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.