The political landscape in the West has shifted dramatically in recent decades, with increasing numbers of people becoming disillusioned with mainstream liberal politics gravitating toward the right. This trend is not accidental but rooted in systemic, cultural, and psychological factors that make the right a more accessible and appealing alternative for those feeling alienated.
The left’s historical strength lay in its ability to articulate a clear critique of the capitalist system, centered on the exploitative relationship between workers and owners. Class, as a concept, derives its significance from the process of surplus extraction: the transfer of wealth from those who labor to those who own. This dynamic is the engine of inequality, enabling a small elite to extract wealth from the working class majority who toil with little to show for it. Yet, the left in the West has largely moved away from class analysis, instead focusing on social issues and identity politics.
While issues of race, gender, and other forms of identity are undeniably important, the left’s emphasis on these concerns has often come at the expense of addressing the broader economic injustices that affect all working people. By treating these issues as separate from class struggle, the left has fractionalized its base, creating a patchwork of identity groups that often emphasize their distinctiveness rather than their shared interests. As such, the left is unable to present a unified front to the capitalist system and the ruling class.
In contrast, the right has adeptly tapped into the economic anxieties of working-class people. While the solutions they propose are misguided or outright harmful, the right acknowledges the very real frustrations of those who feel left behind by the system. When right-wing figures argue that the economy is rigged against ordinary people, they resonate with the lived experiences of many who see their wages stagnate, their costs of living rise, and their opportunities shrink.
The right’s message is effective because it doesn’t require a radical rethinking of the world. Instead, it builds on the capitalist and nationalist ideologies that people have been steeped in their entire lives. By blaming immigrants, government overreach, or cultural elites, the right offers scapegoats that align with preexisting prejudices and fears. This makes their ideology not only accessible but also emotionally satisfying.
On the other hand, moving to the left requires questioning the very foundations of the system. Socialist thinking runs contrary to the ideas of capitalism, individualism, and the myth of meritocracy that most people have been taught to accept as natural and inevitable. For many, this is a daunting prospect. It involves rejecting deeply held beliefs and confronting uncomfortable truths about the world and their place in it. While some are willing to make this leap, most find it easier to retreat into the familiar narratives offered by the right.
If the left hopes to counter this trend, it must reclaim class analysis as a central pillar of its politics. This doesn’t mean abandoning the fight against racism, sexism, or other forms of oppression but rather recognizing that these struggles are interconnected with the broader fight against economic exploitation. The forces that perpetuate class inequality are the same ones that propagate racism, sexism, militarism, and ecological devastation. These issues must be framed as part of a unified struggle that unites all working class people.
The left needs to provide a compelling narrative that's able to compete with the one that the right peddles. It has to be accessible and relatable to those feeling alienated from the political mainstream.
With regards to the voting system, look at Germany. They have 6 parties and the AfD, but really only two choices. Having multiple parties doesn't really make as much of a difference as you think it does. Political parties are formed from the same class of elites so they tend to converge on all political topics that matter. There is only divergence when you have another class of wanna-be elites trying to dethrone them. That would be the AfD or MAGA.
I think this is the crux of the problem: no matter the government and electoral system, you still end up with a government formed out of a narrow subset of the population, the elites of the day. This is inevitable because each political environment will select for some select few traits. And the only time you get disruption is when a new set of elites tries to dethrone them.
Now you can conjure some kind of system by which the government is explicitly not formed out of some elite class. Like worker councils or some such idea. However, you then run into a problems such as lack of continuity (governing terms being too short) and lack of expertise. There are also some advantages to having a government run by a (competent) elite class. So you see, it's not so simple.
But overall the electorate feels excluded when you have a government that is run by people who are so alien to them and who are clearly completely disconnected from the everyday man. And unfortunately the only protest the electorate has is to vote for another set of wanna-be elites in the hope that the resulting political disruption will unset some of the most harmful of the current crop. It's generally good when the elites are in-fighting.
This is assuming you need a national political party. In the UK we have a population of 70m, and MPs represent seats of 60k. District councils could represent around 100k people, and county ones could cover 500k. If you localise power so that all decision making for an area sits with the councils running areas of 100k, then you don't need a nationwide party, a local party could gain a foothold and run an area. If that party is setup, so representatives can easily be voted out or replaced. For example open selection and you have to campaign to represent your local party again every term then the power sits with the members of that local party rather than a national party.
Ultimately, a system can exist for this, but it doesn't mean that a system does exist or runs effectively in the world at present. Getting that system set up and running is a whole separate problem.
You did cover this, and the thing you suggest about expertise and continuity and problems that can be solved. Term length (and how many seats change each term can solve the latter), while expertise would likely be a solution that can be taken up by think tanks, and there are good ones, and dreadful ones. Legislation on transparency of funding and ownership would be key with that. Secondly health groups, co-operatives can form, that can be paid by councils for their expertise, which can build credibility and hire specialists.
I'm not saying any of this is easy, or would be without contest, but it is very possible, and while if you centre power in the hands of the few, you create elites, if you distribute that power, you can solve the problem around wealth and corruption. A system can be set up that adapts to the demands of the skills that are needed, whether that is technical skills, or knowledge based skills etc.
Can we agree that so far humanity has not manage to create an anti-fragile governing system? We engineer ever more complex governing systems, but humans keep figuring out ways to corrupt them. I cannot envision a system that would be anti-fragile, hence the need for periodic resets. Even my local council ruling over a village of a couple of thousand souls has been embroiled in corruption scandals.
Going back to the original topic, I don't think it is the priority of the electorate to change the system. First they want to change the people in charge, which is a per-requisite to changing the system anyway.
Based on my limited knowledge, I can agree with that. I don't yet know of a system that has been implemented that is optimal.
I think the electorate want change but I don't think those the current system allow offer that unfortunately. Reformists tend to get filtered out.