Simon Rosenberg

24 July 2009

I’m on the left because only the progressive moments in our history, and the progressive leaders who forge them, ensure that prosperity is shared more broadly and our country more prepared to face the future. The last century has seen an ebb and flow between right and left. In America we’ve had three broad periods. The first ran between the two Roosevelts: a battle to lock-down a new reform-minded politics born in the aftermath of economic upheaval in the “progressive era.” It was eventually captured by the Democrats. The second went from FDR to Reagan: an era of Democratic consolidation, which built America’s (still unfinished) social contract. The third began in 1980: a conservative ascendancy that saw its greatest triumphs in 1994 and 2004.

It’s worth remembering that until 2007 the conservative movement had achieved more political and ideological control over my country than at any time since the 1920s. Under President Obama that moment is passing, we hope for good – although battles, such as those being fought over the economy, healthcare, climate changes and immigration as I write, must be won to truly turn back the two-decade march. But the most important question from America’s recent past was – would conservatism mature to provide a credible alternative governing philosophy to replace 20th century progressivism? The Bush era answered that question. The answer is no. It is a lesson that the United Kingdom should learn carefully, as it toys with returning a once-discredited party of the right to political office.

But this next progressive era will not be dominated by the two-tired conservative and liberal ideologies of the past. So it falls to the progressive side to build a reinvented governing agenda capable of tackling the challenges of our time, and new political arrangements built around the capabilities of our fast-changing economy, media and people. Three challenges standout; three that are quite different from those we faced even a few decades ago when Bill Clinton and Tony Blair rethought what it meant to be on the centre-left.

Just as FDR tamed America’s industrial society, so now we must make the transition to a low carbon society-a societal transformation which if anything has been understated by our leaders. Everything from how we build and drive to how we power our mobile devices must change. This transformation will requires a great deal of money, innovations yet unimagined, and a public ready and willing not just to follow but to lead. It also needs a strong moral vision, and a role for the state unsuited to conservativism. And while the proposals offered by Ed Miliband and the Brown government this month are a good start, managing this transformation over the next three decades will make or break political careers and parties. Getting this right is a prerequisite for center-left success in the 21st century.

Second, we must re-imagine politics and government for an age when we are all connected. At some point in the next ten years just about everyone in the world will become knitted together through mobile devices and online. All that we know – communications, commerce, learning, socialising, politics, governing, even the concept of free and open societies themselves-will be changed by this powerful and ever more ubiquitous network. Harnessing the promise of this new age of mobile, and the radical democratization of information, knowledge and power it offers will be one of our the great projects of the center-left in the years to come.

Finally, we must come to terms with “the rise of the rest” as Fareed Zakaria has defined the emergent geopolitical reality of our day, this inexorable trend of developing nations like China, India, Mexico and Brazil taking their seat at the global table. In the years ahead these countries will surely produce Chinese Microsofts and Indian Nokias. Their economic maturation will mean that our countries will compete with both their inexpensive workers and a whole new set of globally competitive corporations, further intensifying already virulent global competition for our businesses, workers and students. Producing rising standards of living in the West will require much more investment in infrastructure, knowledge, skills and schools, and our people’s full partnership in understanding that success will require us to do more, to raise our game, or risk being left behind.

This “rise of the rest” will also require a remaking of the global institutions of governance and power. We have seen this process play out this year as the G20 begins to replace the G8, and the debate over how to remake the International Money Fund has begun in earnest. With only about 15 percent of the world’s people today of European descent, the ability for the governments of the West to be the primary managers of global affairs is coming to an end, a process that will not be easy for our governments to manage, or perhaps our people to accept.

The challenges in front of the center-left political parties of the West today are extraordinary, the greatest we have faced since the rise of European fascism seventy years ago. Today, as in the past, only a progressive vision is fit to meet them. Facing them forthrightly, and showing the courage to tackle them head-on will be perhaps the greatest test of them all.

Position: President of NDN, a Washington based think tank

3 Comments

3 Responses to “Simon Rosenberg”

  1. JeffMowatt
    July 27th, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

    “we must re-imagine politics and government for an age when we are all connected…..and the radical democratization of information, knowledge and power it offers will be one of our the great projects of the center-left in the years to come”

    Simon, this is where the Left missed what the Right now describes as Compassionate Economics.This is a story which begins with an invitation. It's from the US President offering a citizen the opportunity to serve on a committee, the one which drives the campaign for his re-election.

    He's given no brief for the role, that of honorary researcher, so decides to write a white paper a “what if” describing a new economic paradigm which he called people-centered economic development, a model made feasible by the connected world of the then dawning information age. .

    Painting the now familiar background of more than a billion people suffering extreme poverty and hunger, It then posed the question as to who should be considered disposable:

    “This is a tricky question. Except in the case of self-defense, if for any reason we answer “Yes”, regardless of what that reason is, we are in effect agreeing with the proposition of disposing of human beings. Whether disposal be from deprivation or execution, the result is the same for the victim. If we agree that sometimes, for some reasons, it is acceptable and permissible to dispose of human beings, actively or passively, the next question is “Which people?” Of course I will never argue that one of them should be me, though perhaps it should be you. You respond in kind, it cannot be you, but maybe it should be me. Not only can it not be you, it also cannot be your spouse, your children, your mother or father, your friends, your neighbors, but, maybe someone else. Naturally I feel the same way. Maybe we come to an agreement that it shouldn't be either you or me, or our families and friends, that can be disposed of, but perhaps someone else. While we are debating this — passionately and sincerely, no doubt — a third party comes along and without warning disposes of the both of us, or our families, or our friends. And there is the trap we have fallen into, because whether or not we approve of our or our families' and friends' demise is irrelevant. It is fair because we accepted the principle of human disposability. We just didn't intend that it be us who are tossed, but if we or our families and friends die, it is in accordance with principles that we ourselves have accepted and so must live — and die — by. “

    The paper concluded

    “Clearly, profits can be used very effectively in ways other than traditional investment and profit outcomes. Moreover, this is not charity, it is business–good business. One P-CED firm could be expected to spin off dozens of new firms and businesses, all of which create new jobs and all of which operate under traditional free-enterprise practices. That is, if a spin-off business were to profit a million dollars a year, the owners can bank the money for themselves and their stockholders as is the normal practice. There is nothing wrong with individuals becoming wealthy. It is only when wealth begins to concentrate in the hands of a relative few at the expense of billions of others who are denied even a small share of finite wealth that trouble starts and physical, human suffering begins. It does not have to be this way. Massive greed and consequent massive human misery and suffering do not have to be accepted as a givens, unavoidable, intractable, irresolvable. Just changing the way business is done, if only by a few companies, can change the flow of wealth, ease and eliminate poverty, and leave us all with something better to worry about. Basic human needs such as food and shelter are fundamental human rights; there are more than enough resources available to go around–if we can just figure out how to share. It cannot be “Me first, mine first”; rather, “Me, too” is more the order of the day.”

    What follows is a project in Russia and having set up the model as a business in London, the concept is again described in an interview:

    “The problem is that profit and money still tend to accumulate in the hands of comparatively few people. Money, symbolically representing wealth and ownership of material assets, is not an infinite resource. When it accumulates in enormous quantities in the hands of a few people, that means other people are going to be denied. If everyone in the world has enough to live a decent life and not in poverty, then there is no great problem with some people having far more than they need. But, that's not the case, and there are no rules in the previous capitalist system to fix that. Profit and numbers have no conscience, and anything done in their name has been accepted as an unavoidable aspect of capitalism.”

    “I disagree. In 1996, I simply set up a hypothetical 'what if' proposition. What if some businesses decided to change their practices, or institute themselves as new enterprises completely, for the sole purpose of generating massive profits as usual and then using those profits to help people who have little or nothing? That's the way to correct and improve classic capitalism for the broadest benefit worldwide. It's now called social capitalism, or, social enterprise. I still call it the same as I did in 1996: people-centered economic development, and that remains the name of my organization and my web site.”

    The term “people-centered economics” won't be found much elsewhere for the next 5 years. Not until last month when Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann
    the President of the United Nations General Assembly offered this in a speech:

    “The anti-values of greed, individualism and exclusion should be replaced by solidarity, common good and inclusion. The objective of our economic and social activity should not be the limitless, endless, mindless accumulation of wealth in a profit-centred economy but rather a people-centred economy that guarantees human needs, human rights, and human security, as well as conserves life on earth. These should be universal values that underpin our ethical and moral responsibility.”

    It was followed only this month by these words from the encyclical of Pope Benedict:

    'This is not merely a matter of a “third sector”, but of a broad new composite reality embracing the private and public spheres, one which does not exclude profit, but instead considers it a means for achieving human and social ends. Whether such companies distribute dividends or not, whether their juridical structure corresponds to one or other of the established forms, becomes secondary in relation to their willingness to view profit as a means of achieving the goal of a more humane market and society'

    “The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred.”

    So, there it is. This is not just about the “we” in social networking but something of far greater import, the way that a new ethical paradigm for business has arrived under radar and as yet, not more than a handful of people have spotted it.

  2. SimonRosenberg
    August 1st, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

    Jeff, thanks for weighing in here. All sorts of interesting insights.

    If what you are arguing is that is time for a more people centered politics and economics, to use an American term a politics and economics of the bottom up, then I am with you all the way.

  3. JeffMowatt
    August 3rd, 2009 @ 5:50 am

    Simon, Yes, bottom-up is very much part of the approach we've deployed. It began in the wake of Russia's 1998 economic collapse and the failure of the Defense Enterprise Fund. Proof of concept came with the Tomsk regional initiative which with $6 million microfinance seed capital resulted in 10,000 new businesses and 36 spin-off social projects.

    It was the paper, however, delivered to the Committee to re-elect the President and then posted on the web, which seeded the idea of reformed capitalism, business with a primary social purpose which we now see reflected in other models.

    Here in the UK we've been applying it for 5 years with a social target in the childcare institutions of Eastern Europe.

    What has been delivered since then is a 21st century 'Marshall Plan'' based on a microeconomic approach which has in the last 2 years influenced policy decisions in two governments.

    I would offer links to the information above, were it not that doing so prevents the reply being published.

Leave a Reply





  • Join the Mailing List





  • About Demos

    Demos is a London-based think tank. We generate ideas to improve politics and policy, and give people more power over their lives.
    Go to Demos

  • Labour Leader Election events

    Ed Miliband Q&A

    David Miliband speech

    Ed Balls in conversation

    Andy Burnham Q&A

  • Open Left launch





    Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, writes for Open Left about what being on the left means to her. Click here to see what she thinks.

  • Contact Us

    openleft@demos.co.uk


    For an archive of Open Left project press, see here.

  • Open Left Project

    immigration Jobcentre Plus jobseeker's allowance Labour Unemployment welfare