Dinake wrote:Grand Britannia wrote:Why leave the good 'ol Poles behind
Because Law and Justice is Poland's mainstream political party, or one of them at least? They're not exactly far-right.
Poles are great. Good country.
Advertisement
by Grand Britannia » Fri May 06, 2016 2:54 pm
Dinake wrote:Grand Britannia wrote:Why leave the good 'ol Poles behind
Because Law and Justice is Poland's mainstream political party, or one of them at least? They're not exactly far-right.
by Forsher » Fri May 06, 2016 4:21 pm
Othelos wrote:The majority of the public in western countries live in areas where these changes are happening.
by The Liberated Territories » Fri May 06, 2016 4:33 pm
by Othelos » Fri May 06, 2016 4:45 pm
by Forsher » Fri May 06, 2016 4:59 pm
Othelos wrote:Forsher wrote:
Stop.
By framing this topic as "Western Democracies" you suggest that there is something about Western Democracies that is responsible for increased extremism.
Yeah, their location and position in geopolitics. And as I said, western democracies not dealing with these issues are perfectly fine.
I don't understand - do you think I'm trying to imply that there's something about western democracies that inherently leads to right wing extremism or fractured governments? Because that is not what I said at all.
by Othelos » Fri May 06, 2016 5:06 pm
Forsher wrote:Othelos wrote:Yeah, their location and position in geopolitics. And as I said, western democracies not dealing with these issues are perfectly fine.
I don't understand - do you think I'm trying to imply that there's something about western democracies that inherently leads to right wing extremism or fractured governments? Because that is not what I said at all.
These are not the same idea.
Forsher wrote:You have written, if you cared to read my entire post, a commentary on the state of extremism in Europe. That most people who live in western democracies live in Europe is a fact, does not mean that you have presented a commentary on the state of extremism in Western Democracies (what the title says this is).
You haven't actually even tried to link the political structures to the observed outcomes. You've just told us some external factors (e.g. recession) and the outcomes (e.g. a nationalist party being the second largest). To be honest, were it to be attempted, this is a deceptively difficult argument: many of Europe's problems are related to certain economies moving in opposite directions and the inability of countries to have more tailored approaches to resolving these issues because of a shared currency*.
Title: here is a phenomenon of Western Democracies. Post: here is a phenomenon of Europe and a distinct one in the USA.
*Whether or not said tailored approaches would work, of course, is another question.
by Truckee Meadows » Fri May 06, 2016 7:08 pm
Forsher wrote:In the case of the States, there are three main causes. One, the primary/caucus system necessarily increases polarisation (because each appeals only to their own bases in an attempt to win the party nomination so effectively you have to try and show yourself to be the most zealous choir boy). Two, the electoral system as a whole disincentivises voting for other candidates (so you end up with much more radical wings within a party). Three, money: it's easier to generate money with attention, and attention encourages stark differences.
by Othelos » Fri May 06, 2016 7:21 pm
Truckee Meadows wrote:Forsher wrote:In the case of the States, there are three main causes. One, the primary/caucus system necessarily increases polarisation (because each appeals only to their own bases in an attempt to win the party nomination so effectively you have to try and show yourself to be the most zealous choir boy). Two, the electoral system as a whole disincentivises voting for other candidates (so you end up with much more radical wings within a party). Three, money: it's easier to generate money with attention, and attention encourages stark differences.
The three things that you mention are constants in American politics; I don't think they can be considered "main causes." We've never had someone like Donald Trump make a serious bid for a major party nomination in recent history, nor has a self-proclaimed socialist achieved so much traction post-Cold War. I would argue that the current climate of polarization is instigated by the current geopolitical situation and cultural rift. Trump is driving his campaign through appealing to American reactionaries who dream of a time where the nation was "greater," but is now supposedly corrupted by undocumented immigrants, Muslim communities, etc. He is also manipulating people's fears of the ISIL situation. For Sanders, his focus of "political revolution" is exciting people who are not concerned about pragmatism - promising to "rein in Wall Street" and transform America.
Hillary Clinton's policy platform is more robust and solidified than either Trump's or Sanders', but people aren't excited by her. While she discusses a realistic health care reform plan or college compact, people are being enraged by TMZ-scandals such as "e-mail gate" or "Goldman Sachs-gate." While she discusses tax reform, people are jumping up and down at the rallying cries of "building a wall" or "political revolution." It's more about emotion than policy at this point - for both Trump Republicans and a certain subset of Democrats.
by Forsher » Sat May 07, 2016 4:53 pm
Okay, okay, I'll fix the title of the thread since it's such a problem.
Truckee Meadows wrote:The three things that you mention are constants in American politics; I don't think they can be considered "main causes." We've never had someone like Donald Trump make a serious bid for a major party nomination in recent history, nor has a self-proclaimed socialist achieved so much traction post-Cold War. I would argue that the current climate of polarization is instigated by the current geopolitical situation and cultural rift. Trump is driving his campaign through appealing to American reactionaries who dream of a time where the nation was "greater," but is now supposedly corrupted by undocumented immigrants, Muslim communities, etc. He is also manipulating people's fears of the ISIL situation. For Sanders, his focus of "political revolution" is exciting people who are not concerned about pragmatism - promising to "rein in Wall Street" and transform America.
Hillary Clinton's policy platform is more robust and solidified than either Trump's or Sanders', but people aren't excited by her. While she discusses a realistic health care reform plan or college compact, people are being enraged by TMZ-scandals such as "e-mail gate" or "Goldman Sachs-gate." While she discusses tax reform, people are jumping up and down at the rallying cries of "building a wall" or "political revolution." It's more about emotion than policy at this point - for both Trump Republicans and a certain subset of Democrats.
by Calimera II » Sat May 07, 2016 5:06 pm
by Calimera II » Sat May 07, 2016 5:09 pm
The Liberated Territories wrote:I don't think the center is "declining," I think the center is just changing. I think we are going under a political realignment where the traditional neoliberal-social liberal center is being overwhelming rejected, and that other ideologies are trying to occupy that center, as if it were a linguistic "chain shift" of vowels.
by Utilitarian Garibaldi » Sat May 07, 2016 5:16 pm
Calimera II wrote:The Liberated Territories wrote:I don't think the center is "declining," I think the center is just changing. I think we are going under a political realignment where the traditional neoliberal-social liberal center is being overwhelming rejected, and that other ideologies are trying to occupy that center, as if it were a linguistic "chain shift" of vowels.
Why do you think that? Don't you think the root of the current political change has more to do with the little appeal many traditional parties have? It is clear that many traditional parties responded to the economic crisis in such a way that it harmed the interests of many people. Those people move away from the traditional centrist parties. Therefore, I think it has more to do with a cycle of political modernisation.
by Calimera II » Sat May 07, 2016 5:25 pm
Utilitarian Garibaldi wrote:Calimera II wrote:
Why do you think that? Don't you think the root of the current political change has more to do with the little appeal many traditional parties have? It is clear that many traditional parties responded to the economic crisis in such a way that it harmed the interests of many people. Those people move away from the traditional centrist parties. Therefore, I think it has more to do with a cycle of political modernisation.
So neoliberalism is meeting it's antithesis, and sometime in the future we'll see a synthesis?
by Utilitarian Garibaldi » Sat May 07, 2016 5:34 pm
Calimera II wrote:Utilitarian Garibaldi wrote:So neoliberalism is meeting it's antithesis, and sometime in the future we'll see a synthesis?
Time will tell. If we look at, for instance, political developments in many Latin American countries we see that after the neoliberal 90s, anti-neoliberal movements surged: e.g Evo Morales in Bolivia; Néstor in Argentina; Lula in Brazil; Vazquéz in Uruguay; Chávez in Venezuela. Now you see that many of these movements are losing power. Macri (a centrist who promised "Change") surprisingly won the elections in Argentina, Rousseff is about to be deposed, Morales lost an important referendum, Maduro lost the legislative elections and Vazquéz moved to the right. I don't think we'll see a "synthesis." Maybe the internal structures of parties will be modernised; democratised? Again, it depends on the party and the country/region in question. We should not generalise.
by Calimera II » Sat May 07, 2016 5:41 pm
Utilitarian Garibaldi wrote:Calimera II wrote:Time will tell. If we look at, for instance, political developments in many Latin American countries we see that after the neoliberal 90s, anti-neoliberal movements surged: e.g Evo Morales in Bolivia; Néstor in Argentina; Lula in Brazil; Vazquéz in Uruguay; Chávez in Venezuela. Now you see that many of these movements are losing power. Macri (a centrist who promised "Change") surprisingly won the elections in Argentina, Rousseff is about to be deposed, Morales lost an important referendum, Maduro lost the legislative elections and Vazquéz moved to the right. I don't think we'll see a "synthesis." Maybe the internal structures of parties will be modernised; democratised? Again, it depends on the party and the country/region in question. We should not generalise.
South America is a different world though.
I think that the new right in South America represents a synthesis, while the 80's neoliberals were the thesis and the pink tide was the synthesis.
by Imperium Sidhicum » Sat May 07, 2016 6:20 pm
by Kuruinulah » Sun May 08, 2016 7:05 am
by Sadist France » Sun May 08, 2016 8:08 am
by Sasar De » Sun May 08, 2016 8:33 am
Sadist France wrote:Tbh, I don't like the Social Democrats, but I don't like the right nationalists much either.
I'm not sure what a solution is (The left wings been pissing off people for awhile with their social engineering and PC crap), but I doubt outside of possibly Greece we'd see outright Nazi Germany esq situations, rather nationalist right wing democrats shifting the European countries to the right.
A part of me tbh is kinda relieved watching the Social Democrats lose power considering their nanning, but also a bit wondering and worried for what the future of Europe would look like under nationalist right leadership.
by Othelos » Tue May 10, 2016 8:48 pm
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:Good to know that the folks of Europe are slowly coming to their senses, even though it's almost 30 years overdue.
It is about time that the European authorities realize that their naively-utopian social policies simply do not work, and the longer it takes for the liberal left to finally pull their heads out of their arses and actually do something about it, the less likely they are to make up for the ground lost to the far right.
by Zoice » Wed May 11, 2016 9:32 am
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:Good to know that the folks of Europe are slowly coming to their senses, even though it's almost 30 years overdue.
It is about time that the European authorities realize that their naively-utopian social policies simply do not work, and the longer it takes for the liberal left to finally pull their heads out of their arses and actually do something about it, the less likely they are to make up for the ground lost to the far right.
by Dinake » Wed May 11, 2016 12:00 pm
Zoice wrote:Imperium Sidhicum wrote:Good to know that the folks of Europe are slowly coming to their senses, even though it's almost 30 years overdue.
It is about time that the European authorities realize that their naively-utopian social policies simply do not work, and the longer it takes for the liberal left to finally pull their heads out of their arses and actually do something about it, the less likely they are to make up for the ground lost to the far right.
The far right is truly to blame. The left may lose ground to them, but they wouldn't be losing ground if there wasn't the far right in the first place calling for batshit insanity.
by Martean » Wed May 11, 2016 1:26 pm
by Delacroix » Wed May 11, 2016 1:35 pm
Martean wrote:
For example, France has always been a blalantly racist country
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Arsu, Bienenhalde, Camillay, Eahland, Elejamie, Google [Bot], Heldervin, Ineva, Lanansia, The Terren Dominion, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement