8 ms·

The "moving to the right" analysis is wrong both in Europa and in the US where claims of Fascism seems to be the primary analysis of Trump. What we are seeing

• teekert 10y ago
  Exactly. Here in the Netherlands people grow tired of the ever growing lust for EU power and the ever increasing amount of EU laws and rules. When we do get a chance to speak out like in the recent referendum about associating with the Ukraine, people's "No" vote is just ignored (like the vote about the EU constitution was ignored). Most people I know don't like the sanctions against Russia because they impact our economy, they don't like doing business with Erdogan, they don't like TTIP. But people are ignored by the politicians in the middle. So people start voting for less traditional, more polarized right or left (here that would be Geert Wilders, very anti EU) and Partij voor de Dieren (Party for the Animals (oh yes we have that), who are very anti TTIP, bio-industry and globalization.) It just feels like those lefties and righties are better at listening to us and the middle parties are listining to the every growing group of bureaucrats from the EU. Maybe because the "extreme" left and right have much less affiliations and friends in the EU and in large corporations. To me, the EU adds a lot of politicians who are not chosen democratically, and are thus beyond the reach of normal citizens. They are however nicely within the reach of lobbyists.
  • niccolop 10y ago
    Demagogues will always find fertile ground when bashing the EU. It's been a long time since anyone has come out and defended it in a positivist way e.g. guarantor of democracy, free movement of labor, etc. In the current British debate leading up to the referendum, major campaigners in the 'Stay In' campaign rarely defend the EU, and rather take the line that the UK should stay in the EU despite all it's problems. What was the turnout at the referendum in the Netherlands?
    • jules 10y ago
      How is the EU a guarantor of democracy? Our national governments are far more democratic than the EU. Free movement of labour isn't necessarily something that's good for working people, particularly at the lower end of the income distribution, as that means competition from people who are willing to work for much lower wages.
      • realityking 10y ago
        You know that goes both ways? You're also free to move to a different country where you get paid better. Now you might not want to do that, because you want your kinds to grow up in $country or some other valid reason but it's wrong to paint this as something singularly bad for the working class.
        • jules 10y ago
          Realistically, how does the ability to move to Poland help the person working in a local car repair shop? Is that hypothetical worth the risk of getting fired in favour of a cheaper worker? What about the job prospects of his/her kids? Free movement of labour helps the owner of the repair shop, not so much the workers.
          • realityking 10y ago
            Go work in a car repair shop in France if they pay better, that's how you profit. Thousands of Polish people moved to the UK and took jobs there.
• zephyrfalcon 10y ago
  Most, if not all, of these parties seem to make a point of scapegoating immigrants and refugees (and certain religions). In fact, that seems to be their main point. Trump is no exception. Sounds pretty far to the right to me.
  • lgieron 10y ago
    At least in Poland, the nominal "right-wing" party (Law and Justice) does not scapegoat the non-Christian migrants - they just don't want them in our country, seeing how badly the attempts at integration went in many other European countries.
    • discordianfish 10y ago
      "does not scapegoat the non-Christian migrants - they just don't want them in our country" - OH well, in that case... Any sorry for the sarcasm but "not wanting" and "leaving them to die" is a difference. Of course nobody wants to spend resources on refugees. But if someone prefers letting them die because integration is hard, then this is "right-wing".
      • lgieron 10y ago
        Is not helping people starving or dying of Malaria in Africa/Asia right wing too? Both are some serious maladies affecting people very far from us, with whom we have nothing in common. As for the Syrians, they'd had to cross something like 6-7 borders before they even reach Poland. It would make just such much sense to ship them to US or Canada or Argentina. EDIT (probably a clearer way to make my point): Once the Syrians flee from the war zone to for example Turkey, their life is no longer in danger. So, them going from Turkey to Poland is not about saving lives, and cannot be posed as a moral argument.
        • discordianfish 10y ago
          I'm living in Berlin. We could probably met in person later today if we want. Yet, reading your comments make me realize how little we have in common. I'm pretty sure I'd find plenty of Syrian people I would feel more connected to. I don't think the geography has anything to do it, neither how many borders are in in between. And regarding Malaria, we should help as well. But that's imply not the point. You making it about this is typical derailing we see from all the right wing populists.
• varjag 10y ago
  Yeah well no. All these parties have fear based platform, xenophobic agenda and authoritarian sympathies. The real reason they are opposed to EU is not that their politicians somehow shun power, but because humanitarian values of current European legislation are in the way.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • ThomPete 10y ago
    They are definitely originally built on that, but that's not why they keep adding voters. This is where most analysts go wrong and why they are surprised every time there is an election in Europe. It's about fear of change, about being left behind. Not out of choice but out of lack benefit from technology, globalization etc. They are not benefitting from it so why should they keep voting from it?
    • golemotron 10y ago
      "Fear of change" is a negative frame. Maybe they know what change causes and simply don't want it.
      • ThomPete 10y ago
        Then their numbers wouldnt be increasing.
        • golemotron 10y ago
          They certainly would. People often make new decisions about what they want.
          • ThomPete 10y ago
            People dont just change positions that radically. We are talking about normal voters who used to vote left or even social liberal and conservative. They never even consider race. They vote the parties because their lifes are affected negatively what you and i see as opportunity. If you dont understand that you dont understand why trump and right wing increases their supporters and you will continue to fight the wrong battles.
• abhi3 10y ago
  But the fact is that they ARE racists, fascists and authoritarians. Why do you think they choose Trump in US instead of Bernie who promises all the right things but is not racist or why are all far right parties in Europe full of Neo Nazis?
  • mrweasel 10y ago
    >But the fact is that they ARE racists Not necessarily, many of them are fine with Africans, Muslims, Jews and so on (I know I'm lumping race and religion into one here). They just want them to stay in their own country, if they insist of preserving certain parts of the culture. You want a country rules by Sharia that's fine, with most of these parties, as long you don't try to do it in their country. I mostly view it as how apartheit wanted to be viewed: Tolerance and acceptance of each others culture, but clearly separated, in this case in countries.
    • Tar90 10y ago
      I see. I prefer to view it as the apartheid deserves to be viewed: as racism.
    • Scarblac 10y ago
      They also want them to "stay in their own country" if they were actually born in the same country as they are. They think people belong in Africa if their skin colour is dark. It's pure racism.
      • mrweasel 10y ago
        What if they want them to stay in their "home" country due to their culture? It's pretty much always the culture of immigrants that's in focus, but never their colour.
        • Scarblac 10y ago
          That's political correctness. Those people are able to judge what someone's "culture" is based on how they look, or where their family came from two generations back.
• discordianfish 10y ago
  You are right that lot of those people don't benefit from globalization and struggle with finding jobs etc. but: > They are not racist or facists. They are just afraid of the change that is hitting them and have no other way of expressing this fear. In Europe and in the US. No, they are racist. Even if you can explain their racism, it's still racism. There is always some explanation but it's still a move to the right. If you look at the language the AfD is using for example, you realize it's intentionally close to pre-WWII Nazi propaganda.
  • ThomPete 10y ago
    That was true for the original founding of the parties but thats not why they keep growing. This is important to understand.
    • discordianfish 10y ago
      I'm convinced that a big reason for them to keep growing is that it gets more and more acceptable to provide simplistic and right wing answers to the problems.
      • ThomPete 10y ago
        You are wrong then and will continue to miss the most important thing. People are loosing their belief in the future and their ability for prospering and so they are simply looking for someone who take their concerns serious. The left used to do that. Or if you insist on you own interpretation. You should instead ask yourself why more and more people buy into that view. The answer to neither of them are racism or fascism.
        • Scarblac 10y ago
          But the right doesn't take their concerns seriously, they offer no solutions whatsoever. They just shout outrageous, unrealistic oneliners.
          • 10y ago
• nothis 10y ago
  I know we're on hacker news but I don't quite get how you put "technology" in these lists. The trend in Europe is very, very obviously about the immigration crisis. Which, if not racist, is at least a nationalist issue. Globalization is a popular issue because it can also mean that national interests are overpowered by international pressure. But you'll also find resistance for that on the left (because the left never liked globalization in the first place).
  • ThomPete 10y ago
    Technology as in those who understand and can work with technology benefit from it. The rest are left behind so to speak.
• MrBuddyCasino 10y ago
  But isn't this is precisely what we would normally consider right-wing? A percentage of the population that is going through tough times or big changes is looking for a leader that will improve their lives, often uniting against a common "enemy" like the jews, kurdish people, immigrants, capitalists, communists, muslims, whatever. Right-wing extremists might have a different meaning in the US, but thats how I think it is commonly understood in Europe.
  • humanrebar 10y ago
    That's more or less a description of the left-wing in the U.S. but with a different list of enemies.
    • Tar90 10y ago
      "Left wing" in the US means at least center/center-right in the rest of the world.
• ilostmykeys 10y ago
  Sorry. If you vote for Trump then you are supporting his racist stance and divisive agenda.
  • return0 10y ago
    People can be anti-immigration and not racist.
  • ThomPete 10y ago
    And if you vote for Hillary you are supporting her lust for war. Thats not a fair way to talk about voting. It's a cheap attempt to try and make a blanket moral statement to render everything else others would say morally wrong.
• humanrebar 10y ago
  I think you're correct that the definition of what is "left" and "right" doesn't really account for the current political climate. This is why I think the parties are due to realign, at least in the U.S. It's also worth noting that up until now, the American right has focused on limiting the influence of the national government. In contrast, the right wing in Europe has few issues with big national governments. The extreme right in Europe might even want to reintroduce their respective monarchies. That is to say the word "right wing" doesn't mean the same thing everywhere. However, Donald Trump seems more in the vein of a European right-winger, which new and surprising in U.S. politics.
• jakobegger 10y ago
  You are right that people are fed up with the classic center parties. But this does not explain why the angry people in Austria vote for the far right FPÖ instead of the Green party. The hatred for immigrants/muslims/other minorities is crucial. That's what people are voting for. If they were truly sceptic about globalisation or outsourcing of labour, they would vote green.
  • ThomPete 10y ago
    It's not a hatred it's a skepticism towards what it will do to their country. If anything they are national conservatives and their jobs and lives are those mostly effected by immigration. And no green and skepticism towards globalization is only skin deep. They don't like pollution and they don't like large corporations who destroy the earth. But thats not what the "right-wing" voters are worried about. They are worried about jobs. Jobs that the green party wants to destroy by adding taxes to the factories they work in. So your analysis is simply wrong. Nothing in the green movement is antiglobal.
• tomelders 10y ago
  The appeal of the far right, as with the far left is that they're not the "Establishment" The so called "centre" has moved away from trying to craft balanced policy without leaning too far one way or the other and have instead chosen simply to serve the hopes and dreams of the political and business elite. They do not represent the left, or the right. They represent a new point on the political spectrum that I see as the new aristocracy. The racists and facists have always been there. But now that both sides of the political spectrum are rejecting the centre by backing new political movements, they've found a new voice and we can hear them again.
• qrendel 10y ago
  The realignments in the US are complicated, but the movement to the right goes way beyond just reaction to globalization and technology. At least three things have happened (imo): 1) both the public and the government have become far more politically polarized, 2) the net change from polarization has still been to the right, and 3) the government has become more openly authoritarian. It's Even Worse Than It Looks by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein[1][2] makes a really good case for (1) and (2). That has been going on for around 50 years now, since the (end of) Carter and (start of) Reagan administrations. The Democrats lost a 40-year streak of Congressional control to the Republicans in 1992, eventually evolving into the far-right obstructionist Congressional Republicans of today. In the meantime even the liberal Democrat presidents became more conservative on their overall policies (excepting a few social issues like LGBTQ issues) - Obama's healthcare reforms being similar to conservative proposals from the 1980's and Clinton famously saying that the "era of big government is over." For (3) you have the new executive powers to wage war without Congressional approval (e.g. the AUMF under Bush and Libyan intervention under Obama), bipartisan expansion of warrantless surveillance by both parties (wiretapping under Bush and Snowden revelations under Obama), extrajudicial assassination programs, etc etc. Under the typical US understanding of the terms, this would all certainly be considered "right wing." For the public's part, you see way more widespread support and acceptance for the policies than you did during e.g. Vietnam or even WW2 (opposition to entering the war and the Lend-Lease program, etc). There has been some occasional reversal towards the center, with e.g. Sanders, Obamacare, Occupy Wall Street, some other examples, but overall the US has been going net right since at least Jimmy Carter. I'd say the opposition to free trade, unless it really steamrolls into something bigger, is currently just another short-term reversal to the center, set against a continual bull market for the political right. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331 http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/d... [2] http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-14/thomas-mann-and-norman-ornstein-on-republicans-gone-wild http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-14/thomas-man...
• m_fayer 10y ago
  Just as one example, the FPö, which just very narrowly lost the Austrian elections, was literally founded by nazis. They explicitly promote an ethnic-nationalist Austrian identity at the expense of any notion of cosmopolitanism or post-nationalism. Their frequent talk of Heimat is not all that different from the blut und boden of earlier times. If this isn't right-wing identity politics, I don't know what is.
  • RGamma 10y ago
    So? Doesn't mean they plan a genocide or aggressive expansionist policies... Japan has been doing something similar for years, only there it's apparently not called "right-wing politics"
    • vidarh 10y ago
      Since when was planning genocide a pre-requisite to be considered right-wing?
    • kristopolous 10y ago
      Lebensraum was about unifying a diaspora of German speaking people into one collective country. These people want racially based geopolitical partitioning. The ones with a diaspora and victimhood narrative certainly advocate for an aggressive "homeland of the x people" where racist law keeps it that way.
      • emp_zealoth 10y ago
        TOOT-TOOT! Fact-checking police: (...)Lebensraum was an ideological element of Nazism, which advocated Germany's territorial expansion into Eastern Europe(...) As the very name says - "living space"
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • kristopolous 10y ago
• alphonsegaston 10y ago
  The average Trump voter in the primaries made something like $72,000. While not wealthy by any stretch, they're surviving globalization better than blacks in this country, who voted overwhelmingly for Democrats. The false narrative in the media is the one where they try to rationalize Trump's rise through the story of poor whites instead of acknowledging their complicity in normalizing his racism and fascism. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...
• NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  Wow. You've described xenophobia word by word and still claim that it's not. Congratulations on getting the "cynic of the day" award.
• voidr 10y ago
  There is more to this than globalisation. You can't just bring a bunch of muslims who have never been to the west into a liberal christian society and expect it to work out on it's own, the EU has failed miserably on this front, and people are afraid and angry. If you are a poor Eastern European with a wife and a daughter, all you see is that instead of the EU helping you out of poverty, it is brining in people from the east who will rape your wife and daughter and live off of your taxes and then kill you. After the rapes in Germany and the massacres in France, you cannot just tell people "well, shit happens". To put this into a more rationale perspective: the left wings have failed the people, now the people are starting to turn to the other extreme. The way I see it: you need a balance between right and left wing.
• transpy 10y ago
  I think you're right when you say that a big sector of the population has been ignored. Normal, working families are asking 'hey what about us?', but why hasn't a corresponding political movement arisen to answer to those demands? A movement that doesn't echoes past ideologies like fascism? And it is not correct to say that 'right wing' parties are not racist or fascists. It is, as you know, a spectrum, from the regular, peaceful working person feeling ignored, to the outright neo-fascists and xenophobes. It is a sad situation that this spectrum encompasses such different people. Until a humanistic right wing emerges to answer peacefully to legitimate demands, present-day right wing parties will keep propagating and mirroring hate and racism.