Mainstream conservatism is not the same thing as right-wing populism. In anticipation of your inevitable response, left-wing populism is dangerous, too. I notice that conservatives tend to react in a reflexively butt hurt way to anything on this site that is even remotely critical of the right. In fact, I generally agree. If you only want to read stuff the rips the left and sanctifies the right, why not go over to Fox News, or Brietbart, or Info Wars? And left-wing elitism has a tendency towards Stalinism and Maoism.
But to my eye the populists have the ball on the left 30 and were driving, but the challenge flag came out and the left wants a turnover ruling and an ejection. I have been thinking the same thing too—there does seem to be a vocal and ironically sensitive conservative viewpoint that gets expressed in the comments that I think really misses the point of what Quillette is so admirably trying to do.
No, as a whole slew of posters here have pointed out, there are major definitional problems in this article and with the thinking of a whole lot of fellow-travelers to this writer , and your own post highlights some of these definitional problems. Since when were Hitler and Mussolini populists?
Were Lenin and Mao populists too? If not, why not? If anything they seem even more populist, in terms of representing a population against elites. And who were the populists there? Who precisely is a populist, and why? The American Populists were none of these things. Naming and labeling and categorizing always seems to drift into name calling and groupthink. I plead guilty to the first, and try like hell to fight the latter. Let Free Thought Live. Royce legendary name btw , I agree.
I have no trouble with people criticising my point of view. WHat I do have a problem with is that somehow neo nazis are really right wing at all. After you learn the talking points and phrases on either side you can easily spot those who are thinking for themselves and those who are just filling in the blanks with all the right parroted points of view. I was pointing out that it seems that anyone who holds views outside what the extreme left define as politically correct, is labelled as far right, populist, alt right etc.
But the boundary which defines what is considered politically correct, and what is not, is constantly moving leftwards on the spectrum. So thus the definition of what is considered to be populist, or alt right or far right, is constantly changing. Which tends to suggest that the boundary has moved past the median and now maybe the majority of people in many places hold at least some views that fall outside the boundaries of political correctness? My other point was maybe the whole idea and implementation of political correctness is self defeating, and unsustainable, and is causing many of the problems we see nowadays such as deepening divisions, increasing conflict, increased polarisation, reduced reasonable debate between moderates etc?
I did not really see the article as criticism of the right or conservatives, nor was my comment a reaction to that. I was also suggesting that perhaps the way to a more civilised, less polarised, more balanced discourse was to abandon that approach and allow those that have been silenced to have their say? And lastly I visit this sight because of the generally high quality of the articles which express views from both sides of the spectrum. Right and left wing extremism are made of the same stuff.
Not much. Both had utopian ideologies that they felt justified the means.
Finally, a suggestion. Political Studies, 47 1 , 2— It means the most popular, hence correct party wins. The nation does exist from a populist perspective. An important part of Law and Justice is that the party changed from the relatively unknown elitist party PC, and initially PiS to the mass and populist party. First in the 19th century as agrarian populism, next during the interwar period Fellowship Programs Open Calls.
As for modern right wing nationalism, I see no indication that any of it tends towards violence, because the issue is immigration. Germany, Italy and Japan all had territorial expansion as the heart of their policies. Non of that exists today. Royce, except Hitler and Mussolini were leftists. So yeah, conservatives do get annoyed when these two are associated with the right or conservatism.
When the Reichstag voted on the Enabling Act conferring on Hitler dictatorial powers, the fascists, conservatives and what remained of the liberals voted in favour. The only ones to vote against were the democratic socialists; the communists would have voted against but Hitler had already sent them to the camps. Those who contend that Hitler was left wing rather than right wing need to explain why the Right generally voted with him rather than the Left.
Forgive me, because I do not know exactly what Left wing populism would look like so I do not know if it is on the rise or not, but certainly left wing extremism is on the rise. Maybe if I knew a single neo nazi I would be more concerned about the right but I have never met a single one. Lumping in all people on the right in with Hitler is just bound to get on folks nerves. The folks on the left wanted to change the government, the folks on the right did not.
This is the simplest and best definition of left and right. That means that the right in one country may be far different from the right in another country, and they cannot be reasonably compared. It is really no better than outright name calling. Using the above definition, I consider myself a right wing populist. I fully support the original intent of the Constitution Right Wing because I believe it will help the most people Populist. I am quite open to discussion on this, there is a lot here to discuss.
But with leftists, it usually degenerates into name calling, which is boring and not useful. Firstly, you assume Hitler was a right-wing populist. If you go to politicalcompass. There are the original white nationalists ethnic and racial hate groups- skinheads, KKK, etc. The other group of right-wing nationalists are those that have been severely economically harmed by Globalization and Multiculturalism a. This is the group that got Trump elected.
Their concerns are economic, religious, traditional Bill of Rights — primarily the 1st and 2nd Amendments , and have nothing to do with race or ethnicity of other American citizens. The Deplorables, however, do not like foreigners. Using the terminology of populism, the Left frequently tries to link the Deplorables with the white nationalists to disparage them. These two groups have two completely different intentions and desires and the Deplorables have quite a few African American, Asian, and Hispanic supporters that would not be welcomed by the white nationalists.
I also like your eloquence in your comment as to the center line. Some of my otherwise well balanced friends are avid viewers of her show and have come to the i logical conclusion that here stuff is indeed mainstream. Jack-booted thugs show up at your house in the middle of the night to silence you? Why do they ignore Limbaugh and Fox News? Alan I could not agree more and you pointed very clearly the issue that bothered me most about this article. As I was reading, I appreciated the fact that the author placed a real effort to remain distant from the noise and showed some degree of sensitivity, for example, towards the historical experiences of East Europeans with foreign invasion.
He also dismissed the economic aspects of Globalization suggesting that cultural stability is the end-all for this inquiry. Yet, one has to look closer to the Donald Trumo phenomenon. The redefinition of what used to be the Gaussian political center has also, and conveniently for large multinationals shifted away from a concern for your neighbor to one whimsically placed at the far corners of the Planet.
I believe that we are witnessing a general shift of the culture of dependence on government largesse to one of dependence on large multinational corporations. Both attitudes are premised on the myopic view that people like Mr. Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are enlightened philantropists yo whom an unphatomable power to control can be trusted blindingly. Same basic world view animates both those willing to endlessly expand government power and those who see nothing wrong with multinational corporations getting into the business ofcontrolling thought and even chastizing as Gillette infamously did quite recently.
Those who really understand Fascism are really concerned about the emergence of non-democratic structures, such as the EU, about the grotesque subservience of elected houses to massive corporate interests and the inevitable assault on free speech and gradual introduction of orthodoxies of thought and belief.
I increasingly have the feeling of being surrounded by well meaning but shallow people who refuse to face this reality and defend the achievements of the classical liberalism. Constantin: Classical Liberalism is dead in the U. There are very few politicians on the left who are classically liberal any more.
They have been purged by the progressives, similarly, though more effective, to what was attempted in the Republican party, leading to a leftward lurch of the democratic party. Our system of government was designed around compromise from the start hence the separation of powers, the house and senate, and the electoral college. Classical liberals and conservatives could always find a way to compromise as they were both weary of utilizing the awesome power of the state to enforce their ideology on others.
This leads to an unwillingness to compromise as how can you ever morally compromise with a Nazi. If you are white or male or worse: both , then YOU are the problem and your point of view does not matter. Unfortunately, I suspect he was thinking of more classical liberals than progressive liberals. I just feel like the U. For example, separate graduation ceremonies for students of different races, and demands that novelists not explore cultures they were not raised in in their stories?
Unfortunately, the only political forces that will talk about cutting migration are the self-absorbed far right radicals — who are mostly anti-GWers. What sort of identity politics will occur once the white teachers age and retire? I too think immigration would be fine if we were allowed to criticize Islam in order to hopefully disabuse muslim victims of their stupid, vile, anti-liberal ideology.
Instead many governments are doing all they can to prop Islam up. Unlike leftists, religious conservatives can still be rational, since the delusion is far more limited and can be compartmentalized. The right is now far more rational than the left. Because nothing would work better at persuading Muslims to integrate and become good secularists than telling them how stupid and vile their religion is. Seems so obvious, what you are saying here, but so many will cock their heads as if it is crazy talk.
But as the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The enemy is of course is Christianity. Once that is thoroughly destroyed one will turn on the other. Just take a guess who will prevail. Similarity also exists across religions and for the most part Islamic-Christian values and others share many desirable features. But do we actually know what the lessons of open immigration in Germany and France are? Why does it seem those countries are under attack; centuries of culture being up-rooted; public safety breaking-down; and so on?
The grotesque and mounting vandalism of many s of churches across France? Why are these societies unwinding? What is the danger in the populist influence? There is something very fishy in this piece. The writer is concerned about his own political status, not what happens to the people. Good question. The left creates or better manipulates the use of language to brainwash people in thoughts, actions and language.
The other day I saw a YouTube video of a mini panel in a British TV not sure if BBC or Sky , but 2 journalists, one was a Progressive Muslim woman , the other not exactly a conservative but more like a moderate or libertarian. They are taking about the surge of right wing populism, Trump, Farage, etc.
Thus populism and democracy go hand in hand. In short indoctrination. The populist term was initially used to associate Trump with Andrew Jackson. For those in the eurozone it is even worse as it controls the money supply to each country. This author seems to have been on vacation for the last 20 years.
We can all see that the way the EU treated Greece and Cyprus shows that the EU sees the weaker members as colonies, and thus it is forming into an empire. This has enabled the rise of a centre right left whatever you want to call it that tries to preserve our hard won nation states. I am not sure exaggerating helps. I also do believe the EU grew too fast, the extension in to 25 states was clearly way too early since the economic level of the different countries was too different.
And although the euro has drawbacks, it is hard to deny that the common market it created works quite well. As a frequent traveller in Europe I clearly enjoy the single currency and borderless crossings. However, more important is how Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Bulgary, etc. That part is not talked much about but I find it quite impressive. Greece was treated badly bad they cheated on entry and had an awful economy. Today they seem to be on the right track again. Cyprus, well, the Russians got justly screwed imho. It is always easy to blame an existing system and think another system would have worked much better.
However, why is it then that no system is without its criticasters? Most of all, no war in this war torn part of the world for almost 75 years! Count your blessings. The Euro is a monetary scheme to keep the German export economy competitive by undervaluing the deutschmark. Greeks get the financial shiv to make good on the junk Greek debts of the German banks so helpfully nationalized by Merkel.
Populist Movement Definition: rise in the number of people who vote against the interests and preferences of political elites.
Political power to do what they need to protect their influence, wealth, and favored causes including:. Open borders for trade and capital to allow outsourcing of production to low cost countries to increase profits, and allowing capital movement to low tax regimes, high return markets, and capital safety markets. Note the desires of the elites are almost always at odds with the desires of the masses, but they are also at odds with each other such as concern for global warming while outsourcing production to cheaper countries with minimal environmental regulations and cheaper energy, or a desire to maintain a welfare state while seeking to escape paying for it themselves and supporting immigration policies that undermine it.
A key to the elite for maintaining power is to appease the masses with some token acknowledgement of their plight e. Let me qualify that. Populists are people who vote against the small part of the elite that is on the left. Sometimes they will vote with the conservative mainstream party but other times they will vote for an alternative when they think that the Conservative party is not being tough enough in relation to the issues that cause them the most concern. It is one of the great sit coms of all time, and certainly the greatest portrayals of the workings of politics.
Peter — the swamp devours everyone whether they are Left or Right, the only difference is the Right tends to resist a little bit in the beginning and around election time. To save it? Rather to bankrupt it, I think. However we will insist on Virtue, thus workers around the world will be entitled to use the bathroom of their choice. Crazy, fragmented, disoriented people are easier to control. They will first create the chaos then they will come to the rescue and their solution will be who would guess? But again I suspect that they are useful idiots and the real agenda is to meltdown the entire social system.
Expired dairy cows are ground up for hamburger, why should expired workers expect better? Which IMHO should be stopped. Nuts, if the mega rich paid half the taxes that they pretend that they do, that would probably be plenty. Their concerns for much beyond their own power is always conditional and insincere. The author notes something that was very important to my own enlightenment on this issue.
People want to not be seen as racist as much for upward mobility purposes as anything else. But in Asia, nobody gives a shit about this stuff. Would importing a bunch of third worlders be good for Japan? Of course not. Dysfunctional foreigners would destroy this good thing we got going. The truth is what it it. Asia also shows that it is possible to control immigration flows. Multiculturalists that we are, we should take heed that white-western liberal guilt is entirely the affectation of white-western liberals and no one else in the world practices self-hatred as a sort of religion.
Asians, Muslims, Negroes, even Latinos and even Eastern Europeans do not long for their own replacement in their own countries. Yet even in Japan:. Japanese are racist, often very racist. No, being a racist southerner has never meant you probably live in a trailer park.
What the hell are you talking about? In fact, the south has actually dominated thought on the Republican side since the mids, see Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and Mitch McConnell, the most important modern Republicans outside of Reagan. Not being seen as a racist by the public is the goal, because that hurts the bottom line. Funny enough, it was the racist dummies in the rural areas see Georgia for example who decided to get tough on undocumented workers in the mid s which of course caused a dramatic drop in their agricultural output because America did and does actually need the labor.
Further, everybody knows Japan is headed for a basically unsolvable problem short of increasing immigration given its population declines, so definitely a really smart choice to use as an example of a rational immigration policy the US should feel fine following. And now for some editorial commentary designed to annoy these readers, it is racism that has caused rural America to support policies that obviously hurt their own interests. It decided in the 80s to embrace Reaganomics because of their fear that a black person might receive one undeserved dollar from the federal government.
As a consequence they were hit with de-industrialization and the destruction of a safety net that might have aided in keeping their communities afloat. My favorite moment in the election was watching these dumb rubes react so positively to anti-TPP rhetoric from Trump. But, I just have to say, the idea that America should embrace immigration policies of other countries it has nothing in common with is among the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. I suppose it is refreshing to read someone embracing his very likely his own racism.
Ricketts has lost so much standing in Nebraska. The logic of the Quillette board strikes again. This is definitely my favorite collection of dumbshits with delusions of grandeur. Racist temporarily destitute millionaires and racist suburbanites, the Trump coalition Timmy D so admires. They cost more to educate free whether they use it or not , provide healthcare for, police, and support in retirement than their fruit picking could ever make up for. The best countries in the world are those with the best genetics. Asia does need to increase birthrate, but that is the solution.
Most places in Germany that voted AfD had nearly no immigration. Most places in Belgium that voted VB had no immigration except for the Dender area mild immigration. Many of those places have seen intra-EU immigration: white people from Eastern Europe working for less which puts downward pressure on wages. Sure there are deadbeat muslims in those countries but they live mostly in big cities which vote left-liberal. All this may be inconvenient for the author for some reason, but science should not disregard facts. It makes sense that the areas that have a lot of migrants would vote for pro immigration parties.
There are fewer natives in such areas. They are not going to vote for the parties that want to limit their numbers. All of the middle class whites move out because the city is too dangerous and dysfunctional. Yes, they talk a lot about racism and cosmopolitanism, but their own lives and very walled off and they often have lots of disposable income to smooth out the edges. Everyone else fled. It is disheartening that something so obvious can elude people. The way this is spun in the MSM is that sophisticated, educated urban people love immigration whereas backward, ignorant, deplorable country people are too stupid to see the benefits.
But should we be surprised that Muslims are in favor of more Muslim immigration? I read that the horrible white folks in the areas around London who tended to vote Leave are largely people who have been driven out of the city either because they can no longer afford to live there, or because they were tired of feeling like strangers in their own country.
So the lack of immigrants where they live may not reflect a lack of contact with them, but rather too much already. Ray The so-called sophisticates of the MSMalso find it difficult to understand that although illegal immigrants may commit fewwer crimes than natives, the overall crime rate would be reduced if the illegal immigrants had not entered and stayed in the country. One wonders how such lefties can be so incapable of logical thought. If Americans commit crimes at higher rates than immigrants, then having more immigrants reduces the overall crime rate.
What you mean you dumb racist shit is there are more crimes because there are more people. But the rate of crime is still lower. God you dummies never fail to entertain. Today, there are no! Not in the eastern states, not in the rural regions. I live in a small town in southern Germany. The international corporations and their unwitting allies, the progressives, want open borders but democracy is actually impossible under such circumstances. How can you justify limiting voting rights that determine law-making to only the people in a particular geographical area when anyone can move and work wherever they want?
First the international corporate capitalists pushed free trade agreements and we have now seen how investor-state dispute settlement arrangements undermine national sovereignty and, hence, democracy. In an open borders world, the international corporations will set the standards, as low and as cheap as possible , and people will be set against one another in a ruthless competition that will smooth out all differences for the great bulk of humanity other than the corporate elites and completely trash the natural world leading ultimately to our self-destruction.
I totally agree with you. It is the international corporations who need open borders and cheap labor to grease their capitalist wheel. Why fight the left — who used to defend the common person — when you can turn them into enemies of the common person? The rise of the far-right has nothing to do with progressivism itself, racists as bigots have always existed, the only thing that changed now is the Internet. The largely unmoderated means of mass communications that Silicon Valley naively created and left open to the public allowed the far-right to spread conspiracy theories against women and minorities.
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and anonymous pornography forums such as 4chan and 8chan have served as tools of far-right radicalization and to spread conspiracy theories that characterize women and minorities as pests trying to ruin the world order of the straight white male. It all started with anti-feminist conspiracy theories and misogynistic harassment campaigns during the days of atheism plus and gamergate, then it moved to racism, anti-immigration and outright neo-Nazism promoted by the same people.
People like Carlgon, Pewdiepie, Stefan Molyneux, Milo Yiannopoulos and a whole bunch of far-right racists, misogynists and bigots of every flavor have taken over social media and promoted victim narratives to straight white males, convincing them that they are the truly oppressed ones instead of PoC, women, Muslims, etc. They spread conspiracy theories like the Frankfurt School and White Genocide to millions upon millions of gullible young white males who then became angry and dangerous far-right loons.
Progressives have made great progress towards their goals, but they continually move the bar. They find the ideas of killing a 6 month old fetus horrifying. They look at California and are appalled by the degradation and homelessness. And now they find themselves censored by self righteous democrats who are hell bent on they views being suppressed. You deceive yourself if you think this movement is sustained by a bunch of neo-NAZIs.
That is exactly the case. Mussolini expelled the Left from the factories they had occupied with his Blackshirts. Similar movements in arose in Britain and France, for instance, and especially Germany Godwin trigger alert: the SA Brownshirts where the revolutionary International Socialist Left were opposed specifically by the National Socialists. When the global revolution failed, the Communist faithful, like Gramsci and his Frankfort School, decided to attack the institutions which had been so successful in repelling their ideology: the family, the Church and the institutions of democratic government.
As these are the very entities that are now under attack, it is reasonable to assume that this effect and that cause are linked. By banning wrongthink, rather than debating it, the Left creates a persecution complex that will never be extinguished. You are the sort who thinks that any slight disagreement with the left means that we are on the slippery slope to utter racism, white supremacy and women being made to go preganat and barefoot in the snow. EVerywhere we look it is left-wing nutters who are trying to censor and censure people for what they say.
And yet, wankers like you try to pretend that we on the right want to oppress you? It is hilarious. Your side actually wants to punish people for thinking differently to you. Our side wants a fair debate. The problem for you is that when it comes to fair debate your side always loses. In the push-button world men had created, physical strength was hardly ever needed, especially in the more attractive jobs. Work had been the curse of Adam, parallel with childbirth as the curse of Eve, but work now turned out to be a rather agreeable shuffling of symbols in an office full of friendship and event.
It was not difficult to present this kind of work—the kind that interested the humanities graduates who largely fuelled the radical movement—as a liberation from the confinement of family life and the tedious babble of the toddler. It had been an old dream of Zionist socialists and Bolsheviks among others to absorb the family into society with everyone living communally, restaurants and daycare centers replacing family arrangements, and women working each day alongside the men.
Here this dream was reborn, no longer as an aspect of utopia, but as the final achievement of justice against an oppressive world. What I believe is missed in this article is the role progressives play in alienating a vast majority of any countries citizenry. There is a brick wall with progressives in which they will not even entertain any other view, concern, or outright fact that contradicts their own magical thinking.
They are so entrenched in their own self glorifying ideology, they have turned everything and everyone that has not swallowed their tripe whole into enemies. Well the people have had enough and are voting against the progressive agenda more so than support who they voted for. The Democrats are so tied up with identity politics, all their legislation and background noise consists of nothing else. Well that leaves a majority of Americans without representation and therefore people look for those will look out for their interests. This is why they not only tolerate, but support the ravings coming from the three new members of Congress that constantly spout nonsense and their own racist views.
The same can be seen in the EU. They have negated their own citizens and their concerns with an agenda that is counter because for some reason the EU believes they, and they alone know what is best. It is not representative government, it is a form of communal dictatorship where citizens and member governments are forced into compliance. That is why Brexit occurred, that is why non-progressive parties are seeing political victories, as the people are voting against being told what will be regardless of impact.
It is my hope that this current trend towards the right continues. That more people will rebuke progressive ideology, and people will realize that voting for the left leaves them and their concerns without representation as their default is to use their political positions to consist of only social justice issues. They are hired SJW who are using their position to serve their own agendas.
My hope again is that self-serving candidates are never elected to office again. But sometimes instinct is better way to tackle complex issue. Starting 5 years ago, the left have gone mad, nut, insane. They are no longer reasonable human anymore. I am not kidding. I predict that there would not be an democrat government in US in the next 50 years. The City of Baltimore is incredibly insane and dysfunctional, but it never changes and Democrats always win.
Once there are enough brown people, Democrats can win elections no matter how bad they govern. The worse they do, the more money the get. There was a recent event in DC where a rail-rider complained about an employee eating on the train against a well-publicized rule. The complainer an author was ostracized and had her just-finished book de-platformed. The article I read about the incident pointed out that leftist domination of employment in the DC rail system had moved into a second stage.
Being simply minority was no longer enough to gain employment or promotion. One now also needed to be incompetent. When identity itself is no longer adequate, and demonstrated inability is also necessary, making predictions about democrats not winning elections for the foreseeable future is probably premature.
Further, he also failed to mention the meteoric rise of the Brexit Party—that gained 30 seats. Progressives share the blame, maybe, a little bit for the rise of populism, but always remember that they are the true victims in this story. Progressive radicals denounce German culture expressed in national identity, patriotism and national consciousness as akin to nazism and thus follow suit and reinforce neo-nazis who propagate psychopathic ideology of the Third Reich as the quintessence of German identity to recruit young supporters, to gang up people based on their ethnical identity — and lead the struggle for power grab.
Neo-nazis and their left-wing counterparts work in tandem helping each other to polarize society, to deepen social fractures — paving the way to political power. The main issue is that in the UK, USA and Australia, we are now moving to a level where our history and existence is now treated as a moral equivalent to Nazi Germany. And much of this pushed by minority, indigenous and Muslim activist groups. We are treated to what amounts to a pop culture version of history which includes colonialism, slavery, segregation, Apartheid and Nazism.
Kaufman omits a large piece of the immigration pie conundrum in this article. Perhaps his book does not. Western countries sought immigrants as cheap labor and a means to perpetuate social programs as native birth rates declined. This is not unprecedented in history. What the progressives omitted this go around was assimilation. Progressives preferred multiculturalism to assimilation, considering the latter racist. Can one say that the response to the latest immigration wave would have been the same had the new arrivals been required to undergo citizenship requirements and learn to function within the host culture as opposed to having been encouraged to remain apart?
Central Europe and the Baltics M 1. South Asia 1. Support for multiculturalism is found nowhere outside the West. Funny that Quillette failed to note the unexpected jump in green and left party votes across Europe. This article supports a contention I have had for some time based on my experience with Canadian immigration and in Geneva, namely, public confidence in immigration is directly linked to confidence that their government is managing the issue rather than being managed by it.
In Canada public support for immigration has been mostly positive in the postwar era. The times when this was not so was when the public concluded that immigration was being mismanaged. The current example is the large growth in asylum seekers from the USA arriving at non-border posts, thereby bypassing the safe third country agreement. Earlier examples include boat arrivals by the Chinese in , Sri Lankans in and , and Sikhs in , and the arrivals of thousands of economic migrants claiming asylum from such countries as Portugal and the Caribbean in the s.
Support for immigration resumed once the government of the day took effective counter policy measures. In Western European a question that asks whether the immigration of the last decades has been beneficial would have numerous naysayers. In the s and early s asylum was a top issue in Germany and stoked populist the rise of populist opposition. This ended when a constitutional change in tightened the right to asylum in Germany. The situation today is one in which even the mildest expression of concern about the impact of immigration is regarded as hostile act by the pro-immigration forces, including those in mainstream political parties.
This provided the opening for those politicians who were outside the mainstream but now increasingly are in the mainstream. Those politicians responding to these concerns, starting with Donald Trump and Victor Orban, are doing well politically. A failure to manage immigration by current governments will lead to governments of those promising to manage it in the future. But, hey, nice charts. This might have made sense in when any integration was beneficial, but where does it lead to?
That does seem to be the Brussels bureaucracies aim, to slowly take over the regulation of everything. The Euro and the Schengen agreement are the more prominent examples, both of which led directly to the most visible problems in Europe today: the economic stagnation of the South and the immigration crisis. Both are wonderful ideals, and maybe in 50 years Europe will be ready for them, but they were implemented far too early and without any consideration of the risks.
What is interesting is that after watching the idiotic mess that is Brexit, the other European populist parties have become much less anti-Europe, but now want to reform the EU from within. They now realize that the EU does bring many benefits, but the also realize that there are many issues that the voters prefer to handle at the national level, and are not ready to hand off to the EU.
This is good. NO, the EU was going to make it a difficult process so that other countries would not want to follow suit. The UK remoaners have been doing their best to thwart Brexit at a every turn. The other countries who have thought about exiting themselves, will have as their example how successful the UK is after it has left. That includes countries being allowed to develop their own immigration laws, as well as other laws that may work for Germany and France but not their own people.
The Brexiteers have denied that there are any real costs, which is an outright lie. It seems to have turned the populists from trying to destroy the system from the outside to working to change it albeit radically from within. And whether the elites like it or not, it is likely to bring the whole EU project more into line with popular opinion.
Bumble Bee Good points, especially that no system works immigration, monetary etc if its not applied or misapplied. Schengen can only work if the edges are secure; Hungary and Poland accepted unlimited migration from Germany and Austria, previous invaders now in but not from Afghanistan and Nigeria. Here in Lux everyone needs to work 6 months before any unemployment, health coverage when a worker or dependent of one etc.
So the Brits draw people to work under the table and collect benefits. Immigration and the laborforce make for an equally interesting and tempestuous topic. Especially today in a world simultaneously perhaps even incompatibly…? Moreover, as birthrates and levels of civic and economic development continue to vary wildly around the world, as globalization continues more and more, we continue to see entire countries, entire regions, that have their complex societies and prosperity in no small part thanks to the human labor somewhere else in the world.
For an easy example, I work in a warehouse that prints T-shirts. That covers the cost of the equipment and our wages, while keeping our employers happy with their profits too. Well, I looked up the brand shirt we print on. Turns out it is manufactured in Haiti, where wages are 50 cents per hour. Nevertheless, it is absurd and irrational for me to expect that Haitians will settle for that poor standard of living forever. That is why we call them developing countries, present tense.
This essentially corresponds to the demographics known all the way back into the Middle Ages and earlier.
Based on all the books I can find, especially 19th century anthropology studying the transition of that world into our modern times, all kinds of secondary consequences resulted from it. Things like the great social significance attached to legitimacy of being bornn wedlock, because inheritance laws literally were a matter of acquiring the pittance of land and tools needed to survive at all.
All that is worthy of a hundred different books devoted to the subject. However, now we are in a very technogical, increasingly post-industrial, civilization. In some 2,, souls worked jobs related to the railroads. Today, in , thanks to technology, they number only , Two million souls work in trucking right now instead.
And once again technology is changing everything again. On another side, the businessmen and entrepreneurs cry out that computers and robots are making millions of jobs obsolete! On yet another side, demographers shout that fertility rates are declining, so we need more people to avoid a population collapse! For many of us, we can look towards more while enjoying a modern life even now only because someone else somewhere else in the world has accepted, temporarily, a lower standard of living that supplies us. In such topsy-turvy, fragile conditions is it any wonder that people respond, even if only subconsciously, even if only counterproductively, to a serious sense that something bigger is going on?
Let me add having more dependents over 65 than under 25 is bad but that a growing population is also bad. That a diverse workforce brings valuable differences in viewpoint and bahaviors but that there is no difference between diverse people so all employees must reflect demographics. Identity politics reveals the duplicity of its activists who believe that non-Western people and nations are entitled to their identity and independence, but Western nations are not.
What is the narrative in which they still supposed to be toxic? One system of extremist beliefs in a direction reaction to another system of extremist beliefs. Like the US, European countries have been used to welcoming refugee streams from places that have fallen on hard times. But in the past, each of these streams have come from one country at a time. During my part of the twentieth century in the US, I remember the Korean refugees arriving, then the Hungarians, then the Cubans, then the Haitians, then the Vietnamese, and then the Iranians.
Remember the Marielitos?
Even if vetting were still a thing, having refugees swarm in from many countries at once prevents officials from learning enough about each component ethnicity to judge good from bad. You did notice the current war on free speech…right…or did you miss that little detail? Cosmopolitan liberalism is an unsustainable conceit that can sustain itself only by feeding upon the societal capital created by nationalism.
A large body of political theory and analysis shows how progressive liberalism fundamentally depends on nationalism. Cosmopolitanism is an end state of totally atomized individuals. Cosmopolitans are gambling the entirety of Western Civilization based on the feelings of goodness produced by universalism. I predict the Han will be the winners of this wager. Leftist opposition to assimilation as the ideal to which immigrants must aspire has fueled a great deal of the opposition to immigration in the United States.
This is a narrative short on real evidence and long on non-sequitur. This ignores the reality that people can have ideological beliefs that are motivated not simply by their own personal circumstances. A rich person for instance can be progressive because they care about the less fortunate, so too someone can be anti immigrant because they genuinely believe it is what is hurting other people.
When they see deteriorating economic conditions they start to feel that their solutions are even more of a priority regardless of whether or not they personally are the ones suffering. The narrative that right-wing populism exists because of progressives also ignores the fact that the argument can be framed in reverse order: progressives exists to counter right-wing populism. However, society has always been in a state of evolution with the forces of progressive change on the one hand, the retrograde forces on the other and the forces of the status quo in the middle.
The specific issues may change, but the social structure remains much the same. The fact of the matter is that the flood of refugees stems from vested interests bombing the life out of people for the personal profit of corporations that thrive on misery and destruction while expecting the general public to shoulder the cost of their activities. It is these same forces that concentrate all the wealth amongst themselves through a rigged economic system while disenfranchising the great majority of working class people.
So in actual fact the rise of right-wing populism has everything to do with economic structures which is why this all coincides with a rise in inequality, a financial crisis ten years ago and the fact we are heading towards another one right now. When we look back in history we see a similar correlation between economic inequality and the rise of fascism. These are not coincidences but fundamental relationships.
Blaming the progressive left is a desperate attempt to salvage a status quo that is fundamentally broken. Not only is it desperate but it is also pointless. Society becomes immune to this sort of desperate narrative control by the establishment. I believe this is an in-built defense mechanism that society has against failure. When the status quo fails to deliver, people go in search of alternative answers. Indeed, its what the whole nationalist revolt is about. If a left wing political party were to win an election with a strong majority, would that be evidence of left wing populism?
comevisitalbuquerque.com/wp-content/hydroxychloroquine-sulphate-boutique-en-ligne-commande-par-correspondance.php Surely, populism is just a code word for a politcal outcome with which you disagree. After all, in a democracy being popular is what it is all about. People are worried that the reason their livelihoods are declining is because they are being forced to compete with cheap labor from abroad. Immigration can be a good thing, However, caution must be used, foreign governments could use immigration as a weapon! Everybody says there is this RACE problem. The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan must solve this RACE problem by letting in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan must solve this RACE problem by bringing letting in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them. People are entitled to have their own views of different races anyway, and in a democracy these should be both respected and subject to reasoned critique.
I think the real problem is with fundamentalism, such as those who regard the Torah Genesis to Deuteronomy — ca. They tend to be at odds with the separation of church from state, such as with Sharia law and the call from some Christian fundamentalists in the USA for prayer in school. Having any significant, influential, number of such people in a Western country is at odds with many of the Western values which make the country worth living in.
We spend billions on defense — since any country worth living in, like any such house, needs strong borders to protect it.
So why invite in large numbers of people who are generally at odds with our fundamental principles and for genetic, cultural or other reasons less likely than other, more carefully chosen, immigrants to contribute economically? If there were a significant number of generally non-fundamental, highly educated and capable some or many professionally employable, with reasonable English skills immigrants, such as from Turkey, then their Islamic beliefs would not be viewed with such alarm.
It is the combination of fundamentalism and poor compatibility with employment and integration that is the problem with current Islamic immigration, not which God and prophets they believe in, which are nor more wacky than those of any other religion. Protecting the nation from those who would weaken or destroy it is a fundamental responsibility of government. The Left tends to see the government as an inexhaustible source of money and authority, and has utopian goals of improving the lot of every person on the planet except their wealthy opponents , without offending anyone except those who oppose this ideology.
This is a generous view.
Another is that the most effective influencers on the Left are guilt-mongering social climbers virtue signalling their way in life, and so trying to offend anyone with less lofty ideology than their own. The fact that politicians who oppose these self-destructive notions are getting voted in, and that some establishment parties are being much more cautious with immigration, shows that democracy is functioning at least partially as intended. The sooner the Left abandons utopia and prioritises the citizens of their own country, the less risk there will be of people voting in more unsavoury types with their own pernicious forms of intolerance, corruption and totalitarianism.
Alternatively, the Left will be further sidelined, and some new more sensible political alignment will hopefully take its place rather than the currently most obvious choices: the right-leaning politicians who explicitly reject politically correct utopian orthodoxy. The reason many immigrant-sending countries are poor in the first place is due to colonialism. One example of colonialism is Plan Condor, where the US put military support behind brutal dictators throughout Latin America who would privatize resources and make our corporations lots of profit.
The large parliamentary majority has provided a cachet of legality to any government decision, even while providing favoritism to specific individuals or groups. In early , Fidesz officials promised to sweep out civil society organizations funded by left-wing financier George Soros. The government also passed a bill stripping the Soros-funded Central European University, one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in Central Europe, of its accreditation—leaving the university in legal limbo.
Subsequently, the Soros-funded organization, Open Society Foundations, announced that it was closing its Budapest office and moving its Eastern European operations to Berlin. The parliamentary election brought to power a coalition of PiS, the Catholic League of Polish Families, and the anti-establishment Self-Defense party, which was then led by Andrzej Lepper, who became known for his disruptive campaigning and wild conspiracy theories. Political divides in the country sharpened with the refugee crisis of , which enabled PiS to adopt an uncompromising anti-immigration position in its election campaign.
It did so despite the fact that Poland, which is among the most ethnically homogenous countries in the world, has not seen any significant migration inflows—in fact, quite the reverse. Shortly after the election, the government introduced sweeping changes to the constitutional tribunal, which the court itself struck down as unconstitutional. The government then packed the court with political appointees, abrogating any effective judicial review of new legislation. Additional reforms have given the justice minister the ability to select, dismiss, and discipline presidents of ordinary courts.
Since the average age of judges in Poland is currently around 40, attempts to bring the judiciary under the control of the majority cannot be regarded as seizing levers of power out of post-communist hands, as the PiS claims. While it is too early to say which path they may take, their impact on Italy and the EU as a whole may well be unprecedented.
In recent years, authoritarian populists in Europe have seen a surge in popularity, often with deleterious effects on liberal democracies. In order to better understand that trend and respond to it, it is first necessary to understand who the voters of these parties are and why they are voting this way.
It is difficult to ascertain a complete picture of populist voters across Europe—specifically, whether they were previously nonvoters and whether they came from traditionally left, right, or centrist parties. However, available country-level and survey data provide insights into specific contexts. A study by political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris analyzed data on European political parties and European Social Surveys from to That could be a result of increasingly weakened political parties, as populist candidates are presenting ideas and views that resonate with these voters or because voters see these candidates as a way of giving the unresponsive political elites a kick in the face.
As economic and political integration in Europe progressed, some important political decisions started being made by European institutions instead of member states. Furthermore, in some countries, a persistent gap has opened between policy positions of major mainstream parties and voters. Third, social media and technological developments—whether post-truth politics, echo chambers, or a changing media landscape—have helped normalize populist arguments as well as make it easier for more radical groups to identify and organize like-minded individuals into movements.
While a growing stream of literature investigating support for right-wing populists in European countries has found that cultural and political concerns drive populist voters more strongly than economic ones, country-level data show a somewhat different picture. Slow growth thus contributed to the rise in right-wing extremism in the s but only in cases where the context was fertile. Given the magnitude of the economic and financial shock of , the rise of populist politics across the Western world is not altogether surprising.
In Western Europe, some identified the higher rates of unemployment during the s as responsible for the rise in right-wing populism. The rise of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, can be viewed in a similar fashion. Economic insecurity, after all, is a cultural factor too, as suggested by recent focus group work undertaken by the think tank Demos in the United Kingdom and the pressure group More in Common in the United Kingdom and France.
At the roundtable in Florence, Sophie Gaston, deputy director and head of international research at Demos, stressed that in many Western nations, contemporary social and political polarization is often a reflection of people seeing political capital and economic security as a zero-sum game.
For example, focus groups in the United Kingdom with individuals over age 50 were dominated by two core themes: negative reactions toward perceived political correctness from liberal elites and concerns over welfare competition—particularly the idea that some groups should not have access to the welfare state. Such welfare chauvinism is clearly borne from a sense of individual economic precariousness; however, it also represents the failure of political leaders to build cohesive national narratives to match the upheaval wrought by globalization and cosmopolitanism.
Since the roundtable, Demos has undertaken comparative qualitative research in France and Germany; its findings suggest that, in particular, white older citizens in these countries are experiencing similar anxieties regarding the scarcity of state resources and political capital. In Germany, this has formed a recurring theme in discussions regarding the integration of recent migrant arrivals and the benefits they are able to access, particularly in the East where salaries and pensions are considerably lower.
The early days of the internet inspired hopes for a more egalitarian and democratic society with decentralized control over information and communications—a society in which the wisdom of the crowd would allow for the best ideas to float to the top. In part, technology has delivered on that promise by enabling new forms of social and political organization. It has also made vast stores of human knowledge accessible to anyone with a smartphone and has transformed how citizens engage with governments and how consumers engage with markets.
Yet its unintended consequences, which include cyberattacks and mass surveillance, threaten to undermine the benefits of a digital society. More recently, another problem has emerged: disinformation weakening the integrity of liberal democracies. Just as those who live in segregated communities are more likely to be attracted to populist messages, social media have helped to erode the shared narrative that once bound societies together.
As research by the Berggruen Institute and Omidyar Network illustrates, within the digital space, polarization, fragmentation, tribalism, and a virulent form of populism that rejects reason and fact are now the hallmarks of contemporary politics. As recent elections on both sides of the Atlantic and the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom have demonstrated, the new context creates novel challenges for liberal democracies.
From hacks to trolls to fake news and disinformation, social media have created a platform on which nefarious agents, both foreign and domestic, have used a plethora of new tools to disrupt democracy. During elections across Europe, including the Brexit vote, in an effort to influence beliefs and voter behavior, foreign actors used social media platforms to purchase advertising, publish content, and troll political discussions using bots. The European Commission has established a pan-European task force on disinformation and the fragmenting impact of social media on public debate.
There are two primary reasons why the search for a single answer to the populist challenge is misguided. First, authoritarian populists respond to various sets of concerns, anxieties, and policy preferences differently in different countries. Second, and more importantly, authoritarian populism is by its nature anti-pluralist and claims to be speaking on behalf of the people against a narrow self-serving elite.
As a result, any response to the populist challenge must start with a reaffirmation of the value of political pluralism, the diversity of political ideas, and their democratic competition. During the past few years of European politics, the center-right and center-left have employed a number of different political strategies in an effort to provide an alternative to authoritarian populism. In advance of the election, the Rutte-led government introduced a ban on burkas in some public places and took a generally hawkish position on immigration. The uncompromising position was met with popular approval and might have neutralized the more vocal anti-immigration forces.
Similarly, in Austria, a young maverick foreign minister, Sebastian Kurz, made a name for himself by introducing legislation that banned foreign funding of mosques in Austria and imposed restrictions on the versions of Quran available in the country as well as on their distribution by Salafist groups. At the same time, he turned his youth and a relatively short-lived presence in politics to his advantage by presenting himself, much like Macron, as an outsider. Interestingly, a similar neutering approach is now being adopted by center-left parties across Europe. In Denmark, ahead of the recent regional elections in November , the Danish Labour Party proposed an approach to asylum and immigration that called for rapid deportation of those whose asylum requests were refused as well as the establishment of asylum application and processing centers in North Africa.
While the responses outlined above do not provide a blueprint for fighting authoritarian populism, six complementary approaches are emerging. There is nothing inherently virtuous about mainstream center-left and center-right politics as it has been practiced in past decades. Furthermore, it is clear that many parties have become old-fashioned in their communication, voter outreach, and engagement, especially when compared with the successful insurgent groups.
At the very least, new and fresh faces, untainted by past scandals and cliches, are required to reboot traditional parties—as Kurz has done in Austria. In other contexts, such as in France, starting from scratch might be necessary. Either way, facing up to the legitimate criticisms of the political establishment will be necessary, as will transforming the way politicians communicate.
As the experience of successful centrist movements worldwide shows, voters want to be valued and met on their own terms. Political platforms cannot be completely detached from the wishes of voters. Regardless of whether their beliefs are fully grounded in reality or not, European electorates see large-scale immigration as a problem and expect their elected representatives to work to address it with stronger border control and more stringent asylum policies. Part of the attraction of cultural politics is the perception that centrist political elites are too quick to dismiss the concerns of some voters.
In the U. Not only is it imperative that those seeking public office avoid similar gaffes, but they also need to foster a culture of civility in public debates, especially when confronting extreme populists who forsake civility. Arguments that some aspects of integration and assimilation are not going well in some Western societies—or that the rate of social and economic change is too rapid—should not automatically be labeled as racist and bigoted.