Stay updated on US politics and policy with our free email updates
Subscribe to our myFT Daily Digest email to receive the latest US politics and policy news every morning.
Ridley Scott’s biopic of Napoleon appears to be entertaining and inspiring, but it may overlook the true essence of the historical figure. Jacques-Louis David’s paintings of Napoleon also suffered from this misconception. Contrary to popular belief, Napoleon was not just a conqueror; he was the greatest bureaucrat in history.
His lasting legacy is not the French empire, which he actually left smaller than he found it, but rather the Banque de France, standardized education, regional prefects enforcing Parisian regulations, and the Civil Code, which continues to influence legal systems worldwide. The term “Napoleonic” now denotes something centralized and perhaps overly official, rather than martial.
We must prepare for a world shaped by the principles of Napoleon. The most significant current trend in government is the rise of protectionism. In the United States, Europe, China, and India, states are shifting from open trade to nurturing their domestic industries. This is partly motivated by strategic concerns, as it is risky to rely on vulnerable or hostile nations for essential goods. It is also driven by progressive ideals, aiming to support skilled labor. These developments can be traced back to the election-winning arguments made by Donald Trump in 2016.
Ironically, populism, a movement that emerged to challenge the elite and the “deep state,” is inadvertently strengthening their power rather than weakening it. Technocrats, who were recently vilified, are now becoming influential figures shaping the economy and sectors through subsidies and guidance, leading to a closer relationship between corporate leaders and the government. Populism sought to diminish the governing class, but its main legacy seems to be quite the opposite.
Given the choice, would you prefer to be a politician or civil servant in the present era, where you have the opportunity to shape entire industries? Or would you rather have been one in the pre-populist times? Lobbyists in the “swamp” face a similar dilemma. During the laissez-faire age, when government and business were nominally distinct, or in the protectionist era, where no sector wants to miss out on public benefits?
Populism has inadvertently strengthened and consolidated the elites, the very group it aimed to dismantle. This movement has a rebellious style but a paternalistic agenda. It resents the so-called “blob” for abdicating power over markets and national borders, rather than hoarding it. Populists advocate for direct democracy while admiring authoritarian examples like Singapore. They have always been conflicted about faceless authority.
This contradiction is most evident on the right side of the US political spectrum. Trump’s supporters aspire to rein in the deep state and make it easier to fire civil servants through the implementation of so-called Schedule F appointments. Partisan cadres are being groomed for bureaucratic positions throughout Washington, mirroring the right’s long-term strategy with the judiciary. However, at the same time, the Trump administration demanded more industrial strategy, despite the lack of evidence of successful implementation without a permanent and independent bureaucracy authorized to plan and invest regardless of elected administrations.
At some point, demagogues will have to choose which they despise more: free trade or the entrenched bureaucracy. Restricting one tends to empower the other. Notably, although Trump initiated the move towards industrial protectionism, it has gained substantial traction under a center-left government. The right has never fully embraced the logical consequence of their anti-trade stance, which is the expansion of officialdom. Trump even managed to clash with the national security state. The idea of him tolerating an American version of Japan’s former Ministry of International Trade and Industry, with its dominant and authoritative role, is unrealistic. Yet, it is an unintended consequence of populism, thanks to his successor Joe Biden, that technocratic power has thrived.
I am concerned, though uncertain, that we are witnessing the biggest policy misstep of my lifetime. A decade into this era of protectionism, we may regret the wastefulness, pork-barrel politics, higher consumer prices (which are ultimately borne by workers), and the fragmentation of the Western world into competing trade blocs. However, the erroneous nature of this trend is a discussion for another time. For now, what stands out is the improbable outcome: elites gaining more influence, not less, and owing it to their own adversaries.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
