Explaining History

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, I examine the slow-motion collapse of the political order that has defined British politics for a century – and what is likely to replace it.

The term "political earthquake" gets overused. What is happening in Great Britain is more like a once‑in‑a‑century end of a political order. It began in 2024 with the death of the Conservative Party – a party that is unlikely to restore itself. And it will continue over the next few years with the death of the Labour Party.

The May local elections, just a week away, will mark a major step. Labour is almost certain to lose two of the places it has dominated for generations: Wales (for a century) and London (for half a century). But this isn't just about one bad election night. It is the culmination of decades of neoliberal economics, deindustrialisation, austerity, and the systematic destruction of any alternative vision within the mainstream parties.

I draw a historical parallel with the last time Britain's party system realigned: the years after the First World War, when the Liberal Party – the party of 19th‑century capital, free trade, and limited government – collapsed, replaced by a two‑party system of Labour and Conservatives. That system, cemented in 1945, survived for nearly eighty years. Now it is dying.

The culprits are not just individual leaders. Thatcherism broke union power, atomised communities, and left Britain poorer and more unequal. The 2008 financial crisis blew up the economic assumptions of that model. Brexit smashed Britain's role as a transatlantic bridge between Washington and Brussels. Austerity killed hundreds of thousands, collapsed public services, and turned the country into a nation in de‑development. The Labour right's merciless destruction of the Corbyn movement left the party in the hands of a centrist technocrat, Keir Starmer – a man who, despite his blandness, has gleefully embraced racist rhetoric on immigration, supported Israel's genocide in Gaza, and handed state functions over to private equity vultures.

Starmer's Labour has tried to tack to the right, hoping that voters will hold their noses and vote for "not far‑right". But that strategy is failing. In recent by‑elections, voters ignored Labour's warnings and voted Green or Plaid Cymru – proving that the old "vote for us or you'll get the fascists" threat no longer works.

So what comes next? The beneficiaries are two very different parties. Reform UK – funded by a reclusive Bitcoin billionaire, backed by the propaganda channel GB News – offers a populist, proto‑fascist nationalism. The Green Party – untainted by private donations, hostile to the tabloid press, and offering a genuine left‑wing economic alternative – has already won a stunning by‑election on an anti‑racist, cost‑of‑living platform.

The next decade could see Britain's political landscape transformed. A two‑party system of Reform and Greens is possible – though each would feel like an enemy occupation to the other side's voters. What is certain is that the old order is being taken out to a field and put out of its misery. And what caused it? Five decades of neoliberalism – an economic project that both main parties embraced, whose contradictions they are now incapable of addressing.

Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

**In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by Wendy Via of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism – a former Southern Poverty Law Center staffer – to discuss a new report on the transnational activities of far-right and anti-migrant groups around the world.**

We often think of hate and xenophobia as local phenomena, but just like organised violence, the far‑right has become increasingly internationalised. The internet, political crises, and economic uncertainty have allowed extremist groups to learn from one another, share strategies, and normalise ideas that were once relegated to the fringes.

Wendy explains how the movement has become more sophisticated in its branding. Neo‑Nazis still exist, but they no longer openly quote *Mein Kampf*. Instead, they speak of "protecting our culture" and "saving our families". The "great replacement" conspiracy theory – once confined to obscure writers – is now pushed by politicians and mainstream commentators, giving cover to unspoken reactionary ideas.

We explore the alarming mainstreaming of far‑right politics. In Britain, the Conservative Party has moved from ostracising Enoch Powell to rehabilitating his ideas. In the United States, Trump’s open demonisation of Mexican immigrants – "they’re rapists" – did not end his campaign; it became a template for others. Across Europe, Latin America, and beyond, leaders have taken cues from Trump, turning immigration into an existential threat.

The report also examines the rise of vigilante groups – self‑appointed militias patrolling borders and neighbourhoods. While there is no single centralised command, these groups communicate constantly, learning from each other’s tactics. Political leaders who call immigrants "the enemy" provide implicit encouragement, and wealthy figures like Elon Musk amplify hateful rhetoric, attracting young men – the demographic most vulnerable to far‑right extremism.

Yet there is hope. Hungary’s recent election showed that people can push back against autocracy, even if the new leader remains conservative. A UK by‑election expected to be won by the far‑right Reform Party was instead won by the Green Party on an explicitly anti‑racist, economic populist platform. Across the world, countries are standing up to Trump and his allies, defending their sovereignty. By and large, people are decent – and the far‑right’s gains are not inevitable.

**Topics covered:**
- The transnational nature of far‑right extremism
- The mainstreaming of the "great replacement" conspiracy theory
- From Enoch Powell to the modern Conservative Party
- Trump’s role in normalising hate
- Vigilante groups and their cross‑border communication
- Elon Musk’s influence on young men
- Hungary’s rejection of Orbán’s corruption
- The UK Green Party’s anti‑racist by‑election victory
- Where to find hope in a dark political landscape

---

*Wendy Via is co‑founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. Visit globalextremism.org for resources and to support their vital work.*

*If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. More details soon.*
Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are roughly two camps. One argues that there is an overarching grand plan behind America's actions in Venezuela, Iran, Greenland, and against Russia's shadow fleet – a coherent strategy to choke off China's industries and make Europe energy-dependent on the United States. The other, more plausible camp sees imperial decline and the chaos that decline inevitably brings.

I explore both.

John Mearsheimer argues that America has suffered a catastrophic defeat. The evidence is stark: Iran has published a ten-point plan that includes the removal of American bases from the Gulf, continued uranium enrichment, and reparations – and Trump accepted it as the basis for negotiations. America is running out of Tomahawk missiles, having burned through eight to ten years of stockpiles in weeks. Its capital ships have been withdrawn out of Iranian missile range. The world's key strategic waterway is no longer under US control.

But journalist Richard Medhurst makes a compelling case that this is all about China – a brutal attempt to cut off Chinese industry from Persian Gulf oil and force Beijing to negotiate from weakness.

The problem is Trump. According to the New York Times, he went into this war on a whim – a "yeah, sounds good" after Netanyahu's sales pitch – overruling his own generals. The White House has been systematically de‑professionalised. Institutional memory is gone. Decision‑making is chaos.

I draw a careful parallel with Hitler's regime: the removal of experts, the promotion of sycophants like Ribbentrop, the deliberate creation of administrative chaos to concentrate power. Trump surrounds himself with the same kind of people – Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff – who tell him what he wants to hear.

From Tehran, this looks like a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity: remove the Americans from the Gulf forever, gain permanent leverage over the world, and finally deal with the threat of Israel. And Israel's standing in America has plummeted – not just among Democrats, but among the MAGA base as well.

What we are witnessing is the end of a world order that began in 1991. Trump is not the cause of American decline – he is an accelerant. But the collapse is coming, and the consequences will be catastrophic.

Topics covered:
- Mearsheimer's thesis of strategic defeat
- America's munitions crisis
- Medhurst's blockade‑of‑China argument
- Trump's chaotic, whim‑driven decision‑making
- The de‑professionalisation of the White House
- Hitler, Ribbentrop, and the parallel of sycophantic advice
- Iran's once‑in‑a‑lifetime opportunity
- Israel's collapsing popularity in the US
- The end of the post‑Cold War order

---

*If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us. We're migrating from Patreon to Substack – more details soon.*
Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On 29th January 1991, President George H.W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress. America was at war with Iraq, having launched Operation Desert Storm to expel Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. Bush's tone was sombre, measured—a contrast to the triumphalism of his State of the Union a year earlier, when he had spoken of communism crumbling and a new era for the world. Now he spoke of something grander: a "new world order."
"What is at stake is more than one small country. It's a big idea: a new world order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind—peace and security, freedom and the rule of law."
Drawing on Kristina Spohr's excellent book Postwall Post Square, we explore the context of that speech. The first Gulf War was a remarkable moment: a coalition of 28 countries from six continents, including traditional allies like Britain and Australia, prickly partners like France, and even Arab nations like Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Most strikingly, the United States and the Soviet Union—despite Saddam being a long-time Moscow client—cooperated. Bush and Gorbachev had forged a personal accord, and the Cold War was over.
But behind the grand rhetoric, the picture was more complex. Moscow's violent crackdown in Lithuania cast a shadow over the gleaming language of freedom. Bush struggled to balance his principled assertion of democratic values against his pragmatic need for Gorbachev's cooperation in the Gulf. And at home, America was sliding into recession. As Democratic Majority Leader George Mitchell pointedly reminded the president: "We have a crisis abroad, but we also have a crisis here at home."
Bush invoked the lessons of history—the long struggle against Nazi totalitarianism—to justify American leadership. "We're the only nation on this earth that could assemble the forces of peace," he declared. "This is the burden of leadership and the strength that has made America the beacon of freedom in a searching world."
Yet that liberal internationalist language—always a veneer for American imperialism—has now been eviscerated. Trump has abandoned any pretence of moral leadership. His decision to attack Iran, apparently taken after a chat with Netanyahu and against the advice of his own generals, has produced the greatest strategic disaster in American history, bar none. There is no exit strategy, no route to victory, no achievable objective.
What Iran has done is fundamental. Unlike Vietnam or Afghanistan, where empires suffered humiliations but survived, America has been strategically and tactically defeated in the Persian Gulf. The petrodollar—propped up by American military power, bases, and security guarantees—is under threat. And once you show that American power is not all-conquering, it causes fragmentation in unprecedented ways.
The distance from George H.W. Bush's "new world order" to Trump's chaotic adventurism is less than 40 years. Trump is not the cause of American decline; he is an accelerant to an ongoing process. The empire's days are numbered—and the world is about to become a much more dangerous place.
Topics covered:
George H.W. Bush's "new world order" speech (29th January 1991)
The first Gulf War coalition and Soviet-American cooperation
The contrast between liberal internationalism and American imperialism
Domestic recession and the limits of presidential power
Moscow's crackdown in Lithuania as a challenge to the new order
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of history
Trump's Iran disaster and the absence of strategic thinking
The petrodollar and the foundations of American hegemony
How Iran has achieved a strategic defeat of the United States
Trump as an accelerant, not the cause, of decline
If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us. We're migrating from Patreon to Substack—more details soon.
Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the 21st century, China stands as a global economic powerhouse, a trajectory heavily influenced by the reforms initiated in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping. This episode delves into Deng's pivotal role, positioning him as the consequential figure bridging Mao Zedong's era and the present-day leadership of Xi Jinping.
Drawing on David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism," we explore the economic, social, and ideological transformations that began with Deng's rise to power. At the outset of his reforms, China's economy was almost entirely state-controlled, marked by the "Iron Rice Bowl" system of employment and welfare, and a lagging agrarian sector organized by communes.

Deng's initial aim was to lift China out of the chaos and impoverishment left by the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.
The episode examines the gradual liberalization of the Chinese economy, starting with agricultural reforms that dissolved communes in favor of individual responsibility, and the emergence of Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs) as hubs of entrepreneurialism. We explore how these changes led to a surge in rural incomes initially, but also created stark urban-rural disparities and triggered the largest mass migration in world history.

We also consider the concept of "neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics" and its applicability to Deng's era, where market forces were unleashed but carefully managed by the state and the Communist Party. The episode highlights key differences between Deng's approach and Xi Jinping's China, particularly in the management of capital and the state's directive role in strategic industries. While a vigorous Chinese capitalism thrives, the episode explains why a capitalist political class has not emerged to rival the Communist Party.

Join us as we uncover the complex historical processes that shaped modern China, the figures who steered its course, and the ongoing debates about its unique economic and political model.
Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.
▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive Content
Become a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory
▸ Join the Community & Continue the Conversation
Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcast
Substack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com
▸ Read Articles & Go Deeper
Website: explaininghistory.org

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.