Daron Acemoglu’s New Book Examines the Crisis of Liberal Democracy

In *What Happened to Liberal Democracy?*, economist Daron Acemoglu argues that the political system is facing a crisis, largely due to the left’s abandonment of working-class concerns in favor of identity politics. He traces the decline of liberal democracy to a shift in focus from economic equality to social issues, a perspective echoed by figures like Bernie Sanders and French sociologist Didier Eribon. Acemoglu criticizes progressive liberals for prioritizing 'social engineering' and 'thought policing' over economic policies that benefit laborers. ## The Case for a Working-Class Revival Acemoglu proposes a new 'working-class liberal democracy' centered on improving living standards for the least educated and skilled. His solutions include reducing regulatory barriers to professions like hairdressing and massage therapy, promoting community-led decision-making (such as Ireland’s citizens’ assemblies), and holding social media companies accountable for the content they amplify. He also suggests legislating for 'worker AI,' where employees use machine-learning tools to enhance productivity-though he acknowledges this idea lacks input from medical professionals. The book offers compelling insights, particularly in Acemoglu’s analysis of economic policies. He explains how the U.S. tax code incentivizes automation at the expense of jobs and highlights how Nordic countries achieved prosperity through deliberate 1930s reforms rather than innate wisdom. He also acknowledges the inherent tensions in liberalism, such as balancing community cohesion with inclusivity. ## Contradictions in Elite Critique Despite his sharp critique of progressive elites, Acemoglu’s arguments contain inconsistencies. He mirrors populist rhetoric, such as Nigel Farage’s, in condemning liberalism’s 'boiling point' while also acknowledging that liberalism itself was shaped by a small group of philosophers. His own book-a work by a Nobel-winning economist-could be seen as part of the 'elite debates' he criticizes. Yet, his insights remain valuable, even if his stance on elites is somewhat contradictory.