Many reasons have been given for the successful election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown on January 18^th . The commentaries are likely to keep flowing for a while.

The cause most commonly suggested is public anger at the political arrogance of the Democratic leadership, together with the political class’ indifference to the economic plight of the citizenry.

Without criticizing any of the explanations provided now or in the future, it is our belief that something even more fundamental is at work here, which might well make the 2010 campaign a historical turning point. That basic factor is the breakdown of longstanding political ideologies.

“Longstanding” is chosen deliberately, for we are talking about capitalism and socialism.

Both of these are usually seen as purely economic models, but in fact they are complete thought systems aimed at organizing all social activity. They lie at polar opposites to each other, one emphasizing the power of the state, the other the supremacy of the individual.

It is interesting to note that free enterprise and state authority were never, prior to the advent of the Industrial Revolution, considered to be fundamentally inimical to each other. Both were deemed necessary to the conduct of human affairs, and a balance between the two was always considered the best guarantee of material prosperity and political stability.

The Industrial Revolution ended this traditional compromise. The huge increase in material production and wealth, itself made possible by the use of fossil fuels, was thought to require a new approach. Who would benefit from this unprecedented cornucopia became a philosophical question that would influence political thought and economic principle for the following two centuries.

On the one side was the capitalist theory, which claimed that if the creators of the new industrial economy were left alone to work their entrepreneurial magic, maximum prosperity would follow, profiting everyone and guaranteeing continuous progress. The state should step aside and reduce its role to supporting capitalist creativity and allowing free reign to market forces.

Opponents pointed to social inequality and economic exploitation in order to discredit the above view. They claimed that the new prosperity was the fruit of everyone’s labor and should be shared equally. This demanded an increase of the power of the state, which would become the supreme arbiter of material development and of the fair distribution of the wealth produced.

The conflict between these two ideologies occupied most of the 20^th century, with its revolutions and wars. By the end of 1900’s it had become clear that both systems had inescapable flaws.

Capitalism was indeed immensely dynamic, but its development proceeded in a succession of booms and busts. Booms enriched primarily the upper classes, while the brunt of busts was born by the lower income population. The unwanted but very real consequence was a trend towards economic inequality and social conflict.

Socialism had matching flaws. While the state managed to distribute wealth more or less equally, there was not much to distribute, due to the inertia and inefficiency of the state-run socialist economy. In addition the socialist system showed a disturbing tendency to turn into a police state.

To avoid the most glaring shortcomings of each, the two systems were over time blended into hybrids. These constructs, however, lost the advantages of both concepts while magnifying their defects: they were neither efficient nor fair, neither stable nor dynamic.

Instead what appeared was the unwholesome combination of an unaffordable, unmanageable government with highly concentrated economic oligopolies: inequality with inefficiency, economic exploitation with bureaucratic arrogance.

This combination is exactly what, according to many commentators and analysts, the Massachusetts voters were angry about. They also happened to have an early election to voice their frustration. The rest of the country is not far behind, some nine months to be precise.

Neither the political class nor the economic elite, now locked into an embrace of mutual preservation, can deal with the situation. Policies outside the old progressive and conservative frameworks are required: solutions that actually solve problems, plans that can be implemented, sound-bites that catch the reality of our situation.

Anything else will bring out more “torches and pitchforks”, town hall meetings and tea parties

This is the year of the awakened voter. It is likely to be, just as well, the beginning of the end for the old Right and Left. Failed theories must, from now on, be replaced with practical leadership.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 22nd, 2010 at 3:05 pm and is filed under The People's Business. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.