The Politics of the Future from Scandinavia?

[Jack Hays]

Perhaps we should look abroad for better political and policy models.

The politics of the future: Be open and armed


America should prioritize an open economy and training its workers to best compete.

• Jul 7, 2016

If Tony Blair is remembered in history only for his support of the Iraq War, that will be a tragedy. The former British prime minister was one of his generation’s most important political leaders, bringing the left out of the wilderness and reshaping it for the post-Cold War world. He remains remarkably prescient about politics. About a decade ago, he began explaining that the most significant political divide of the future was not between left and right, but between open and closed.
To understand this notion — which has been written about smartly by David Brooks and AlecRoss as well — take a look at what has happened to the Republican Party. The GOP has been split apart not on a left-right divide but on an open-closed one — between those who favor free trade, immigration and technological dynamism, and those who worry about these forces. Polls show that Republicans are now more opposed to free trade than are Democrats.
This open-closed divide has produced cleavages in left-wing parties as well. Britain’s Labour Party is bitterly divided between its open, Blairite wing and its closed old-left cadres. The U.S. Democratic Party has experienced the rise of Bernie Sanders, though it remains relatively united. . . .
Sanders has often said that the United States should look to countries such as Denmark and Sweden and emulate their economic policies. It’s a good idea. But he may not realize that all Scandinavian countries are staunch free-traders — in fact, they score higher in trade freedom on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom than the United States. All take in immigrants generously. Sweden even has a higher percentage of foreign-born people than America does. But these countries combine this openness with strong, effective policies that give their citizens the skills, capital, infrastructure and breathing room they need to succeed in the world. The countries of Scandinavia are more open than America and much better armed.

​

 

[joG]

Perhaps we should look abroad for better political and policy models.

The politics of the future: Be open and armed


America should prioritize an open economy and training its workers to best compete.

• Jul 7, 2016

If Tony Blair is remembered in history only for his support of the Iraq War, that will be a tragedy. The former British prime minister was one of his generation’s most important political leaders, bringing the left out of the wilderness and reshaping it for the post-Cold War world. He remains remarkably prescient about politics. About a decade ago, he began explaining that the most significant political divide of the future was not between left and right, but between open and closed.
To understand this notion — which has been written about smartly by David Brooks and AlecRoss as well — take a look at what has happened to the Republican Party. The GOP has been split apart not on a left-right divide but on an open-closed one — between those who favor free trade, immigration and technological dynamism, and those who worry about these forces. Polls show that Republicans are now more opposed to free trade than are Democrats.
This open-closed divide has produced cleavages in left-wing parties as well. Britain’s Labour Party is bitterly divided between its open, Blairite wing and its closed old-left cadres. The U.S. Democratic Party has experienced the rise of Bernie Sanders, though it remains relatively united. . . .
Sanders has often said that the United States should look to countries such as Denmark and Sweden and emulate their economic policies. It’s a good idea. But he may not realize that all Scandinavian countries are staunch free-traders — in fact, they score higher in trade freedom on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom than the United States. All take in immigrants generously. Sweden even has a higher percentage of foreign-born people than America does. But these countries combine this openness with strong, effective policies that give their citizens the skills, capital, infrastructure and breathing room they need to succeed in the world. The countries of Scandinavia are more open than America and much better armed.

​

What is certainly true is the importance of regulations, tax systems and immigration policies that are open, transparent and good for economic endeavor. That Sweden, Denmark or the other Scandinavians are countries the USA should emulate is less a good idea, than myth has it, though. Especially now, where social democratic policies throughout Europe are looking to retreat and immigration is causing rethinking and political turbulence, I would think it wise to watch.

 

[DaveFagan]

The Scandinavian Nations don't have an albatross named the Military Industrial Corporate Complex siphoning $700 billion per year from their economies. They don't operate multiple wars of imperialism. I don't think they have a Citizen United oppression in their system.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Yes, it is correct that Scandinavian countries combines openness with a strong welfare state. For example, is it very easy in Sweden to fire employees if the company downsize or relocate. But the people laid off first is the workers who have worked the shortest time in the company, if the company can’t prove that their skill is more need. Also the company for a period of time have to rehire fired employees before hiring other new employees. That at the same time both the government, unions and the company help former employees to get new job and Sweden have also an unemployment insurance that give up to 75 % of the former salary.

At the same time, it is not only a debate for or against openness but also a struggle between different kinds of globalization.

For example, for a right wing person free movement in Europe could mean that a foreign worker can for example come to Sweden and work for less pay. While a left wing people can argue that it pits workers against each other and also a Swedish worker can’t go to grocery story and demand to buy things in lower Polish prices if she risk losing her job to a Polish worker. So there for you can have free movement in Europe but Swedish salaries and working condition should apply to all workers in Sweden.

Also for a right wing person openness can for example mean that big corporations should have the right to use tax havens and global tax evasion schemes to reduce their taxes. While a left wing person can argue that it’s both unfair and bad for the economy and society because it can lead to a small pop and mom store pay more taxes then a large company.

Also for a right wing person openness can for example mean minimum regulation for company and that company freely could sell their products in other countries. While a left wing person can believe in free trade but at the same doesn’t want it to threaten environment, consumer and animal protection. So foreign companies either can’t sell or face tariffs if their product doesn’t live up to environment, consumer and animal protection standards.


Also it is a debate and struggle among left wing people. Like for example many ordinary left wing supporter believe left wing politician to much is accepting and conforming to a neoliberal narrative. For example that left wing politcian is supporting both CETA (trade agreement between EU and Canada) and TTIP (trade agreement between EU and USA). Even if those trade agreement threathen both democracy and environment, consumer and animal protection. That you instead need trade agreements that is formed from the interest of ordinary citizen and not only big business.