers earning £21k-£34k — is a fair one, to designate this social grade as the entirety of the working class ignores the role of those in more precarious forms of work (D) who tend to be women and ethnic minorities. Amongst the semi-skilled or unskilled working class (D), Labour performed very strongly. Plus, the fact that constituencies with the highest rates of child poverty swung hugely to Labour shows Corbynism isn’t a bourgeois project. In Britain then, the centrists, their proposed new party and their criticisms of the Left cannot hold.
Across the pond, Hillary Clinton lost what was initially viewed by her campaign team as an easy win. Celebrity endorsements from Beyoncé etc. did little to help a Clintonian brand that in many ways still bears the scars of Bill’s scandal-ridden tenure in the 1990s. No one could deny Clinton’s wealth of experience but this was part of the problem since it meant her record was up for scrutiny. Her support for NAFTA, war in Iraq and neoliberal economics — in addition to her role as an orchestrator of the Libya intervention — meant she didn’t look like safe pair of hands.
Furthermore, Hillary ran on the assumption of the support of the sensible, suburban, moderate Republican voter, a constituency which no longer exists outside of Washington’s media circles. Likewise, white female voters were assumed to be on board with the Clinton project and yet 53% of white female voters opted for Donald Trump. For a running-mate, she picked a right-wing, anti-abortion Democrat in the lieu of a progressive whose policies were popular with ordinary Americans.
Paradigmatic of the centre’s inability to engage with working class voters in the deindustrialized areas was her failure to visit Wisconsin entirely. Rather than a internet-driven surge of alt-right meme-makers, Trump was handed the presidency by Hillary’s failure to get the progressive constituency — young people, the working class, women, ethnic minorities — to the polls. The Democrats have not learnt from Hillary’s mistakes and are doomed to repeat them. Their recent slogans — “I mean, have you seen the other guys?” and “She persisted, we resisted” — suggest that they intend to run on a Hillary 2.0 ticket, rather than engage with pivotal issues like healthcare. In America then, the centre cannot hold.
The examples of Greece, Spain, France, Britain and America therefore demonstrate that the centre cannot hold. Pasokification means that the future belongs either to transformational Left or the reactionary Right. A quote attributed to Gramsci sums up the situation well: “the old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born, now is the time of monsters”.
