The New Face Of the Left by Fareed Zakaria

April 30, 2001, U.S. Edition

The New Face Of the Left
Why the protesters in Quebec City bring on nostalgia for old-fashioned radicals.
By Fareed Zakaria

It seems pointless to rebut, one more time, the arguments made by the protesters in Quebec City, to note their misunderstanding of basic economics, to show that their slogans are confused and contradictory. By taunting the police, beating drums and throwing rocks, the rioters make it pretty clear that they want not a rational debate but the world's attention--and they have succeeded once again. We will now hear more calls from frightened free traders for "dialogue," "cooperation" and the development of a "new framework" for trade, all code words for retreat and protectionism. More significantly, the "success" of these protests--in Seattle, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and Quebec City--has begun to persuade some left-of-center politicians in the West to start speaking the new language of anti-globalization. In doing so, the left is turning its back on two of its most cherished stands--in favor of internationalism and democracy.

Historically, left-wing ideologies have been, almost by definition, international. Conservatism was usually the defender of distinct national traditions and institutions. By contrast the left, from the French Revolution onward, has argued for the rights of all human beings. Socialism's crucial organizations were international leagues and congresses, so much so that the history of communism is often dated by its various "internationals."

While the democratic left discarded much of socialism, it maintained, even strengthened, that sense of global responsibility. Think of its involvement in the Spanish Civil War, its fight against fascism in Germany and the long tradition of liberal anti-communism during the cold war. Indeed, the history of the struggle against the Soviet Union would be incomplete without noting the role of Western labor unions that supported dissidents, opposed trade with Russia and sent aid to workers in Eastern Europe. But beyond anti-communism, being concerned about Third World poverty was--almost in a cliched sense--part of what it meant to be a leftist.

No more. The leaders of anti-globalization now advocate policies for their own sheltered communities in rich Western countries. Of course, they claim their policies will help workers in Africa and Asia. But they won't. What developing countries need more than anything else--yes, even more than new labor and environmental regulations--is economic growth. And yet every proposal made by the protesters would slow down that growth and keep the Third World mired in medieval poverty. So much for international solidarity.

It would be more honorable if the demonstrators were philosophically against global capitalism and proposed an alternative system that they thought was better for the world. But they aren't; many of them say globalization is here to stay. No, the union leaders who provide most of the money and bodies for these protests are asking for something very simple and specific--shelters and subsidies for their own, invariably inefficient, industries. It is self-interest that doesn't even bother to masquerade as ideology.

The other great tradition of the left has been a concern for the fate of democracy. The right--from the time of the French Revolution until recently--was somewhat suspicious of democracy. Social conservatives revered the aristocracy and traditional hierarchies, and free marketeers thought that the rabble would take away their property. The widening of democracy in the West and then its worldwide spread has been a lodestar of the left.

Yet now in Quebec historically left-wing forces have joined hands to oppose the strengthening of democracy in the Western Hemisphere--for that is the central agenda of the Summit of the Americas.

The economic benefits to be had through regional trade agreements are few and of dubious value. It makes much more sense to simply cut tariffs worldwide. But regional free trade has a powerful effect on the politics of emerging markets, locking in reforms, forcing political openness and strengthening the forces of liberal democracy. NAFTA was arguably the strongest force behind the election of Vicente Fox and Mexico's move toward genuine democracy.

Latin America is at a crucial moment in its history. Every country save Cuba is a democracy, but many are, in the scholar Larry Diamond's phrase, "hollow, illiberal, poorly institutionalized democracies." Economic growth and liberalism can play a powerful role in consolidating democracy there, as they have in so many parts of the world. And yet unions, student radicals and other fashionable left-wing groups have gone to the barricades to try to doom the summit's chances of success.

The anti-globalization crowd is antidemocratic in another, more fundamental, sense. It is trying to achieve, through intimidation and scare tactics, what it has not been able to get through legislation. The lesson of Seattle seems to be: if you cannot get your way through traditional democratic methods, through campaigns, lobbying and legislatures, then riot and rabble-rouse on television. In the bizarre atmospherics of the modern media, when a few thousand trained protesters surround the elected presidents and prime ministers of 34 countries, the protesters gain the moral high ground.

The new map of politics is being charted. The demonstrators offer as their political ideology economic parochialism and an indifference to democracy. If this is the new left, give me the old stuff any day.