5 ms·

Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and gri

by Herring 8mo ago

Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. Support for such measures (eg welfare, healthcare, unionization, redistribution etc) is usually low among Americans.

idle_zealot 8mo ago
Apparently something like 30% of Democrats (voters, not representatives) now identify as "Democratic Socialists." I assume this is because it's what Bernie and Mamdani call themselves while advocating for the above mentioned measures. The establishment Democrats will fight like hell to stem the tide, but there does seem to be increasing support for these populist policies among liberals.
- metabagel 8mo ago
  I think it's because the Democratic Party has moved away from socialist policies, e.g., Medicare For All.
rayiner 8mo ago
[flagged]
- Herring 8mo ago
  Those three examples all implemented some kind of austerity, which reduced safety nets and increased economic insecurity. Western societies are aging. If you don't take in immigrants (which is basically the government becoming the far right), you're on a timer. Your economy will slow, insecurity will rise, and the far right will surge anyway. It's happening to Japan.
  - rayiner 8mo ago
    The idea that there's been meaningful austerity isn't borne out by the data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun?time=2000..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... There was a dip after the financial crisis and a blip that returned to normal after COVID. But Germany, Italy, and the UK all spend a slightly greater share of their GDP on social welfare now than they did in 2000. And while the U.S. has less social spending overall, the trend shows the opposite of your story. In 2000, when the U.S. elected pro-immigration George W. Bush, social spending was 14.1%. In 2024, when people voted for "mass deportations" Trump, social spending was 19.8% of GDP. The U.S. was spending more of its economy on social welfare in 2024 than Australia, Canada, and the U.K. were spending back in the early 2000s--but the far right is much stronger today than it was back then.
    - Herring 8mo ago
      That graph is really deceptive. Eg the Greece curve is going up (!!), which can make you think there was no austerity. Probably the GDP in the denominator shrunk faster than the govt could cut pensions.
      - rayiner 8mo ago
        No, real GDP (inflation adjusted) grew considerably in Germany and the U.K. over that time, and was stable in Italy: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1RMz0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1RMz0. All three countries spend a slightly greater share of an overall larger economy on social welfare than they did in 2000.
        Herring 8mo ago
        Well how much have the countries aged? In that case you should expect it to go up, maybe it's still a lot less than it should be. I'm a statistician. That (first) graph is a case study in how to lie with statistics. They should teach it in class. I'm out, I recommend you spend some time reading about this issue. Inequality and welfare cuts leading to the rise in the far right is fairly well established. One (misleading) graph doesn't disprove it. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts-are-fuelling-far-right-rise-warns-un-expert https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...
        rayiner 8mo ago
        I’m citing a fact that’s plain in the data. Germany, the UK, and Italy spend slightly more of a larger economy on social welfare than they did in 2000. If you have a contrary case based on different data, then make it. We’re intelligent people here, we don’t need to resort to appeals to authority, especially in a subject like political sentiment that isn’t amenable to expert analysis. This stuff isn’t rocket science.
        Herring 8mo ago
mrtesthah 8mo ago
I would counter that a majority of Americans are actually in favor of these things, but our supreme court has been corrupted by billionaires and is stymying any real progress along these lines. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/10/most-americans-say-government-has-a-responsibility-to-ensure-health-care-coverage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/10/most-amer...
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
burnt-resistor 8mo ago
Similar to plantation owners convincing poor white Southerners that the North was threatening their "way of life", billionaires used media to manufacture consent of a large subset of Americans that [insert scapegoats] are "the problem". Separating church and state and wealth and media are essential to having a functioning democratic flavor of government.

by Herring 8mo ago

idle_zealot 8mo ago

Apparently something like 30% of Democrats (voters, not representatives) now identify as "Democratic Socialists." I assume this is because it's what Bernie and Mamdani call themselves while advocating for the above mentioned measures. The establishment Democrats will fight like hell to stem the tide, but there does seem to be increasing support for these populist policies among liberals.

metabagel 8mo ago
I think it's because the Democratic Party has moved away from socialist policies, e.g., Medicare For All.

rayiner 8mo ago

[flagged]

Herring 8mo ago
Those three examples all implemented some kind of austerity, which reduced safety nets and increased economic insecurity. Western societies are aging. If you don't take in immigrants (which is basically the government becoming the far right), you're on a timer. Your economy will slow, insecurity will rise, and the far right will surge anyway. It's happening to Japan.
- rayiner 8mo ago
  The idea that there's been meaningful austerity isn't borne out by the data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun?time=2000..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... There was a dip after the financial crisis and a blip that returned to normal after COVID. But Germany, Italy, and the UK all spend a slightly greater share of their GDP on social welfare now than they did in 2000. And while the U.S. has less social spending overall, the trend shows the opposite of your story. In 2000, when the U.S. elected pro-immigration George W. Bush, social spending was 14.1%. In 2024, when people voted for "mass deportations" Trump, social spending was 19.8% of GDP. The U.S. was spending more of its economy on social welfare in 2024 than Australia, Canada, and the U.K. were spending back in the early 2000s--but the far right is much stronger today than it was back then.
  - Herring 8mo ago
    That graph is really deceptive. Eg the Greece curve is going up (!!), which can make you think there was no austerity. Probably the GDP in the denominator shrunk faster than the govt could cut pensions.
    - rayiner 8mo ago
      No, real GDP (inflation adjusted) grew considerably in Germany and the U.K. over that time, and was stable in Italy: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1RMz0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1RMz0. All three countries spend a slightly greater share of an overall larger economy on social welfare than they did in 2000.
      - Herring 8mo ago
        Well how much have the countries aged? In that case you should expect it to go up, maybe it's still a lot less than it should be. I'm a statistician. That (first) graph is a case study in how to lie with statistics. They should teach it in class. I'm out, I recommend you spend some time reading about this issue. Inequality and welfare cuts leading to the rise in the far right is fairly well established. One (misleading) graph doesn't disprove it. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts-are-fuelling-far-right-rise-warns-un-expert https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...
        rayiner 8mo ago
        I’m citing a fact that’s plain in the data. Germany, the UK, and Italy spend slightly more of a larger economy on social welfare than they did in 2000. If you have a contrary case based on different data, then make it. We’re intelligent people here, we don’t need to resort to appeals to authority, especially in a subject like political sentiment that isn’t amenable to expert analysis. This stuff isn’t rocket science.
        Herring 8mo ago

mrtesthah 8mo ago

I would counter that a majority of Americans are actually in favor of these things, but our supreme court has been corrupted by billionaires and is stymying any real progress along these lines. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/10/most-americans-say-government-has-a-responsibility-to-ensure-health-care-coverage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/10/most-amer...

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

burnt-resistor 8mo ago

Similar to plantation owners convincing poor white Southerners that the North was threatening their "way of life", billionaires used media to manufacture consent of a large subset of Americans that [insert scapegoats] are "the problem". Separating church and state and wealth and media are essential to having a functioning democratic flavor of government.