Hey, how’s it going? Welcome to France in the year 1789. Everyone’s got an opinion on the king these days. You know the king: Louis the 16th! Yeah I know that’s a lot of Louis’s. But that’s because we’ve had a lot of kings.
And it’s not just us - there’s been kings all over the world. For thousands of years, there’s been people living under one king or another - one guy who more or less tells everyone else what to do. 
And I know I’m just a baguette baker living off a modest income in the suburbs of Paris [pronounce it ‘Paree’] but it seems to me only natural to have a king. 
What, you don’t like kings? Well, it’s easy to hate the idea of there being a king when you hate the actual king, but what if the king was a really great guy? What if the king did everything pretty much how you’d want him to? Heck, exactly how you’d want him to! What if the king’s top priorities were YOUR top priorities, and he was going to take care of them right away? Doesn’t sound so bad after all, huh? 
Nowadays, people ‘round town are calling the king a tyrant. But hey… what’s so wrong with a tyrant? It’s like a stern father. My pops always told me, “this house is not a democracy!” You know, I was a rambunctious little lad. Always spoke my mind. Papa would give me the ol’ strap, and get me back in line - and I didn’t turn out too shabby! The king is like a disciplinary father for the whole country. And I don’t see any problem with that, do you?
Ah I see, you’re thinking… but what if you’re stuck with a king you don’t like? Well then just swap him out for a king you do like. [like it’s the most obvious, easy thing] You know, perform a little coup d'etat, a quick little royal overhaul. Maybe a bit of poison here, a minor beheading there, and install the king you’ve always dreamed of. 
It’s a perfect system. Well, unless someone else doesn’t like the new king you picked and they perform their own royal overhaul, stage their own little violent coup, and boom, just like that, you’re back to another king you don’t like. That does happen. Guess you gotta just do another coup again.
No, I know, I’m no dummy - this is ridiculous. Endless violence! Okay, let’s simplify things: how bout the next king will be this current king’s son - end of conversation. We’ll call it a holy mandate from heaven. And hey, I bet the king’s son certainly thinks that’s a good idea. Keep it in the family. It’s like a mom and pop family business. Some families own a laundromat, some families own a kingdom.
But damn, I gotta say, some of these sons end up being real duds. Louis the 16th ain’t nothing like Louis the 14th. Is it just me or is Louis the 16th, the current King of France, just not up to the task?
Oh wow, it is not just me. Woah! Did they just? Holy crap, did they just kill ol’ King Louis? Oh man, oh man, it’s been a while since we had a king killing. Back to the drawing board. Who’s gonna king it up, next? 
Alright, they’re calling a National Assembly. Not sure what that is but my landlord asked me to go in his place. Sounds important… I should probably go to this thing. Jeez, this place is packed. The clergy’s here, yep, aristocracy, hey guys, [whistles] they even let other commoners in. At least it’s the wealthier ones. [under the breath]
C’mon, there’s barely any seats left. Okay, I’ll sit on the left side of the hall over here. Is this - is this chair wobbly? Hey, hey how’s it going? 
Jacques: Bonjour monsieur, je m’appelle Jacques. 
Hey Jack, nice to meet ya. Thanks, yeah, I’ll have a swig of that. So, uh, who you think the next king should be? 
Jacques: Moi? Non. I don’t think there should be a king at all. I believe France should be a democracy! 
A what?!
[intro theme music]
Welcome to Human Nature Odyssey. In this three part series we’re exploring the history of the left / right political spectrum and the 250 year struggle for democracy. This is part three. 
I’m Alex Leff.
This is part three in our three part series on the ideologies that shaped our modern world-system: liberalism, conservatism, and radicalism. 
Before we get to the next part of our story, first we need a summary of the ground we’ve already covered.
As you may recall, at the onset of the French Revolution in 1789, a National Assembly was … assembled. Those in favor of keeping the monarchy sat on the literal right-wing of the hall, and those in favor of democracy sat on the left-wing. Yup, that’s where we get the whole right-wing / left-wing thing. 
We often think of the political spectrum as a binary between two poles, the left and the right. But sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein (who we’ve discussed in previous episodes), suggests politics since the French Revolution hasn’t been shaped just by two poles, but three separate ideologies: the right, the left, and a third thing. A political triad rather than a binary. 
First let’s talk about the right, which since the early 1800s has also been known as conservatism. Generally speaking, right-wing conservatism believes that traditional values, social hierarchy, and strong authority bring prosperity, keep people safe, and help society run smoothly. 
Then, there’s the left, which originally was also known as radicalism. Now, in this historical context, radicalism doesn’t mean extremism. Every ideology can be more extreme or more moderate, flexible or rigid. 
The reason radicalism was originally called radicalism was because the word “radical” comes from the Latin radix, which means “root” and left-wing radicals wanted root-level changes. What kind of root level changes? Well, left-wing radicalism - also generally speaking - believes that social and economic equality are the best way to bring prosperity, keep people safe, and society running smoothly. 
So that’s the right wing and the left wing. But there’s another wing, or… thing, uh, ideology. It’s liberalism. 
Liberalism is different from the right-wing or left-wing. Sometimes people call it “the center.” But I think that actually just confuses things. Liberalism isn’t just the middle ground between the right and left - it’s its own ideology with its own beliefs. What beliefs? Liberalism - again, general speaking - believes in individual freedom, laws that apply to everyone, and a society based on merit, not bloodlines. The best way to do that, most liberals agreed, was by letting the market decide who contributed the most value to society and let those people rise through the ranks. Therefore capitalism, which also relied on the market, became liberalism’s best friend. Individual freedom, universal laws, and merit - liberalism believes - that’s the best way to bring prosperity, keep people safe, and society running smoothly. 
Oh dang, wait, we all want safety, prosperity, and a well-functioning society? Oh wow, we should all get together and work on this sometime. Maybe we could even get along. 
These three ideologies, three perspectives, three strategies, have been competing for the last two and half centuries, to implement their vision on creating a better society.
Now, if you’re thinking to yourself, this guy’s got it all wrong, what’s he talking about, three ideologies? Liberal, conservative, and radicals, that’s not how I would explain it. Well that makes sense. For something as widespread and personal as politics, we all have our own associations and definitions for these common terms. I’m proposing this as one framework among many. Not necessarily better, but hopefully illuminating some things other frameworks can't. And of course this framework is by necessity simplistic. These ideologies are not monoliths. Conservatives can disagree with conservatives. Radicals can be at odds with other radicals - in fact, they often are. Reality is always messier and more complicated. This framework is just a map, really. A good map can help us navigate but it's not the real territory, just symbols. If you don’t take your eyes off the map, and look at where you actually are, you might fall down a manhole or drive into a lake. 
That being said, it’s easy to get lost without a map. And if we’re trying to tell the story of the last 250 year long struggle for democracy, this three ideology map may illuminate some details and nuance other maps can’t. 
So we’re two thirds of the way through our story. If you haven’t listened to Part One or Part Two, hey that’s fine. I’m not here to judge. How ‘bout this? I’ll give ya a quick summary and then we’ll all be up to speed. 
Okay, so, in Part One we watched as the ideals of the French Revolution spread like wildfire across Europe. In 1848, most countries in Europe were ablaze in revolution, with liberals and radicals teaming up to overthrow the conservative monarchies. But when liberals felt radicals were going too far, liberals joined with conservatives to reinstall the right-wing monarchies and the revolutions smoldered.  
Liberalism - which again, wasn’t left or right but its own ideology - found a few countries where their ideal form of government could take hold on its own. 
The United States–that up and coming new nation across the ocean–demonstrated what a liberal democracy could look like–even if only a segment of the population was initially allowed to participate. And here’s something crucial to remember: what Americans call liberal and conservative, the left and the right, were essentially just different shades of liberalism. That means support for free markets, individual freedoms, and a constitutional government. Democrats and Republicans alike have generally upheld these core ideals of liberalism.
So if you’re someone who identifies as a conservative because you support free markets and individual freedoms, within this framework we can consider that still a part of liberalism. Maybe we can call it conservative liberalism. Actual right-wing conservatism, like the right-wing of the French National Assembly, believes in top down authoritarian rule. And for much of American history, the actual right-wing and actual left-wing were only marginally influential. Most of American history is a history of what we’re calling liberalism.
By the end of the 1800s, the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands had adopted versions of liberalism as well. 
Various forms of left-wing radicalism, like communism, socialism, and anarchism were pushed underground, mostly organizing in secret. That was until World War I. In 1917, there was a revolution in Russia. Well actually, there were two. And by the end, Vladimir Lenin’s radical Bolshevik party seized power and within a few years, formed the Soviet Union. Left-wing Radicalism, in the form of Soviet-style communism, finally had its own government to implement its ideals.
World War I ended in 1919, and as a result, many conservative monarchies either collapsed or had their power greatly reduced. But those who longed for a return to the more traditional strong top-down authority of the monarchies, rallied around a new expression of right-wing ideology: fascism. 
Like we talked about in the last episode, fascism is kind of like first fen monarchy, same dictatorial power, emphasis on hierarchy, and conservative social values, just without the long history to back it up. 
Then came World War II. The liberal countries allied with the radical Soviet Union and ultimately, the allies defeated the right-wing regimes.
After the war’s global devastation, two superpowers emerged: the United States and the Soviet Union. Liberalism and radicalism’s temporary alliance to fight right-wing fascism was over. 
Since a direct war between the US and Soviet Union would risk global nuclear annihilation, these two superpowers fought each other indirectly, often by supporting their ideological allies in local civil wars, like in Vietnam.
Before long, The Soviet Union seemed to abandon its radical principles and ended up looking an awful lot like an authoritarian state. And the United States - with its violent meddling in other countries’ democracies, and crackdowns against its own social movements - wasn't really living up to its ideals of freedom and democracy either. 
By the 1960s, a new generation protested the hypocrisy of both liberal and radical governments for abandoning the principles of freedom, democracy, or equality they claimed to be committed to. 
And that’s where we last left off. 
In Taiko Watiti’s 2019 satirical film, Jojo Rabbit, we follow a boy named Jojo, who’s a member of the Hitler Youth during World War II. Jojo has been fully indoctrinated into the Nazi Party and he frequently talks with his imaginary best friend: a goofy version of Adolf Hitler. But when Jojo finds a Jewish girl named Elsa hiding in his attic, his entire worldview is thrown into question. He actually likes this Jewish girl, even though he’s been brought up to hate her. He can’t be friends with her. He’s a Nazi.
But Elsa is a few years older than Jojo and a lot wiser. She tells him, “You're not a Nazi, Jojo. You're a ten-year-old kid who likes dressing up in a funny uniform and wants to be part of a club.”
People are not their ideology. People are people. People can wear ideology like a funny uniform and they can change the clothes they wear. 
When we talk about the three ideologies: liberals, conservatives, and radicals, know that we are talking about people whose opinions and perspectives have been shaped by the world around them. No matter what we think of their ideology, we can learn a lot more by always seeing their humanity. If we want to curse or condemn anyone, it’s the ideological gods who are to blame. The gods? Oh don’t worry, we’ll hear from them again in a bit. 
Okay so finally we can start Part 3 of the story. Where were we? Ah yeah, 1960s, youth protests, got it. The youth protests of the 1960s, along with the social movements of its time,  could be considered part of the left-wing radical tradition, which originally called for a total restructuring of society around social and economic equality. 
By the 1960s, the word radical often meant extremism, instead of referring to the left wing ideology. So, for the sake of clarity, I’m going to refer to left-wing radicalism as simply the left from here on out. 
But while the left didn’t topple any governments, it found it could shift the system from within through various social movements of the time: like the antiwar protests, civil rights movement, second-wave feminism, the gay rights movement, the early environmental movement.
In the United States, the terms “left-wing” and “liberal” are often used interchangeably. But this isn’t the case in many similar countries and blurs an important distinction. Remember, using our three ideology map, we can see the left and liberalism are separate ideologies with their own goals and perspectives. The left was focused on equality. Liberalism became increasingly focused on capitalism. 
And here’s why that distinction matters. After the 1960s, the left learned it was much easier to win fights for social equality — like civil rights or gay rights — than it was to win fights for economic equality. Social change could fit into capitalism. Economic change could not.
The left found that if it couldn’t hold economic or political power, it could at least shape the culture. Rather than toppling governments, activists focused on changing people’s minds–through art, education, and pop culture. This long, peaceful campaign came to be called the culture wars. Culture wars are not fought with bullets, but with cool. And in many ways, this was a battle the left was actually winning. 
This wasn’t organized by some top-down strategy. It unfolded gradually, through a decentralized, non-hierarchical movement over the course of decades. 
By the time I was growing up in the 1990s and early 2000s, classic left-wing ideals of equality and inclusion were pretty much the cultural norm. Posters on our classroom walls promoted multiracial diversity, you know the ones, with all the different colored hands reaching around the globe. Star Wars, which had only become more culturally influential since its release in the 1970s, portrayed authoritarian empire as the ultimate evil. The once controversial left-wing radical Martin Luther King Jr. had become universally revered. It seemed to me that outright sexism and racism (though of course still prevalent) were not generally taught as cool or to be admired. 
But while the left defined cultural cool in the United States, liberalism still dominated its government, the politicians, and its policies. Liberalism and left-wing started this interesting dance. And liberalism continued to argue that free-market capitalism was simply the most effective economic system. So while advocating for economic equality was a no-go for liberalism, liberalism could stomach the left-wing’s cultural influence… if the left was willing to accept capitalism. In fact, liberalism found that plenty of the left-wing’s cultural changes worked in capitalism’s favor. Instead of women staying at home, now the workforce has doubled! And thank god because soon the cost of living will be so high few families will be able to survive off of just one paycheck anyway. 
And you know what? Diversity isn’t so bad after all. We can sell all sorts of products to the groups we used to pretend didn’t exist. On Pride Month our rainbow flag sales will be through the roof! It turned out capitalism was totally fine with you criticizing capitalism. ‘Yeah go ahead, protest me, it’ll be fun. I have some anti-capitalist shirts you can buy.’. 
While authoritarianism resists change, capitalism co-opts it.
And compared to communism, by the late 20th century capitalism was looking pretty dang good. 
Remember the Vietnam War back in the 1960s? The United States had spent over a trillion dollars (in today’s money) fighting communism in Vietnam. Nearly 60,000 Americans and over a million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed. But the United States, with all its military might, could not defeat communism in Vietnam. When the US withdrew in 1973, communists soon took control and named the country the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. But by the 1980s, Vietnam was struggling with serious economic challenges. 
Decades of war and international isolation had left Vietnam’s economy painfully slow to recover. The government’s system — a centrally planned economy modeled after Soviet Communism — only made things harder, eventually pushing Vietnam to embrace private enterprise and foreign investment. After all that, communism in Vietnam wasn’t defeated by military force, but by economic pressure. 
In 1980, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said of capitalism’s mix with liberalism, “there is no alternative,” and when the Soviet Union finally fell in 1991 and the brand new Russian Federation embraced capitalism, it seemed she might be right. 
Just like that the Cold War was over. To many people around the world, capitalism appeared undeniably more efficient and stable, promising greater prosperity for more people. 
Deng Xiaoping, leader of the Communist Party in China, had helped reform China’s economy to allow more free-market policies. Deng quoted an old Chinese proverb that says ‘it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, if it catches mice it is a good cat.’” Capitalism seemed to work better than Communism, and that was good enough for Deng.  
And in South Africa, Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress had long been closely aligned with communism. But when Mandela was released from prison and elected president in 1994, he too found himself pressured into embracing capitalism. 
With communism in decline around the world, and capitalism seen as the only functioning model, even leaders who once imagined different futures faced enormous pressure to stick to the dominant capitalist system. 
Remember those ideological gods from the last episode? Well at this point in history, we can imagine the god of liberalism was feeling pretty dang good. 
Liberalism: So uh, Right-Wing Conservatism, you haven’t really been a global super power since World War II. And Left-Wing Radicalism, ever since the Soviet Union collapsed, you lost your super power as well, since let’s face it, your system didn’t work. Your people couldn’t even get reliable cars, let alone enough food to eat 
Radicalism: Well actually in Scandinavian countries, they use a mix of capitalism and socialism-
Liberalism: Shut up, shut up… That’s not radicalism. 
Radicalism: Sure it is. Left wing economics, strong social safety nets.
Conservatism: Doesn’t sound so radical. That sounds pragmatic. 
Radicalism: Yeah that’s what I’m talking about! Radicalism doesn’t mean extremism, it means social and economic equality. Haven’t you been listening to the podcast?
Liberalism: Listen, Scandinavia Shmandanavia… that’s just some little social experiments. Looks like I’m the last one standing. And you know how I did it? You wanna know how I kicked your guys’ ass? I owe it all to capitalism. Gimme dat free market and private enterprise. Mmm, I love me some capitalism. In fact, I’d like to announce it right now [clears throat] me and capitalism? We’re getting married. Yep, and I’m changing my name. I would like to now be known… as neoliberalism. 
Radicalism: Oh great, what a cool name… 
Liberalism: Shut up Commie - why don’t you go back to the Soviet Union if you hate capitalism so much? Oh wait, you can’t! The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore! And how’s Communist China doing? I hear they’re becoming pretttttty capitalistic these days…
Radicalism: Man, will you let it go? The Soviet Union and China don’t have a monopoly on what it means to be left-wing. 
Liberalism: Oh hey radicalism? You know what neoliberalism is gonna do next? 
Radicalism: …what?
Liberalism: The exact opposite of whatever the Soviet Union did! The Soviet Union tried to control its market, suffocating it with authoritarian policies. But me? Neoliberalism? I’m the ideology of freedom, man. That’s what I’m all about. Private enterprise has to be free to do its thing. The government’s got to get out of the way and I know the US, the world’s hegemonic superpower, my knight in shining armor, understands me, right guys?
In the 1980s, US President Ronald Reagan, one of the patron saints of neoliberalism, liked to say, “that government is best which governs least”. There are all these regulations out there that are just holding business back. So when Reaganites set about cutting regulations, and as a result, the stock market soared. Some people made a lot of money. But for most of the country, wages stagnated and public services were cut. But don’t worry, Reagan said, we gotta let businesses make as much money as possible so their wealth can trickle down. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be trickled on? 
Oh and we need free trade. We gotta make sure goods and services can move freely across borders. 
And by the 1990s, both major U.S. parties–Democrats and Republicans–were fully onboard with neoliberalism. 
Democratic President Bill Clinton agreed. Different party but same neoliberal ideology. So in the 1990s, Clinton passed some free trade agreements with other countries which sped up the rise of multinational corporations. Those corporations relocated their production to whatever countries had fewest regulations and the cheapest labor. This was great for CEOs and shareholders but it wasn’t that great for workers whose jobs got shipped overseas. 
Then in the 2000s, Republican President - George W. Bush - picked up neoliberalism where Reagan and Clinton left off. “Alright guys, just a few more free trade agreements to sign. Oh, gotta cut these taxes for the high-income earners. I’m sure that wealth will start trickling down anytime now. And, what’s this? Hey guys, I found some regulations you missed! Don’t worry, don’t worry, I got it. Slashed ‘em. 
Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, were all true believers of neoliberalism - of course, it didn’t hurt that their corporate donors and lobbyists were fans of neoliberalism too. 
Liberalism: Man, these US Presidents are geniuses! This is so great! Now companies can finally be free to make as much money as humanly possible. 
Radicalism: Uh, Liberalism? 
Liberalism: Check out all these housing loans banks are offering! 
Conservatism: Liberalism…
Liberalism: Do you see these interest rates? The banks are gonna make a fortune!
Conservatism and Radicalism: Liberalism!!
Liberalism: What?!
In 2007, the housing bubble began to burst, which is such a fun childlike metaphor for a very serious adult disaster. 
One of the largest investment banks went bankrupt, with ripple effects around the world. 
Liberalism: No, no, no! Shit, shit! My beautiful stock market!
People lost their jobs. Families lost their homes. The entire global capitalist economy went into what would be called the Great Recession. 
And in 2008 Democratic President Barack Obama was elected, and despite being called a leftist communist radical by his Republican opponents, Obama’s economic policies, were very similar to his predecessors: neoliberal as apple pie. 
The Obama Administration implemented the bailout that the George W Bush administration had proposed. This wasn’t a bailout for the average person - it was a bailout for the same financial institutions that caused the recession in the first place. 
While this averted a more serious economic collapse, most Americans still felt the effects of the recession for years. Even after Obama’s stimulus package for the middle class a year later, the recovery was slow. By the 2010s, the top 1% of the country’s population held over a third of the wealth.
Radicalism: Wow Liberalism, are you happy now? Wasn’t free market capitalism supposed to make the world better for everyone? All this wealth inequality reminds me a little bit of France under Louis the 16th.
Conservatism: Pretty ironic… wouldn’t you say, liberalism?.
In Part One of this series, we talked about how in 1848 in Palermo, Sicily, a radical prankster put up flyers that said ‘tomorrow there will be a revolution’ and that helped spark the revolutions of 1848. Well, in the summer of 2011, the radical magazine Adbusters put out a provocative flyer that read “#occupywallstreet. September 17th. Bring tent.”
Now just the day before, if you asked almost anyone they would’ve dismissed this as some sort of performance art. But, on September 17th, over a thousand people showed up to occupy a public square near Wall Street - the US’s financial capital in New York. And they brought a tent. 
There wasn’t one leader and people participated for a wide range of reasons. But a major rallying cry was to protest wealth inequality. 
Occupy  took inspiration from the pro-democracy mass protests of the short-lived Arab Spring earlier that year, when millions of people across the Middle East and North Africa protested their authoritarian governments. Within a month, there were over 900 occupy protests in over 80 countries. 
I had just graduated high school and was working on a conservation corps in the Pacific Northwest. We only got occasional news about it all when we’d head into town once every other week and caught a glimpse of a newspaper. I was eager to see what it was all about when I got out. But I read how protesters were met with riot police and tear gas canisters. Cities brought in bulldozers to clear the demonstrations. By the time I returned from the woods, just a few months later, the occupations had mostly come to a snuffed out end. 
Occupy did not fix wealth inequality or dismantle capitalism but it did bring the classic economic left-wing critiques that had been sidelined for so long, back from the political fringes into the mainstream. 
So during the 2016 US presidential campaign for the Democratic nomination, a grumpy old senator with unkempt white hair named Bernie Sanders shocked the country with his overwhelming popularity with young people – among 18 to 29 year olds, he won 60-80% of the vote depending on the state. 
Bernie’s politics, unlike almost every other major presidential candidate for over half a century, came from the actual left-wing. But rather than calling for a completely new system–as traditional radicalism would–he pushed for reforms from within–through peaceful and democratic means. So does this make him a liberal or radical? Well, somewhere in between. 
While communism seeks collective or state control of the market, and neoliberalism promotes deregulation and privatization, Bernie advocated for a kind of a balance – encouraging a competitive free market but with strong regulations, higher taxes on the wealthy, and expanding social programs like healthcare, education, affordable housing, and social security. He called this… democratic socialism. 
In other countries, this is usually called social democracy, and versions of it have been in place since the post–World War II era in countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, and Uruguay.
These kinds of policies even once had a home in the United States, believe it or not, through Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which significantly expanded government programs to help Americans recover from the Great Depression. 
While many older Americans were used to socialism being associated with Soviet Union authoritarianism, a new generation was free of that Cold War baggage. And though Bernie Sanders lost in the Democratic primary, It was the closest the left-wing had come to real power in the United States for decades. But Bernie Sanders’s neoliberal Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton didn’t win that election either. Someone else did. 
But before we get to that, let’s check in on the US’s old Cold War rival Russia, and see what they’ve been up to. 
At one time, Russia had been the last place in Europe you’d have expected a communist revolution. And at the height of the Soviet Union, it was the last place you’d have expected capitalism to flourish. But Russia likes to surprise you.
By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union’s economy was seriously struggling, so it began gradually allowing people to open small-scale businesses for the very first time. You know, just a touch of private enterprise, a little dash of the free market. 
But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia’s leader, Boris Yeltsin, decided what Russia needed was some of its own neoliberalism. He called it ‘shock therapy’ capitalism. The old Soviet-run industries, like manufacturing, mining, the media, all of a sudden were sold to the highest bidder. It was like Russia was having an estate sale for the now dead Soviet Union. Russia even brought in western advisors to help show them how to do capitalism.
LIBERALISM: Oh thank god! Russia is finally a capitalist country. Nothing strengthens democracy like capitalism. This is amazing! Russia will finally be free! 
CONSERVATISM AND RADICALISM: Yeah, yeah, yeah…
LIBERALISM: Oh, and now that Russia is capitalist, it can finally have its own rags to riches stories! 
And boy did it. Here’s one of them. 
Poor little Roman Abramovich, born in 1966, orphaned at the age of three, grew up in the howling cold of northern Russia. By the time he was a young man, the Soviet Union had started allowing people to open their own small businesses, so he started selling rubber duckies out of his apartment. It was an honest living. (this is a true story by the way)
When communism collapsed, Abramovich graduated from duckies to bigger and better, but less fun and whimsical things– like oil, aluminum, and airlines. And when Russia started auctioning off its old state-run industries, he bought them. A lot of them. He soon became one of the wealthiest men in the country. He bought his fair share of sports cars, a couple superyachts, the UK’s Chelsea soccer team, a 15-bedroom mansion and penthouse suites around the world, and then spent hundreds of millions of dollars worth of his own money to be elected governor of Russia’s Chukotka region. 
Not every Russian was so fortunate. Basic food prices soared. Many went hungry. But this wasn’t communism anymore - this was the free market baby - you wanna eat? You gotta compete. 
And Abramovich and his fellow extremely rich businessmen were winning the competition. They owned the news, they bribed - uh, I mean influenced - politicians to pass the laws they wanted, and like Abramovich became politicians themselves. 
Soon a lot of people argued that Russia wasn’t really a democracy, but an oligarchy–a government run by the wealthy.
LIBERALISM: Damn… so does neoliberalism inevitably accumulate wealth in fewer and fewer hands that control more and more of the government until democracy is completely eroded? That’s such a bummer ‘cause I always liked to think of myself as the ideal ideology of democracy. Conservatism, whether you were monarchism or fascism, you were openly authoritarian. 
CONSERVATISM: So what?
LIBERALISM: And radicalism, I know you said you didn’t want to become authoritarian, but the Soviet Union certainly was. But it turns out… I can become authoritarian too?! That capitalism without limits doesn’t lead to more democracy but to oligarchy?! Man, I was so focused on the government not being authoritarian that I didn’t realize that the wealthy could become authoritarian through their wealth and end up buying the government. 
RADICALISM: I tried to warn you, when a system prioritizes accumulating more wealth for the wealthy, eroding the social safety net, shipping jobs overseas or exploiting workers at home, the masses suffer.
CONSERVATISM: And when populations become desperate, strong leaders become more popular. 
When Boris Yeltsin resigned, Russians turned to this charming bald guy named Vladimir Putin and elected him president in 2000.
CONSERVATISM: You know I like this Putin guy. He stands up for traditional values, not all those radical ones. Plus have you seen that pic with him riding a horse without his shirt on? Pretty manly…
Putin promised to restore Russia’s economy and stand up to the oligarchy. In reality, he worked with it–punishing oligarchs who opposed him and rewarding those who were loyal. 
Putin was only allowed to be president for a maximum of eight years. But with help from his trusty oligarchs, eight years turned to fourteen, fourteen years turned to twenty-four, and just like that–oops, if Putin keeps this up he’ll be in power as long as Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin combined. 
Also, isn’t it a weird coincidence that his critics and political opponents keep dying of poison, falling out of windows, or being sent to prison?
Neoliberal oligarchy, it turned out, was actually the perfect breeding ground for right-wing authoritarianism, mirroring the relationship between the monarchs and aristocratic nobility of old. 
LIBERALISM: Then that means… oh god, we gotta go tell the United States! Those guys love Neoliberalism! 
In the United States, while the left-wing was gaining some modest political momentum in its critique of capitalism by the late 2010s and early 2020s, the real right-wing (the kind that would have sat on the right wing of the old French national assembly) started gaining traction with an almost similar critique–but using used different words. 
Instead of railing against the 1%, the right-wing resurgence blamed coastal elites. Instead of saying they opposed free trade, they said they were for economic nationalism. Instead of denouncing neoliberalism, denounced globalism. Their enemies weren’t ‘capitalists’ – they were globalists. 
While the left shared memes like “eat the rich,” the right chanted “drain the swamp” - calling out a corrupt, self-serving establishment that had betrayed the country. Kinda sounds like the left-wing view, doesn’t it?
But this wasn’t just a difference in rhetoric. You say tomato, I say tamahto. This was a crucial ideological difference in priorities. 
In the right’s view, the real problem with society wasn’t economic injustice–it was the left-wing’s cultural influence. You know–multiculturalism, feminism, all that LGBTQ, and Black Lives Matter stuff, Christianity being less culturally dominant–these things weren’t signs of progress, but symptoms of a country losing the identity the right-wing believes is best. 
Those drawn to right-wing conservatism didn’t want to dismantle hierarchy–they wanted to reshape it. To them, the problem wasn’t inequality itself–but who was on top. 
Putin reshaped Russia’s oligarchy to serve his rule. But the American right-wing found a shortcut. Instead of reshaping the oligarchy, they elected one of its members: a billionaire who campaigned on fighting the elites. And to fight those elites, the American billionaire filled his new administration with some of the wealthiest people on the planet. To the left-wing, this might seem like a contradiction. But to the right-wing this makes perfect sense: of course the richest and most powerful men should rule. Who else could stand up to the other rich and powerful men? And this new billionaire candidate wasn’t just any rich and powerful man, he spoke on behalf of right-wing conservatism’s cultural values as well.
And you know what–I like to think I’m an open minded guy. Maybe a billionaire president and a handful of oligarchs are the best people to represent the common folk. King Louis the 16th and Tsar Nicholas the 2nd thought they were the best guys for the job as well. 
During the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, the right-wing billionaire and former president ran for reelection, four years after losing his bid for a second term. Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson spoke at a rally about the dangers of unruly left-wing radicalism and how he believed a proper leader should deal with them. I’ll let Tucker speak for himself:
“If you allow your hormone-addled 15 year old daughter to, like, slam the bedroom door and give you the finger, you're going to get more of it. And those kids are going to wind up in rehab. It's not good for you, and it's not good for them. No! There has to be a point at which dad comes home. Yeah, that's right. Dad comes home. And he's pissed. Dad is pissed. He's not vengeful. He loves his children, disobedient as they may be, he loves them, because they're his children, they live in his house, but he's very disappointed in their behavior. And he's going to have to let them know. Get to your room - right now and think about what you did. And when dad gets home you know what he says? You’ve been a bad girl. You’ve been a bad little girl and you’re getting a vigorous spanking, right now. And no, it’s not gonna hurt me more than it’s going to hurt you - no it’s not, I’m not going to lie - it’s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this. You’re getting a vigorous spanking because you’ve been a bad girl. And it has to be this way. It has to be this way because it’s true, and you’re only gonna get better when you take responsibility for what you did. That’s not said in the spirit of hate. It’s not said in the spirit of vengeance or bigotry - far from it. It’s said in the spirit of justice. Which is the purest and best thing there is. And without it, things fall apart.”
GUY FROM BEGINNING: Oh man. Anyone else getting goosebumps? This guy shoulda spoken at the National Assembly. Exactly! He’s so right - that’s the kind of leader society needs, not someone bound by checks and balances, restrained by laws that commoners have to follow, but a strongman. A dictator. A king. Right-wing conservatism is back, baby! 
The re-emergence of the right-wing is a global pattern seen in many countries. From the United States, to Russia, China, India, the Philippines, Brazil, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, right-wing leaders and movements have gained increasing political power, often challenging democratic checks and balances and individual freedom. 
Capitalism has rapidly industrialized much of the world, destabilizing local economies, increasing migration, bringing cultural change (not to mention climate change). Many people feel anxious about these changes and want safety, security, and what’s familiar. Right-wing conservatism answers these concerns. 
Many people are fed up with governments that don’t seem to work for the average person. So in response, rather than blaming money in politics for corruption and dysfunction, the right-wing views democracy’s checks and balances as obstacles to efficiency—barriers that need to be dismantled.
As people feel more desperate, many grow wary of newcomers and minorities. To address worries that there’s not enough to go around, the right-wing promises to prioritize the people who they believe belong and push out those who don’t. 
  And in response to all the social change of recent years, the right-wing promises a return to more traditional values. It’s a vision of a familiar, more secure world.
It’s clear that these are very real, tangible fears and anxieties. But do these proposed fixes actually address the underlying problems?
Another common thread of the return of the right-wing is nationalism - an ideology in and of itself that could and should be a whole other episode. But a key part of nationalism is the belief that a country should act only for its own interests. That’s why you hear slogans like America First. Screw this whole global village cooperation thing. I’m gonna only care about my country. 
Essentially, it’s individualism for countries. And you know, I think Individualism can be a beautiful thing. Thinking for yourself, marching to the beat of your own drummer, it’s an important way to resist authoritarianism and it is what makes humanity so diverse. And there is wisdom in prioritizing yourself - that’s why the airplane pilot reminds you to put your oxygen mask on first - how else will you help someone else to breathe as freely as you do? 
Nationalism tells us we need to choose between protecting ourselves and protecting our neighbor. But it seems to me my family is much safer when my neighbor is well fed and taken care of. When people are desperate, they’re the most dangerous. In that sense, equality isn’t just about being moral, it’s about being pragmatic. 
And now, here we are, right in the present moment. If you listen closely, you can still hear those gods going at it up in the ideological heavens. But we’ve listened to those gods enough. We now have the vantage point of 250 years of history. The future is still foggy but hopefully the past is a little more clear. Here’s what I see from where I’m looking. 
After all this time, the over two centuries of history since the French Revolution, it seems like, in a way, we’re coming back around. Some of the most powerful people in the world are embracing authoritarianism as a more effective form of government. Some, like the increasingly prominent right-wing thinker Curtis Yarvin, are openly calling for monarchy. The kings are back. Or trying to be. 
It’s like we’ve completed some sort of strange cycle. But we don’t have to be stuck in it. We can learn from what’s happened here. Is it possible to create a more equal, more free society that works for everyone?
It seems we’ve reached a fork in the road - similar to the one they debated all the way back during the French Revolution’s national assembly. Either we dip back into authoritarianism or create more resilient forms of democracy. 
And if we’ve learned anything from the last few centuries, it’s that even the ideologies that claim to be for democracy can fall into the authoritarian temptation - recreating similar oppressive hierarchies they tried to dismantle.
The Soviet Union is a prime example. Even though it claimed to champion equality, it had its own ingroups and outgroups and imprisoned those they believed didn’t have the correct radical views. 
So what gives? Is authoritarianism–whether we like it or not–just a more effective form of government?
Well, sure, authoritarianism has its strengths. A strong leader can cut through the red tape of bureaucracy and act decisively. But when power is concentrated in one person–or even one party–leaders tend to favor loyalty over merit, surround themselves with people who only tell them what they want to hear, and end up with a pretty limited view of the country they’re supposed to govern. 
King Louis the 16th, Tsar Nicholas the 2nd, and Joseph Stalin ended up being more out of touch with the struggles of the people than they realized.
Now, after all this, you might be tempted to say, “Screw it–let’s just forget all these ideologies. I don’t wanna have any ideology.” I get that. Ideologies come with a lot of limitations and historical weight. But it’s important to understand that historical entangling if we’re gonna try and untangle it. The ideologies are just one map to go by. People don’t fall neatly into one category - no matter what flags they raise or uniforms they wear. Reality is complex. We can’t get so stuck to our side that we can’t recognize the fear and pain and values of others. 
Maybe the best way to chart a path is to be guided not by ideology, but values. Make sure you’re driven by your values, not just following a group because it claims to represent an ideology. And I’d say beware of groups that tell you you’ve got to be a card carrying member, or if you disagree with them on one or two or three points then you’re against the ideology. No one person or group can speak for a whole ideology. The truth is far more complex and interesting than that.
If we want to live in a world without endless war, we have to remember the lesson in Jojo Rabbit. People are not their ideology. People are people. And if that’s true, how do we act like we’re all in this together? 
And if we’re all in this together, seems to me it makes the most sense if everyone has a say - you know, like a democracy. 
Democracy can’t be about good guys and bad guys. Or about banishing the bad people with the bad ideas, but how do we create a system that works for all people?
Because here’s the thing: authoritarianism seems to be the most effective because you can just go in one direction and not care what other people think. But real effectiveness–effectiveness that lasts and works for everybody–comes from a system that doesn’t view dissent as an inherent threat but actually welcomes feedback. Because that’s the only way you can self correct from making errors. It’s not just that freedom of speech is just a nice thing to do, it’s the only way a system can adapt and evolve. 
Because any system is going to have criticism. Being criticized isn’t a bad thing. It’s how you respond to it. Do you wanna spend your time and energy imprisoning people you disagree with or find ways to address peoples’ grievances and needs?
A well-functioning democracy allows for the greatest perspectives, resolves political conflicts peacefully, and is more adaptable and dynamic is actually more effective than an authoritarian system focused on silencing critics and staying in power. The reason neoliberal democracies became so corrupt and ineffective wasn’t a flaw of democracy itself, but the result of money’s corruption of the democratic process. 
While the term ‘democracy’ comes from the Greeks, the phenomenon itself started long before them and existed all over the world. Many indigenous cultures, or who Daniel Quinn calls Leavers in the book Ishmael (the book the first 8 episodes of this podcast are about), have governed based on representative councils, direct assemblies, and consensus building. There are countless ways to do democracy - some we’ve barely begun to imagine. 
What happens next? That’s up to us. History is a relay race and the baton has been passed down to us. It’s in our hands now. We’re the ones who will find the better path. So—where will we go from here?
Thanks for listening.
This was part three of a three part series. But the fun doesn’t stop here! Stay tuned for the next episode of Human Nature Odyssey where we’ll take the lessons of this  political history and integrate it with deeper civilizational questions about our species’ relationship to the natural world. 
Until next time, I hope you’ll consider what values are most important to you, how can we work towards a system - even imagine a system - that holds those values and others as well? What lessons can be learned from the political history of the last 250 years? What can be learned from what came before? How might the future be different? 
If you enjoy Human Nature Odyssey please share it with a friend. Leave a friendly review. And come say hi on the Human Nature Odyssey Patreon. There you’ll have access to bonus episodes, additional thoughts and writings, and audiobook readings. And I just wanted to thank all the folks that have reaching out on the Patreon, adding their thoughts and comments, or suggestions on what I should explore next. It means a lot and your support makes this podcast possible. 
Thank you to Brian, Nare, Mark, Honan, Maggie, Nina, Joe, Jessie, Steven, Sheer, Michael, Charley, Nic, and Asher for your input and feedback on this episode. 
This series was made in association with the Post Carbon Institute. You can learn more at Resilience.org
And as always, our theme music is Celestial Soda Pop by Ray Lynch. You can find a link in our show notes.
Talk with you soon.