Freedom is out of fashion
30 August 2024
SUGGESTED
In the Media
In the Media
Lifestyle Economics
15 November 2024
Kristian Niemietz writes for CapX
IEA Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz has written for CapX arguing that the rule that liberals are ‘economically right-wing and socially left-wing’ has broken down.
Kristian wrote:
“Some liberals argue that the political Right has given up on Thatcherite economics, and reverted to the more statist, corporatist conservatism of the postwar era. There may well be some truth in that, but it implies a level of consistency that does not really exist. It is not that the Right has consistently replaced Thatcherism with the economics of Edward Heath or Harold Macmillan. It’s more that the Right has given up on economic dynamism in general. The only consistent economic policy theme they have left is a nihilistic Nimbyism. This is hard to pin down exactly, because Nimbyism is a revealed ideology rather than a stated ideology. A Nimby is not someone who literally says ‘I am a Nimby’; it is someone who claims to be in favour of ‘the right kind of development’ in ‘the right places’, and then opposes every actual development.
“This is probably more a matter of demographics than ideology. Over the course of the past decade, we have seen an increasing political sorting along generational lines, which did not exist yet in 2010. The political Right has increasingly put all of its electoral eggs into one generational basket: the Baby Boomers. At the last general election, 57% of voters over the age of 65 voted for right-wing parties, but only 18% of voters under the age of 25 did. Quite understandably, retired voters tend to be less interested in economic dynamism, and more interested in stability, familiarity and tranquillity. But whether understandable or not – you cannot run a prosperous economy on the basis of pandering to those voters alone. Economic activity has to take place somewhere. It needs premises, infrastructure, and housing nearby.
“The reaction against Nimbyism – Yimbyism – is not necessarily aligned with classical liberalism: after all, the Soviets also believed in building things. But what you cannot be is a ‘liberal Nimby’, or at least not in an economy where a shortage of housing, business premises and infrastructure is the main bottleneck. As long as political Right is so attached to Nimbyism, a classical liberal cannot be ‘right-wing on economics”.
Read Kristian’s full piece here.
Kristian wrote:
“Some liberals argue that the political Right has given up on Thatcherite economics, and reverted to the more statist, corporatist conservatism of the postwar era. There may well be some truth in that, but it implies a level of consistency that does not really exist. It is not that the Right has consistently replaced Thatcherism with the economics of Edward Heath or Harold Macmillan. It’s more that the Right has given up on economic dynamism in general. The only consistent economic policy theme they have left is a nihilistic Nimbyism. This is hard to pin down exactly, because Nimbyism is a revealed ideology rather than a stated ideology. A Nimby is not someone who literally says ‘I am a Nimby’; it is someone who claims to be in favour of ‘the right kind of development’ in ‘the right places’, and then opposes every actual development.
“This is probably more a matter of demographics than ideology. Over the course of the past decade, we have seen an increasing political sorting along generational lines, which did not exist yet in 2010. The political Right has increasingly put all of its electoral eggs into one generational basket: the Baby Boomers. At the last general election, 57% of voters over the age of 65 voted for right-wing parties, but only 18% of voters under the age of 25 did. Quite understandably, retired voters tend to be less interested in economic dynamism, and more interested in stability, familiarity and tranquillity. But whether understandable or not – you cannot run a prosperous economy on the basis of pandering to those voters alone. Economic activity has to take place somewhere. It needs premises, infrastructure, and housing nearby.
“The reaction against Nimbyism – Yimbyism – is not necessarily aligned with classical liberalism: after all, the Soviets also believed in building things. But what you cannot be is a ‘liberal Nimby’, or at least not in an economy where a shortage of housing, business premises and infrastructure is the main bottleneck. As long as political Right is so attached to Nimbyism, a classical liberal cannot be ‘right-wing on economics”.
Read Kristian’s full piece here.
SHARE
