6 ms·

I suspect a huge part of Macron's success was his opponent. France elections have a top-2 runoff, and I wouldn't be surprised if many electors were like "I don'

by qsort 5y ago

I suspect a huge part of Macron's success was his opponent. France elections have a top-2 runoff, and I wouldn't be surprised if many electors were like "I don't like Macron but I really don't want Le Pen to win". The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world.

pjc50 5y ago
> "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world. ... except Germany? I think it's more popular on the ground than you'd think, but it's very unpopular in the media who like their politics to be professional wrestling.
- Loughla 5y ago
  No, it is very unpopular in the US in those who regularly vote in primaries. The primary decides the race, for many, many elections. The presidential race is not exempt from this, either. To draw enough primary voters to make the ballot in one of the two major parties, candidates are, increasingly, needing to take extreme stances on most social and economic issues. (for example, look at how many people came out for Trump in the 2016 primary. In my parents' county in their Midwest state, the polling place literally ran out of republican ballots) Pandering to the extremes, and the movement of many politicians toward extreme views is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
  - ordinaryradical 5y ago
    Yang explains this exact issue so well here: https://youtu.be/-2O3JYaELW0?t=1038 https://youtu.be/-2O3JYaELW0?t=1038 This is part of the reason he and others will be pushing for structural changes, including open primaries, as central to the platform. Changing the mechanics of the elections is the only way to enable a return to centrism in the US.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Changing the mechanics of the elections is the only way to enable a return to centrism in the US. There is no centrism to return to. The post-WWII age of bipartisanship wasn't one of centrism, it was one where the party split didn't align with the ideological divide. It was jist as much a period of competing ideological extremes (and governing from ideological polarized positions, which is why it featured the US military being used to enforce the federal will against US state governments.) Changing the mechanics of elections to artificially favor centrism is...opposed to the kind of changes that would expand the scope of meaningful choices and improve representation.
      - holywar20 5y ago
        Americans feel unrepresented. This makes us despair and forces us into increasingly unpopular, existential crisis, that are good for no one. I do not believe the problem is we aren't progressive enough. The problem is no one trusts the goverment. And no one trusts the goverment is because no one in goverment is accountable to the majority and no one governs the way we would like to be governed. Frankly it's not about 'centrism'. It's about the fact the parties do NOT represent the diversity of opinion in America. there pro-choice republicans, pro-life democrats, republicans who like trans-rights, pro-capitalism democrats, pro-gun democrats, anti-trump Republicans ... But despite all this diversity of opinion, you have a system that forces binary choices between slates of options. We are a very diverse country - ethnically, politically, socially. It's beautifully diverse. Among the most diverse in the world. I do not believe the current political system reflects that diversity accurately. Which is why voter participation in America is low, and most elections across the country do not matter. This is wrong. Every district in America should be competitive.
- V__ 5y ago
  A lot of people seem to think that Germany is "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" but that is not the case. Angela Merkel and her CDU/CSU party like to pretend and brand themselves as such, but they don't vote that way. Also, Germans as a whole can be categorized as liberal regarding social policies but very conservative regarding economic ones. However, the election last week was a big upset to her party and might finally lead to a new government coalition with the policies you mentioned.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  CDU/CSU aren't particularly socially progressive. That said, "grudgingly as socially progressive as the public demands we be, economically center-right" is pretty common in European politics; CDU/CSU are an example, as are FF and FG in Ireland.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    That seems fine/palatable to me. And honestly, that's good leadership. Social policies should follow popular opinion and be flexible enough to shift ever few years. But economic policies may require unpopular actions to be taken. The population may not want higher interest rates, or a trade deal that kills a local factory. But those things might be for the greater good of everyone.
    - rsynnott 5y ago
      My issue with this approach is that it tends to put off progress until there is _overwhelming_ public support. For instance, the 38th Amendment to the Irish Constitution, which liberalised divorce rules, received _82%_ of the public vote. That's particularly extreme, but the 34th and 36th amendment (equal marriage and abortion) received 62% and 67% respectively. All of these could have been introduced years earlier and passed with clear public support. If you wait until you have no choice but to do something, you tend to delay doing things a very long time. And it bleeds over into timidity about making tough decisions; for instance the FF/FG coalition in Ireland has been unable to do anything about housing, because any actual action is going to annoy _somebody_.
      - _hilro 5y ago
        > for instance the FF/FG coalition in Ireland has been unable to do anything about housing, because any actual action is going to annoy _somebody_ Ireland has a ridiculously high percentage of population dependent on government support for housing. This is in the form of assisted rent payments which in effect, sets a high floor for rent. People receiving support are competing in the same market for housing as pretty much all workers. We don't build government housing anymore because we saw the actual disaster that became of that. The far left parties have a 'housing for everyone' nonsense manifest which a) Ireland doesnt have the labour force for, b) tax payers subsiding shit wages c) Ireland already has high income tax and sales taxes. At some point there has to be the realisation that life on the dole shouldn't equate to a middle class lifestyle without the stress or debt when those who should have a middle class lifestyle don't have one because they're being squeezed in every direction possible and still have to take on hundreds of thousands of debt for mediocre accommodation.
hef19898 5y ago
In order to qualify for the run-off, Macron had to end up in the top 2 first. Which he did. And that En Marche got the parliament as well was a bit of a surprise. Curious to see how things play out next year so.
- kergonath 5y ago
  Yeah, him getting a majority was the bigger surprise. The presidential election is a popularity contest. Both major, traditional parties shot themselves in the foot repeatedly and lost a lot of their appeal. Then, in a runoff against Le Pen, you just win by not being a Nazi. Getting enough MPs, so many of them outsiders, on a technocratic platform (so without pulling th usual emotional strings) was quite impressive. Of course, the end result is not great, but then nothing really is these days
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Sometimes Macron makes me think of Schröder in Germany. Both came as a surpise, both had to implement some unpopular measures. In the case of Schröder, these measures helped to get Germany back on its economic feet (Germany was Europe's sick man in the 90s) and ultimately cost him his Chancellory further down the road. And not all these reforms were actually "good", Hartz 4 is still a damn disgrace for rich, highly industrialized country. Not that it will be changed anytime soon, regardless of the next government we get. We'll see how Macron does. Not being a Nazi is actually good thing so. Even more so if it wins elections!
  - Leherenn 5y ago
    > the end result is not great Do you mean having outsiders elected to parliament or the whole Macron government/term?
- alexgmcm 5y ago
  If Le Pen or Zemmour get through to the second round then I imagine Macron will win, as voters unite to avoid them winning, much as happened in the previous elections. Although I guess Le Pen and Zemmour might split each others vote, preventing them from reaching the second round.
mschuster91 5y ago
> The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world. Is it? "Economically middle in the road" is somewhat around classic Social Democrat politics, a staple of European politics. The problem with the classic European Social Democrat parties is that they shot themselves in their feet by a combination of neoliberalism (e.g. German SPD post-2005/Hartz IV or British Labour) and individual scandals (corruption).
- dagw 5y ago
  "Economically middle in the road" is somewhat around classic Social Democrat politics Even more conservative parties in Europe are moving that way. Just look at the Tories in the UK for example, proposing massive government spending plans paid for by raising taxes.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    That’s surprising only if you consider the Tories as being economically liberal. They are conservative in the sense that they look after the interests of the old aristocracy and a coalition of the rich. Their policies are intended to benefit a specific subset of the population. Their taxes (as well as things like the universal credit cuts) are perfectly aligned with that ideology. They don’t have a problem with the concept of taxation, just taxation of the powerful.
    - Brakenshire 5y ago
      They increased UC for the pandemic, and then reduced it, much like the Furlough scheme, and both of those policies would have been considered centre or centre-left responses if done by a centre or centre-left party.
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      > They are conservative in the sense that they look after the interests of the old aristocracy and a coalition of the rich. I thought this was the literal definition of right wing? The side that supported the king against the democratic will of the people? And is there anyone who has a rhetoric of "less taxes" who actually intends everyone to benefit? That seems like a mirage and it's all done in service of the rich and powerful. Which is a hard policy to sell to ordinary people, unless you wrap it in some cheap bigotry to confuse them.
Hokusai 5y ago
extremely unpopular in the real -world- USA.
netcan 5y ago
It's always true that the election system itself plays a big role in how/what candidates get elected. It's also true that the US electoral structure was a huge factor in Biden or Trump's election. Change the structure of the primary or main election, get different results. That notwithstanding, it's also true that elements of Trump or Bidens' success might translate. In any case, the "The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN." is arguably the most successful coalition in western (and many non western) democracies for decades. Depending on vantage, political classifications like "progressive" and "middle of the road" are relative, and we don't usually agree on the bounds. But if If you compare changes though, these orientations have been politically powerful for decades. ... Normative beliefs around gay rights, minority rights, secularism, women's rights and such have been marching forward, call it progressing. Circa 2005, gay marriage was fringe and ilegal almost everywhere. Obama, Clinton & other prominent US democrats occasionally even had to pretend to be against gay marriage, for elections. Within <15 years, gay marriage is legal in the US, most of western europe, etc. A religious-conservative position on a lot of issues is considered fringe now. 15 years ago, condoms were still politically controversial. Bush cancelled HIV prevention initiative because condoms. Meanwhile, the economic middle-ground is approximately in exactly the same place as it was in the 90s. This might be breaking down ATM, but very generally, the conservative position from the 80s became the middle ground. Barriers to trade, corporate shields, tax structures and such haven't changed much since that shift.
- qsort 5y ago
  > If you compare changes though, these orientations have been politically powerful for decades They have, but they usually don't go toghether, that was my point. Social rights advocacy usually goes hand in hand with far-left positions, while more centrist economic policy usually implies conservative social positions. I believe it's been a policy driver because it's kind of an "elite ideology", which is overrepresented in educated or powerful circles, which have relatively more soft-power.
  - netcan 5y ago
    I don't think these narratives are ever definitive, but I think this rendition isn't really operative. >> Social rights advocacy usually goes hand in hand with far-left positions Maybe to some extent, but mostly I think this is a product of being "in opposition." You get to be more blunt, fiery & vanguard in your rhetoric when you are in opposition. Also party fringes tend to group somewhat. In any case, "centrism" has been relative to a previously conservative economic outlook and a previously liberal social outlook. A party representing the economic left wing agenda combined with the social conservative social agenda of the 1950s-80s would have bombed in the following decades. Maybe "elite ideology" has been further right economically and further left socially than the mainstream... but that position tends to be well represented as centrist factions of large parties. There aren't fringe factions representing these positions because mainstream parties already do. The UK does actually have such a party, the Libdems. They sometimes act as punisher for labour or tory candidates that stray from the middle ground. IE, they get labour votes when the labour candidate is overly radical in rhetoric, and conservative votes if the conservative candidate is overly reactionary. But, any recent British PM would have been at home in the LibDem party. There's no need for a centrist party that defines political orientation the same way the main factions do. Even in real multiparty systems, this kind of centrism is usually a small, short lived and inconsequential victory. The problem isn't that the ideas aren't popular enough. They're too popular. Both major parties already court these voters.
lupire 5y ago
> socially progressive, economically middle of the road" That's Democrats, who almost always win the popular vote but are structurally handicapped by the votes for Senate and Presidency given to rural states.
Thrymr 5y ago
> The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world. I don't know about that, it has won the popular vote in 7 of the past 8 US presidential elections.
- badRNG 5y ago
  I mean let's look: - 2020 - Biden - 2016 - Trump - 2012 - Obama - 2008 - Obama - 2004 - Bush - 2000 - Bush - 1996 - Clinton - 1992 - Clinton I'd think that Bush represented a socially conservative position, and I'm not entirely certain that Trump was any more conservative on particular social issues. Additionally, I think Clinton represented a middle of the road approach to social issues (RFRA, massive deregulation, "begrudgingly" signed Defense of Marriage Act, etc.) On economic issues, they all fall somewhere between middle of the road and hardline neoliberalism.
  - dpatterbee 5y ago
    You've missed the word "popular" Bush 1 and Trump lost the popular vote.
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      It could probably be argued that Bush would have lost the 04 popular vote if he hadn't be thrust into the Presidency in 00.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Economically, neoliberalism is indistinguishable from conservativism so I’m not sure what “hardline” means (it also was certainly not Obama — he talked a good game while still murdering children with drones and funneling tax dollars to corporations hand over fist). Liberalism takes the worst parts of both the left and the right and mashes them together. You can’t divorce socialism from social progress — they are two sides of the same coin. No social justice without economic justice.
Nimitz14 5y ago
I completely disagree with your assessment and would be very curious how you got to your opinion that "extremely unpopular in the real world". I suspect it comes down to how we define "socially progressive".

by qsort 5y ago

pjc50 5y ago

> "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world. ... except Germany? I think it's more popular on the ground than you'd think, but it's very unpopular in the media who like their politics to be professional wrestling.

Loughla 5y ago
No, it is very unpopular in the US in those who regularly vote in primaries. The primary decides the race, for many, many elections. The presidential race is not exempt from this, either. To draw enough primary voters to make the ballot in one of the two major parties, candidates are, increasingly, needing to take extreme stances on most social and economic issues. (for example, look at how many people came out for Trump in the 2016 primary. In my parents' county in their Midwest state, the polling place literally ran out of republican ballots) Pandering to the extremes, and the movement of many politicians toward extreme views is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
- ordinaryradical 5y ago
  Yang explains this exact issue so well here: https://youtu.be/-2O3JYaELW0?t=1038 https://youtu.be/-2O3JYaELW0?t=1038 This is part of the reason he and others will be pushing for structural changes, including open primaries, as central to the platform. Changing the mechanics of the elections is the only way to enable a return to centrism in the US.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Changing the mechanics of the elections is the only way to enable a return to centrism in the US. There is no centrism to return to. The post-WWII age of bipartisanship wasn't one of centrism, it was one where the party split didn't align with the ideological divide. It was jist as much a period of competing ideological extremes (and governing from ideological polarized positions, which is why it featured the US military being used to enforce the federal will against US state governments.) Changing the mechanics of elections to artificially favor centrism is...opposed to the kind of changes that would expand the scope of meaningful choices and improve representation.
    - holywar20 5y ago
      Americans feel unrepresented. This makes us despair and forces us into increasingly unpopular, existential crisis, that are good for no one. I do not believe the problem is we aren't progressive enough. The problem is no one trusts the goverment. And no one trusts the goverment is because no one in goverment is accountable to the majority and no one governs the way we would like to be governed. Frankly it's not about 'centrism'. It's about the fact the parties do NOT represent the diversity of opinion in America. there pro-choice republicans, pro-life democrats, republicans who like trans-rights, pro-capitalism democrats, pro-gun democrats, anti-trump Republicans ... But despite all this diversity of opinion, you have a system that forces binary choices between slates of options. We are a very diverse country - ethnically, politically, socially. It's beautifully diverse. Among the most diverse in the world. I do not believe the current political system reflects that diversity accurately. Which is why voter participation in America is low, and most elections across the country do not matter. This is wrong. Every district in America should be competitive.
V__ 5y ago
A lot of people seem to think that Germany is "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" but that is not the case. Angela Merkel and her CDU/CSU party like to pretend and brand themselves as such, but they don't vote that way. Also, Germans as a whole can be categorized as liberal regarding social policies but very conservative regarding economic ones. However, the election last week was a big upset to her party and might finally lead to a new government coalition with the policies you mentioned.
rsynnott 5y ago
CDU/CSU aren't particularly socially progressive. That said, "grudgingly as socially progressive as the public demands we be, economically center-right" is pretty common in European politics; CDU/CSU are an example, as are FF and FG in Ireland.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  That seems fine/palatable to me. And honestly, that's good leadership. Social policies should follow popular opinion and be flexible enough to shift ever few years. But economic policies may require unpopular actions to be taken. The population may not want higher interest rates, or a trade deal that kills a local factory. But those things might be for the greater good of everyone.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    My issue with this approach is that it tends to put off progress until there is _overwhelming_ public support. For instance, the 38th Amendment to the Irish Constitution, which liberalised divorce rules, received _82%_ of the public vote. That's particularly extreme, but the 34th and 36th amendment (equal marriage and abortion) received 62% and 67% respectively. All of these could have been introduced years earlier and passed with clear public support. If you wait until you have no choice but to do something, you tend to delay doing things a very long time. And it bleeds over into timidity about making tough decisions; for instance the FF/FG coalition in Ireland has been unable to do anything about housing, because any actual action is going to annoy _somebody_.
    - _hilro 5y ago
      > for instance the FF/FG coalition in Ireland has been unable to do anything about housing, because any actual action is going to annoy _somebody_ Ireland has a ridiculously high percentage of population dependent on government support for housing. This is in the form of assisted rent payments which in effect, sets a high floor for rent. People receiving support are competing in the same market for housing as pretty much all workers. We don't build government housing anymore because we saw the actual disaster that became of that. The far left parties have a 'housing for everyone' nonsense manifest which a) Ireland doesnt have the labour force for, b) tax payers subsiding shit wages c) Ireland already has high income tax and sales taxes. At some point there has to be the realisation that life on the dole shouldn't equate to a middle class lifestyle without the stress or debt when those who should have a middle class lifestyle don't have one because they're being squeezed in every direction possible and still have to take on hundreds of thousands of debt for mediocre accommodation.

hef19898 5y ago

In order to qualify for the run-off, Macron had to end up in the top 2 first. Which he did. And that En Marche got the parliament as well was a bit of a surprise. Curious to see how things play out next year so.

kergonath 5y ago
Yeah, him getting a majority was the bigger surprise. The presidential election is a popularity contest. Both major, traditional parties shot themselves in the foot repeatedly and lost a lot of their appeal. Then, in a runoff against Le Pen, you just win by not being a Nazi. Getting enough MPs, so many of them outsiders, on a technocratic platform (so without pulling th usual emotional strings) was quite impressive. Of course, the end result is not great, but then nothing really is these days
- hef19898 5y ago
  Sometimes Macron makes me think of Schröder in Germany. Both came as a surpise, both had to implement some unpopular measures. In the case of Schröder, these measures helped to get Germany back on its economic feet (Germany was Europe's sick man in the 90s) and ultimately cost him his Chancellory further down the road. And not all these reforms were actually "good", Hartz 4 is still a damn disgrace for rich, highly industrialized country. Not that it will be changed anytime soon, regardless of the next government we get. We'll see how Macron does. Not being a Nazi is actually good thing so. Even more so if it wins elections!
- Leherenn 5y ago
  > the end result is not great Do you mean having outsiders elected to parliament or the whole Macron government/term?
alexgmcm 5y ago
If Le Pen or Zemmour get through to the second round then I imagine Macron will win, as voters unite to avoid them winning, much as happened in the previous elections. Although I guess Le Pen and Zemmour might split each others vote, preventing them from reaching the second round.

mschuster91 5y ago

> The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world. Is it? "Economically middle in the road" is somewhat around classic Social Democrat politics, a staple of European politics. The problem with the classic European Social Democrat parties is that they shot themselves in their feet by a combination of neoliberalism (e.g. German SPD post-2005/Hartz IV or British Labour) and individual scandals (corruption).

dagw 5y ago
"Economically middle in the road" is somewhat around classic Social Democrat politics Even more conservative parties in Europe are moving that way. Just look at the Tories in the UK for example, proposing massive government spending plans paid for by raising taxes.
- kergonath 5y ago
  That’s surprising only if you consider the Tories as being economically liberal. They are conservative in the sense that they look after the interests of the old aristocracy and a coalition of the rich. Their policies are intended to benefit a specific subset of the population. Their taxes (as well as things like the universal credit cuts) are perfectly aligned with that ideology. They don’t have a problem with the concept of taxation, just taxation of the powerful.
  - Brakenshire 5y ago
    They increased UC for the pandemic, and then reduced it, much like the Furlough scheme, and both of those policies would have been considered centre or centre-left responses if done by a centre or centre-left party.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    > They are conservative in the sense that they look after the interests of the old aristocracy and a coalition of the rich. I thought this was the literal definition of right wing? The side that supported the king against the democratic will of the people? And is there anyone who has a rhetoric of "less taxes" who actually intends everyone to benefit? That seems like a mirage and it's all done in service of the rich and powerful. Which is a hard policy to sell to ordinary people, unless you wrap it in some cheap bigotry to confuse them.

Hokusai 5y ago

extremely unpopular in the real -world- USA.

netcan 5y ago

It's always true that the election system itself plays a big role in how/what candidates get elected. It's also true that the US electoral structure was a huge factor in Biden or Trump's election. Change the structure of the primary or main election, get different results. That notwithstanding, it's also true that elements of Trump or Bidens' success might translate. In any case, the "The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN." is arguably the most successful coalition in western (and many non western) democracies for decades. Depending on vantage, political classifications like "progressive" and "middle of the road" are relative, and we don't usually agree on the bounds. But if If you compare changes though, these orientations have been politically powerful for decades. ... Normative beliefs around gay rights, minority rights, secularism, women's rights and such have been marching forward, call it progressing. Circa 2005, gay marriage was fringe and ilegal almost everywhere. Obama, Clinton & other prominent US democrats occasionally even had to pretend to be against gay marriage, for elections. Within <15 years, gay marriage is legal in the US, most of western europe, etc. A religious-conservative position on a lot of issues is considered fringe now. 15 years ago, condoms were still politically controversial. Bush cancelled HIV prevention initiative because condoms. Meanwhile, the economic middle-ground is approximately in exactly the same place as it was in the 90s. This might be breaking down ATM, but very generally, the conservative position from the 80s became the middle ground. Barriers to trade, corporate shields, tax structures and such haven't changed much since that shift.

qsort 5y ago
> If you compare changes though, these orientations have been politically powerful for decades They have, but they usually don't go toghether, that was my point. Social rights advocacy usually goes hand in hand with far-left positions, while more centrist economic policy usually implies conservative social positions. I believe it's been a policy driver because it's kind of an "elite ideology", which is overrepresented in educated or powerful circles, which have relatively more soft-power.
- netcan 5y ago
  I don't think these narratives are ever definitive, but I think this rendition isn't really operative. >> Social rights advocacy usually goes hand in hand with far-left positions Maybe to some extent, but mostly I think this is a product of being "in opposition." You get to be more blunt, fiery & vanguard in your rhetoric when you are in opposition. Also party fringes tend to group somewhat. In any case, "centrism" has been relative to a previously conservative economic outlook and a previously liberal social outlook. A party representing the economic left wing agenda combined with the social conservative social agenda of the 1950s-80s would have bombed in the following decades. Maybe "elite ideology" has been further right economically and further left socially than the mainstream... but that position tends to be well represented as centrist factions of large parties. There aren't fringe factions representing these positions because mainstream parties already do. The UK does actually have such a party, the Libdems. They sometimes act as punisher for labour or tory candidates that stray from the middle ground. IE, they get labour votes when the labour candidate is overly radical in rhetoric, and conservative votes if the conservative candidate is overly reactionary. But, any recent British PM would have been at home in the LibDem party. There's no need for a centrist party that defines political orientation the same way the main factions do. Even in real multiparty systems, this kind of centrism is usually a small, short lived and inconsequential victory. The problem isn't that the ideas aren't popular enough. They're too popular. Both major parties already court these voters.

lupire 5y ago

> socially progressive, economically middle of the road" That's Democrats, who almost always win the popular vote but are structurally handicapped by the votes for Senate and Presidency given to rural states.

Thrymr 5y ago

> The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world. I don't know about that, it has won the popular vote in 7 of the past 8 US presidential elections.

badRNG 5y ago
I mean let's look: - 2020 - Biden - 2016 - Trump - 2012 - Obama - 2008 - Obama - 2004 - Bush - 2000 - Bush - 1996 - Clinton - 1992 - Clinton I'd think that Bush represented a socially conservative position, and I'm not entirely certain that Trump was any more conservative on particular social issues. Additionally, I think Clinton represented a middle of the road approach to social issues (RFRA, massive deregulation, "begrudgingly" signed Defense of Marriage Act, etc.) On economic issues, they all fall somewhere between middle of the road and hardline neoliberalism.
- dpatterbee 5y ago
  You've missed the word "popular" Bush 1 and Trump lost the popular vote.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    It could probably be argued that Bush would have lost the 04 popular vote if he hadn't be thrust into the Presidency in 00.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  Economically, neoliberalism is indistinguishable from conservativism so I’m not sure what “hardline” means (it also was certainly not Obama — he talked a good game while still murdering children with drones and funneling tax dollars to corporations hand over fist). Liberalism takes the worst parts of both the left and the right and mashes them together. You can’t divorce socialism from social progress — they are two sides of the same coin. No social justice without economic justice.

Nimitz14 5y ago

I completely disagree with your assessment and would be very curious how you got to your opinion that "extremely unpopular in the real world". I suspect it comes down to how we define "socially progressive".