Dr Neville Buch and MICE[1]
Abstract
This essay examines the shifting relationship between political theory, statecraft, and power in contemporary society compared to historical eras. Historically, national power was defined primarily by tangible assets—conscripted armies, territorial conquest, industrial output, and physical resource control. In the contemporary era, power has shifted toward intangible “knowledge power”—technological innovation, advanced computational capacity, and human capital—while political governance is being reshaped by an emerging “New Centrism” or neopopulism that replaces post-Cold War neoliberal doctrine. However, contemporary politics itself has become a central impediment to human flourishing, characterized by zero-sum “who, whom” partisanship, plutocratic capture, managerial risk-aversion, media-driven fear, and local “vetocracies” that choke social mobility. To overcome this systemic sclerosis, politics must be re-imagined as a comprehensive and compassionate practice centred on moral courage, authentic leadership, a “nurturant” care economy, non-violent dialogue, and abundant public infrastructure. This message is urgent because failing to re-ground political power in moral integrity and public well-being invites democratic decay, escalating inequality, and authoritarian technofeudalism.
Introduction: The Changing Anatomy of Power Across History
For centuries, the theoretical and practical foundations of political power were anchored in tangible, measurable, and physically controllable resources (Zegart 2024, p. 2)[1]. Sixteenth-century Spain projected power through treasure fleets and colonial armies; nineteenth-century Britain dominated through naval supremacy and industrial manufacturing; and twentieth-century superpowers wielded massive nuclear arsenals and fossil fuel reserves (Zegart 2024, p. 2)[1]. In these historical contexts, political theory largely concerned itself with state sovereignty, hard power projection, and institutional governance over physical territory.
In the twenty-first century, the nature of power has undergone a structural transformation. Countries increasingly derive geopolitical and economic power from intangible assets—specifically “knowledge power” encompassed in artificial intelligence, bioengineering, computational capacity, and scientific talent (Zegart 2024, pp. 2, 5)[2][3]. Unlike physical territory or commodities, these intangible assets are highly portable, rapidly diffuse across international borders, and reside overwhelmingly within private corporations and academic institutions rather than state apparatuses (Zegart 2024, p. 3)[2][4]. Consequently, state power today depends less on military coercion and more on cultivating domestic capacity, educational proficiency, and technological innovation (Zegart 2024, p. 5)[3][5].
1. How the New Centrism Works
Amidst this changing landscape of power, the theoretical consensus governing Western statecraft has undergone a profound realignment. For roughly three decades following the Cold War, policy in Washington and other Western capitals was guided by neoliberalism—often termed the “Washington Consensus”—which posited that deregulated markets, global trade liberalization, and minimal government intervention would automatically generate universal prosperity and spread democracy worldwide (Leonhardt 2024, p. 2)[6].
The failure of neoliberalism to deliver on these promises—evidenced by stagnant wage growth for working classes, widening wealth inequality, domestic supply chain vulnerabilities, and the rise of assertive autocratic rivals—has catalysed a new political framework: the New Centrism or neopopulism (Leonhardt 2024, pp. 2, 6)[7][8].
The New Centrism operates through several key mechanisms:
- Rejection of Free-Market Dogma: Rather than assuming markets self-correct, the New Centrism actively uses state industrial policy to address market failures, protect critical domestic supply chains (such as semiconductors and green energy), and subsidize strategic infrastructure (Leonhardt 2024, pp. 2, 6)[8].
- Bipartisan Protectionism and Security: Bipartisan majorities now back targeted trade tariffs, restrictions on foreign technology transfers, and legislative interventions against geopolitical adversaries like China (Leonhardt 2024, pp. 1, 4)[9][10].
- Realignment with Voter Preferences: The New Centrism reflects the reality that voter sentiment does not align with traditional elite consensus (socially liberal, fiscally conservative). Instead, the broader public leans left on economic policy—favouring safety nets, higher corporate taxation, and healthcare protections—while leaning conservative or traditional on national security, border control, and local community identity (Leonhardt 2024, p. 8)[11].
2. How Politics Itself Is the Problem
Despite the pragmatic legislative emerging under neopopulism, contemporary political practice remains deeply dysfunctional. Indeed, across modern democracies, politics itself has become the primary obstacle to solving structural crises:
A. Instrumental “Who, Whom?” Partisanship and De-civilized Discourse
Modern political practice has increasingly abandoned constitutional norms and liberal accommodation in favour of a raw, tribal “who, whom” power logic—echoing Vladimir Lenin’s dictum that politics is exclusively about which group dominates the other (Chait 2026a, p. 1)[12]. Under this framework, moral standards and legal accountability are applied selectively to protect political allies and punish foes (Chait 2026a, pp. 1–2)[13][14]. Ambitious political actors routinely “play dumb” or flip core convictions to manipulate public grievances, trading substantive policy debate for performative outrage and identity politics (Lewis 2024, pp. 2–3) [102, 103; Chait 2026b, p. 1][15].
B. Plutocratic Domination and Corporate Autocracy
Democratic governance is severely undermined by the concentration of extreme wealth. Billionaires, corporate monopolies, and tech platforms exercise immense clout over political decisions, funding campaigns, and buying political access while evading taxes and depressing wages (Amsden 2026, pp. 1–4)[16]. This “plutocracy” extracts wealth from working communities, pushes financialized “bread and circuses,” and manipulates media environments, leaving ordinary taxpayers alienated and economically trapped (Amsden 2026, pp. 2, 4)[18].
C. Managerial Risk-Aversion and “Vetocracy”
Political parties are increasingly stacked with careerists and apparatchiks who pursue risk-averse, “small target” managerial agendas that deliberately avoid serious policy debates (Jones 2025, pp. 1, 5)[21][22]. At the local level, progressive “neighbourhoodism” and weaponized environmental or historical permitting processes have created a “vetocracy”—giving affluent homeowners veto power over housing development, choking geographic mobility, and worsening economic inequality (Appelbaum 2025, pp. 4, 17, 20)[23].
3. How Politics Can Be More Comprehensive and Compassionate
Reversing this political degradation requires expanding the theoretical and moral boundaries of statecraft toward a comprehensive and compassionate political paradigm:
- Reframing Politics Around Care and Nurture: Progressive and democratic movements must move beyond cold, rationalistic “laundry lists” of technical programs (Dyrenfurth 2024, p. 2)[26][27]. Drawing on cognitive linguistics and moral psychology, politics must speak to human emotional instincts through a “nurturant parent” frame—prioritizing a “care economy,” social security, fairness, and communal well-being (Dyrenfurth 2024, pp. 3–4)[28][29].
- Authenticity, Bravery, and Moral Truth-Telling: Compassionate politics demands political bravery rather than focus-group-driven evasion. Voters respect authentic leaders who are willing to speak uncomfortable truths, reject fear-mongering, and stand up against entrenched corporate or partisan interests (Jones 2025, pp. 3, 5)[22][30].
- Ethical Non-Violence and Service: A truly comprehensive politics adopts an ethics of dialogue, peace, and service rather than military domination or the “idolatry of profit” (Pope Leo XIV in Faiola 2026, pp. 1, 3)[31]. Governments must rebuild public faith by demonstrating that democratic institutions can directly deliver vital public goods, respect free media, and protect the most vulnerable (Bongiorno 2025, pp. 1–2)[34].
- Abundance, Mobility, and Capacity-Building: Real social equality requires enacting policies based on consistency, tolerance, and abundance—reforming zoning laws to restore citizens’ freedom to move toward economic opportunity (Appelbaum 2025, pp. 23–24)[37]. Nationally, governments must invest heavily in open computational power, scientific research, and public education to build enduring human capacity (Zegart 2024, pp. 5, 10)[3].
4. Why This Message Is Important
The call for a comprehensive and compassionate political reconstruction is not merely idealist rhetoric; it is a vital necessity for several compelling reasons:
- Defending Liberal Democracy Against Technofeudalism: When democratic politics degenerates into cynical managerism or plutocratic bargaining, citizens lose faith in self-governance, creating fertile ground for authoritarian populism and “technofeudal” corporate control (Jones 2025, p. 2; Bongiorno 2025, p. 1)[21].
- Mitigating Social Alienation and Wealth Disparities: Widening economic inequality and geographic stagnation foster deep public despair, rage, and radicalization (Eslake 2025, p. 1; Amsden 2026, p. 1; Appelbaum 2025, p. 21)[42]. Restoring compassionate, grounded policy is the only way to re-stitch the social fabric and guarantee a high quality of human life (Amsden 2026, p. 3)[45].
- Ensuring Enduring National Resilience: In a global era defined by intangible knowledge power and geopolitical instability, a nation’s strength depends on internal unity, educational excellence, and democratic legitimacy (Zegart 2024, pp. 5, 12)[46][47]. Coercive force and external posture cannot substitute for a healthy, prosperous, and cohesive society.
Conclusion
The evolution of power from physical force to knowledge capacity requires a parallel evolution in political theory and practice. While the rise of the New Centrism demonstrates that states can break free from outdated economic dogma, overcoming the deeper crisis of modern politics requires a more fundamental moral shift. By replacing zero-sum partisan hostility and plutocratic capture with moral bravery, nurturant care, social mobility, and democratic accountability, political systems can fulfill their highest purpose: fostering a secure, equitable, and compassionate human society.
Bibliography
Amsden, L. (2026) ‘The Power of the Plutocracy Versus the Quality of American Life’, CityWatch, 28 October 2024, pp. 1–5.
Appelbaum, Y. (2025) ‘America Doesn’t Just Have a Housing Crisis. It Has a Moving Crisis’, The Atlantic, 10 February, pp. 1–26.
Bongiorno, P. (2025) ‘Prime minister looks away from America’, The Saturday Paper, 14 June, pp. 1–5.
Chait, J. (2026a) ‘Anti-Semitism Is Just a Pretext’, The Atlantic, 12 March, pp. 1–8.
Chait, J. (2026b) ‘Trump’s Cheesecake Factory Dissent’, The Atlantic, pp. 1–5.
Dyrenfurth, N. (2024) ‘How to win an election on progressive politics’, The Saturday Paper, 27 July, pp. 1–5.
Eslake, S. (2025) ‘Australia’s widening wealth gap, and what to do about it’, pp. 1–2.
Faiola, A. (2026) ‘On Easter, Pope Leo delivers commanding message of peace to a world at war’, The Washington Post, pp. 1–5.
Jones, B. (2025) ‘The case for bravery and frankness in politics’, The Saturday Paper, 1 February, pp. 1–6.
Leonhardt, D. (2024) ‘A New Centrism Is Rising in Washington’, The New York Times, 19 May, pp. 1–10.
Lewis, H. (2024) ‘Carlson and Vance—Two Smart Guys Who Play Dumb for Power’, The Atlantic, 24 September, pp. 1–7.
Lotz, A.D. (2025) ‘Why Australia’s democracy is stronger than in America’, InDaily Queensland / 360info, 24 April, pp. 1–14.
Zegart, A. (2024) ‘The Crumbling Foundations of American Strength’, Foreign Affairs, September/October, pp. 1–12.
Take the MICE Quiz
[1] The Thesis is humanly-devised. Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) has been fairly used in the production of this work. The tool used is Google NotebookLM (recently rebranded as Gemini Notebook). It is an AI-powered virtual research assistant and thinking partner designed to help a person interact deeply with their own documents. Unlike general chatbots, it is source-grounded, meaning it only generates answers based on the specific PDFs, documents, or links uploaded. The A.I. process in the production of this work has been limited to the attached (prompts) on each of the questions in turn. This ensures an accurate reading of each source. The author then rearranged and re-edited the answers the A.I. provided. The human author publishes this work. A.I. is never an author when used properly. This assistance is not qualitatively different from a human research assistant when that assistance is deemed to have no authorial status but is acknowledged.
Featured Image:
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Beyond Ideological Dogmatism: A Critical Response to Bevin Luchel’s The Illusions of the Radical Centre – November 3, 2026
- Politics, Theory, and Power Today: From Neoliberal Sclerosis to a Comprehensive and Compassionate Democracy – November 3, 2026
- Dismantling Technocratic Apologetics – November 2, 2026