But the other reason is more subtle: by promoting socialism, the ruling elites cut the legs out of a growing middle and upper class and avoid the accumulation of wealth which will compete with their wealth.I’m sure this does play a significant role, I would venture to suggest, however, it doesn’t imply such a carefully orchestrated scenario. The populist nature of democratic politics contributes to parties’ policies. Multiparty political environment presumes different (and, at times, opposing) expectations of the electorate. Therefore, we have two (or more) distinct groups of the population, each having specific (and, probably, opposing) expectations and requirements.
By its competitive nature, democratic societies (perhaps, unwillingly) encourage the populist politics. In the end of the day, a party has to take into consideration the demands of its supporters. Due to the competition within the party itself, the leaders strive to satisfy as many potential voters as possible. This creates an environment where leaders, at times, have to create policies that satisfy many so-called traditional supporters to secure their votes (taxation policy, for example), and, sometimes, they are drawn into following rather extremist political agenda to secure some of the fringe votes as well; obviously, they also have to prepare some policies to mollify the swing voters as well (compromise policies). This, I think, means that there’s always some sort of a lag between politics and economy (and science).
There’s no question that the Left ideology based on Socialist/Communist theories has totally failed, they have lost the ideological war (some of the centrist policies of the Democrats – or British New Labour - could easily have been proposed by the Conservatives). However, the fact of this failure has not filtered through to the individual voters on the left yet. This inertia creates a delay in the party’s politics – they do have to keep their supporters happy.
My guess is there’s no real cure for it. One could consider, I suppose, some sort of regulation, where the campaigning would be severely restricted, the media would be banned from taking part in the campaigning, only the scientific bodies would be allowed to conduct any sorts of polling (subject to methods agreed to by all parties), and the current ruling party’s performance would be analyzed by independent institutions, thus striving to create the environments where only bare dry facts are displayed before the electorate. However, I think, such a system is totally unrealistic. So, I guess, the current system is the price we have to pay for the free democracy. Some sort of a balance will be achieved in the end, where a form of sane politics will be followed (hopefully).
It would seem it’s down to the members of a party to increase the number of supporters in order to ensure a victory. This means some sort of targeted and well-organized ideological work is necessary for ‘converting’ of the undecided. This, I think, is best achieved by exposing (without any venom, humorous-like) the lies and distortions pushed by the leftist media and the Democrats.
this may not play as vital role in the US, where the super-rich must compete with other powerful factions, but is much more prominent in a country like Mexico.
i have a perfect example: back in 1982 or so, the Mexican economy was booming, perhaps as a belated effect of higher oil prices. the Mexican middle class was starting to become more powerful, particularly in northern mexico, which was always a conservative stronghold -- the PAN (Fox's party) had actually won some mayoralities and other posts against the corrupt PRI goliath.
lower-middle class shop owners were becoming prosperous, upper middle class folks were starting to make some real money as their small factories and businesses grew. some were even buying property in Ruidoso and other spots in the US for vacations.
so one weekend, the Mexican government 1) froze all dollar assets 2) fixed the exchange rate to a ridiculously value.
shazam! overnight the emerging classes that were starting to exert themselves had a major portion of their savings wiped out... PRI was safe for another ten years or so.