Pablo Hiriart
Madrid.– One of Spain’s most lucid minds is that of Florentino Portero, writer, doctor of contemporary history, professor at universities in Spain, the United States, and Great Britain, who welcomes me into his home on the iconic Avenida de los Toreros on this bright and hot Madrid summer morning.
–Doctor, in an interview with Maite Rico, you said that the era of liberal order based on human freedom and free trade is over.
Florentino Portero (FP): Absolutely. That liberal order is how the Anglo-Saxon powers responded to two world wars, to prevent tensions from leading to a third world war.
That order is based on concepts, principles, norms, international organizations, and policies. It is based on the values characteristic of the Judeo-Christian world: human dignity and, from there, democracy and free trade. That is, let’s say, the basic catechism of a Western democracy.
-And is it over now?
FP: That world responds to an arc that began in 1945, or 1944, and ended around the great economic crisis of 2007-2008. From that moment on, what we are seeing is that the very creators of that order, the Americans, are beginning to consider that it is no longer in their interest. With Barack Obama, we see a reversal. He is not opposed to the liberal order, but what he is saying is that the United States is not going to be as involved as it once was in directing it, in being the locomotive of that world. With the arrival of Trump, especially in this second stage, it is very clear that the liberal order is not in the interests of the United States.
-Where are we now?
FP: The United States is returning to the pre-World War II era. Trump is returning to what the United States was during the 19th century, that is, a commercial power, a power that does not want to get involved in the rest of the world beyond its backyard, and Mexicans know something about this. Except for that, which is in their immediate interest, they don’t want to get involved in how the rest of the world works; all they want are trade guarantees. Why? Because trade is the basis of wealth, and wealth is the basis of well-being and social peace.
Donald Trump believes that the key is to focus on creating jobs at home, generating innovation and patents, conquering world markets, and turning our backs on any goal of organizing the international environment.
–So, those of us who defend liberal values such as human dignity, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, and free trade, are we wasting our time?
FP: No, no, no. We are not wasting our time. We are losing the battle.
-Is it a battle that must be fought? Is it winnable? Many have given up.
FP: The battle for freedom is a daily battle. It must be fought every day, because the enemies of freedom are many, and they take advantage of our lowered defenses to gain entry. We are experiencing this in Latin America, as well as in Europe, with the emergence of political forces that claim to be democratic, but clearly are not. They are dismantling the foundations of the rule of law, the independence of judges and the professionalism of the judiciary, and the independence of the media, which are fundamental elements for guaranteeing freedom. We must continue to fight for this, but we must also bear in mind that democracies must not only be fair, they must also be useful.
-Efficient…
FP: They have to solve people’s problems. It’s great for people to be free, but it’s even more important to have access to food and ensure a future for their children.
If we cannot guarantee a future for our children, if we struggle to make ends meet, or if we cannot afford three meals a day, we will ultimately opt for other alternatives. We are willing to give up freedom in order to eat or have a future. And that is a considerable danger.
-You have spoken of the emergence of deranged leaders who create dangerous trends. Wherever they go, they wreak havoc. I say this with Mexico in mind.
FP: This emergence of singular leaders should be understood more as a consequence than as a cause. It is not that they spontaneously appear and start causing problems, but instead that they are the expression of a problem. And the problem lies in the fact that society, citizens, and ordinary people are losing trust in traditional parties and traditional leaders.
-Why?
FP: Because they are not solving the concrete problems of the people. These problems are growing today. They are growing as a result of globalization and the digital revolution. Faced with this emergency of new problems, traditional leaders are failing. When this happens, people look for shortcuts.
This is how new leaders emerge, more or less charismatic, new political forces that propose quick fixes to problems. We generically call this populism, which is a term I don’t like because it’s very ambiguous, but it has a lot to do with demagoguery, falsehood, and lies. These populist movements are giving rise to really dangerous leaders everywhere.
-So are they inevitable?
FP: They’re inevitable to the extent that people don’t trust traditional parties. In other words, they are inevitable as long as traditional parties are unable to respond to the real problems of the people. Problems are growing not only because of bad governance, but also because international circumstances are changing, globalization has turned the international economic order upside down, and the digital revolution is destroying many jobs and forcing a reorganization of industrial models. This does not help to ensure good wages or permanent jobs. All of this creates uncertainty among the people. And a population that feels insecure is a population that can vote irresponsibly.
-Are we talking about incompetent leaders or European voters who are spoiled by effortless handouts?
FP: One thing does not negate the other. When a European is born, they become a tiny being with a very large backpack full of rights. Well, those rights are not really rights; they are achievements, but they cannot be consolidated. We simply have to keep fighting to maintain them.
The welfare state is very expensive, and wealth must be generated to maintain it. Well, we have forgotten that wealth must be generated, but we are reminded every day of the many rights we have. Therefore, yes, we Europeans have a cultural problem. We are very spoiled.
-Social programs have already gone beyond a basic, commendable welfare state to become a currency for buying votes.
FP: And this is going to get worse for one reason: the digital revolution is eliminating a lot of jobs, a lot. Today, if you look at the press, there is already talk that Telefónica España is going to cut, I think, seven thousand jobs in a very short time. This is not because the company is doing poorly, but on the contrary, because thanks to new technologies, it needs fewer workers. We recently saw Microsoft lay off 17,000 people. The fact is that in the future it is not so clear that a citizen will be able to have a good job, and this will have dire consequences.
-And what can we expect? What is the new stage that you foresee?
FP: It’s not what I foresee; it’s what engineers are telling me, and they are, after all, the ones creating the new models. Quite simply, for a while, many jobs will be lost, and at the same time, we will see companies become more competitive because they will make much better use of technology.
How do we resolve social coexistence in the medium term when we have very high unemployment rates? It’s anyone’s guess. It’s not clear that in this revolution—which seems more technological than industrial—the destruction of jobs will give way to a new generation of employment. We would therefore find ourselves in a world where states would have to take on even more responsibilities than they already have, supporting a population that cannot enter the labor market. This has dire social and political consequences. Among other things, it calls into question the future of democracy.
-Could you elaborate a little more on this last point?
FP: If a person depends on, in quotation marks, state charity, one would have to question the extent to which their vote is independent.
-You said that there are areas of the world that are losing relevance because they have stopped creating.
FP: When we talk about the crisis of the liberal order, the end of that era, we have to link it to another fundamental concept, which is that the world that is emerging is post-Western. For many centuries, the world has been ruled by the West. Western ideas have prevailed, among other things, because we were at the forefront of technology and industry, and at the same time, we were reproducing ourselves. We were societies with an instinct for the future, with a desire for the future.
Now Europe is not very interested in its future. Nor is it very interested in innovation. It is simply interested in living as well as possible.
-Where is the axis of world power shifting?
FP: The world today is centered in the Pacific, and within the Pacific, we are talking mainly about Southeast Asia, which is where we see the most vigor. We are entering a characteristically post-Western world, where Westerners contribute less. There is obviously one exception here: the bloc formed by the United States and Canada. They are at the forefront of technology. They are on it, obsessed with innovation, generating patents, and being competitive.
And then there is the rest of the West, made up of Latin America and Western Europe. In these two blocs, we are not seeing this concern for innovation; governments are not doing what they should to facilitate what is key to their own future.
Further Reading: