Global Federalism as Part of the Resistance

In Rodrik’s trilemma, we must choose two of the following three: hyperglobalization, national sovereignty, and democracy. Rodrik himself opts for national sovereignty and democracy, with some qualifications—he allows for limited forms of international coordination, what he calls “global traffic lights.” In his latest book, "Shared Prosperity in a Fractured World"—a brilliant work offering compelling proposals for modern industrial policy—he insists that the fight against the insurgent far right will not be won through new forms of global governance, but through national and local policy experimentation.

Rodrik’s ideal is the Keynesian world of Bretton Woods, which paved the way for shared prosperity in the developed world after the Second World War. Yet we now live in a profoundly different context.

Rodrik acknowledges that climate change represents a crucial departure from the postwar world, but he maintains that more should be expected from national initiatives than from ambitious global agreements such as Kyoto or Paris. Indeed, much progress has been achieved at the local and national levels. Still, the scale of what remains to be done is vast, and it is difficult to imagine meeting this challenge without some form of global federalism.

We also face a new technological landscape dominated by global multinationals wielding immense political power—companies increasingly intertwined with an aggressive, transnational neo-fascism led, at present, from the White House. It is hard to see how such forces can be resisted without coordinated global action.

The great Italian economist and political scientist Massimo Morelli, in joint work with Eugenio Peluso, argues that current realities go beyond the simplified logic of Rodrik’s trilemma. The rise of nationalist populism, they contend, poses a fundamental threat to liberal democracy:

“The limitation of Rodrik’s trilemma lies in its narrow conceptualization of democracy, defined solely through the lens of ‘mass politics,’ while overlooking the crucial pillars of liberal democracy, such as the protection of rights, checks and balances, and the separation of powers. When we consider this broader notion of democracy, the three trends—deglobalization, democratic crisis, and nationalism—appear interdependent and mutually reinforcing, thereby undermining the trilemma framework.”

Morelli and Peluso conclude that their analysis “challenges the idea that sacrificing globalization alone can preserve democracy. The commitments made by populist leaders go far beyond trade protectionism and include a broader agenda that erodes the institutional safeguards of democracy itself.”

In the closing pages of his book, Rodrik suggests that the left should reclaim patriotism—distinguished from nationalism. I accept that some words are less dangerous than others. Still, it would be far better to restore dignity and identity to vulnerable groups through stronger public services and robust re- and pre-distributive institutions—including transnational mechanisms such as fiscal harmonization, starting in Europe through the EU—than by pandering to their prejudices.

Amartya Sen, who experienced the destructive power of identity politics in his childhood in India and explored these issues through social choice theory, issued a powerful warning in "Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny" (great subtitle!)  about the dangers of succumbing to the “us versus them” temptation in democratic societies.

These are undeniably difficult times for global federalism. Yet Rodrik himself argues that hyperglobalization is a form of neoliberalism—and he is firmly opposed to neoliberalism. Sometimes progress against neoliberalism takes the form of positive reform; at other times it takes the form of resistance. National social democracy once preserved markets while expanding welfare states. Today, we need a transnational version of social democracy: a form of global federalism that retains the benefits of global markets and institutions—none of which are going to disappear—while embedding them within a system of global safeguards and protections.

Retreating into the comfort of local identities or nation-states is not a viable option.

A New Balance Between Technocracy and Progressive Politics

As the historian Timothy Snyder has argued, post-truth is pre-fascism. It follows that resisting neo-fascism requires a commitment to truth. This struggle must involve scientists—the professionals of truth—including, crucially, the best social scientists. Social science is complex, and its debates are often shaped by vested interests. That is why the emphasis must be on the best research, conducted with transparency and supported by intelligent political leadership.

Prophets of the so-called “dark enlightenment,” such as Peter Thiel, insist that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. Thiel has stated explicitly: “I no longer think that freedom and democracy are compatible.” In his vocabulary, however, “freedom” effectively means capitalism—a usage reminiscent of Pinochet and his supporters, including Chicago School economists, who spoke of freedom while disregarding democracy.

Thiel may be right about the tension between capitalism and democracy. Many would therefore argue that we must choose democracy and constrain capitalism accordingly. There is little doubt, however, that Trumpists have chosen capitalism—“freedom,” in their terms—over democracy.

This reality pushes science and scientists into the front lines of resistance against the dark enlightenment: telling the truth about migration, climate change, vaccines, human rights, and universal justice, while militantly opposing conspiracy theories and scapegoating.

In the past, technocracy was seen as an ally of the right—a means of protecting investments and “sound policy” from left-wing populism. Today, however, the social groups that support the right appear to place more trust in illiberal democracy than in technocrats, many of whom—especially in the social sciences—have shifted leftward. Hence the Wall Street Journal editorial board’s endorsement of the unitary executive theory during Trump’s second administration.

In this context, it is significant that the center-left economists behind the so-called London Consensus now advocate a new balance between politics and technocracy. Diane Coyle, for example, argues that in the current geopolitical environment competition policy must become more politicized. Given network externalities and scale economies in new technologies, governments may increasingly be forced to choose among potential monopolists.

At the same time, the current wave of neo-fascist movements directly threatens several bastions of liberal and progressive media—CNN, major French and Italian outlets, and the BBC, among others. Consistent with their broader agenda of dismantling pluralistic democracy, the so-called “broligarchy” is working to seize control of both traditional and social media.

This organized attack on democracy is also an organized attack on truth and rational debate. Those who defend truth and open discourse must respond with the coordinated support of the best available talent. And this support must be explicitly political if we are to win the battle for public opinion.