NATION

PASSWORD

Political Developments in Western Societies

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Remove ads

User avatar
Grand Britannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14157
Founded: Apr 15, 2012
Capitalizt

Postby Grand Britannia » Fri May 06, 2016 2:54 pm

Dinake wrote:

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.
Member of laissez-fair right-wing worker-mistreatment brigade
Why Britannians are always late
Me as a good capitalist.
Mainland Map | "Weebs must secure the existence of anime and a future for cute aryan waifus"| IIwiki
I Identify as a Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carrier, please refer to me as she.
Economic Left/Right: 2.25 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 6.72

User avatar
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15305
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.


Stop.

By framing this topic as "Western Democracies" you suggest that there is something about Western Democracies that is responsible for increased extremism.

However, as you have pointed out, the actual causes are geopolitical in the case of Europe. Essentially, you offer a European phenomenon which is interesting in its own right. 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.

In functioning democracies, at least ones not subjected to external pressures (e.g. geopolitics, severe recessions), the tendency is the exact opposite. This is why New Zealand's major parties are criticised for stealing policies from their supposed ideological opponents all the time... and why "extreme" policies are blamed on the minor parties (see: Charter Schools). There are some issues with this approach too, but they're quite different.

It is deeply misleading to make the argument you are with the reasoning you have.
Last edited by Forsher on Fri May 06, 2016 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Matriarchy... like the Patriarchy or the Deep State but more conspirational, more bitter, more pervasive and, somehow, even more inclined to circular proofs.

User avatar
The Liberated Territories
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10456
Founded: Dec 03, 2013
Capitalizt

Postby The Liberated Territories » Fri May 06, 2016 4:33 pm

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.
"No one can be perfectly free till all are free; no one can be perfectly moral till all are moral; no one can be perfectly happy till all are happy".
—Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Othelos
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12533
Founded: Feb 05, 2013
New York Times Democracy

Postby Othelos » Fri May 06, 2016 4:45 pm

Forsher wrote:
Othelos wrote:The majority of the public in western countries live in areas where these changes are happening.


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, plus economic issues that could happen to any kind of country given the same circumstances. 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.
Last edited by Othelos on Fri May 06, 2016 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • American/German, Ich kann auch Deutsch

User avatar
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15305
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.


These are not the same idea.

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.
The Matriarchy... like the Patriarchy or the Deep State but more conspirational, more bitter, more pervasive and, somehow, even more inclined to circular proofs.

User avatar
Othelos
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12533
Founded: Feb 05, 2013
New York Times Democracy

Postby 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.

I know that, which is why I included both. Jesus, people on NSG will pick apart every tiny little thing just to argue.

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.

Okay, okay, I'll fix the title of the thread since it's such a problem.
  • American/German, Ich kann auch Deutsch

User avatar
Truckee Meadows
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: May 06, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


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.
All honest citizens deserve access to health care, a good education, stable work, and housing.
No one should go hungry, unhealthy, or uneducated -- especially in the richest country on Earth.

User avatar
Othelos
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12533
Founded: Feb 05, 2013
New York Times Democracy

Postby 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.

Yeah, populism on the right and left in American society seems to be on the rise.
  • American/German, Ich kann auch Deutsch

User avatar
The balkens
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18751
Founded: Sep 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The balkens » Fri May 06, 2016 7:23 pm

None of it good, either.

User avatar
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15305
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Sat May 07, 2016 4:53 pm

Othelos wrote:
Forsher wrote:
These are not the same idea.

I know that, which is why I included both. Jesus, people on NSG will pick apart every tiny little thing just to argue.


Actually, that was a unclear on my part. I wasn't trying to say location and position in geopolitics are not the same concept. Rather, I was continuing my earlier point that the old title and the OP were at odds.

Okay, okay, I'll fix the title of the thread since it's such a problem.


Thank you.

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.


Personally, I think that Trump and Sanders are both offering campaigns of dissatisfaction. The causes I mentioned are the causes of the dissatisfaction... it's just it has now built to a point where this has enabled the specific campaigns we've seen and you've outlined.

If the US had a more functional system (it clearly functions, that it could function better is what I am saying), I argue that this dissatisfaction would not be as it is. In this sense, flaws in the political system in the States created the ability to perceive a particular geopolitical state and that is driving the campaigns.

In contrast, I would argue that actual geopolitical factors are stressing the political systems of Europe.
Last edited by Forsher on Sat May 07, 2016 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Matriarchy... like the Patriarchy or the Deep State but more conspirational, more bitter, more pervasive and, somehow, even more inclined to circular proofs.

User avatar
Calimera II
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8790
Founded: Jan 03, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Calimera II » Sat May 07, 2016 5:06 pm

Politics is never static. As we can observe, there are political cycles that repeat or change. I think it has been already a while that we are seeing profound changes in the nature of politics in various countries: many political parties are modernising. It is notifiable that in the most noteworthy cases, the political structure of the surging left-wing political movements are less 'vertical' and more 'horizontal.' When it comes to right wing parties, they often have a strong figure at the top. However, it depends on the country.

I agree that in many Western societies we are seeing an emergence of political movements which oppose the current political system.

User avatar
Calimera II
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8790
Founded: Jan 03, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby 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.


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.

User avatar
Utilitarian Garibaldi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 451
Founded: Sep 12, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

So neoliberalism is meeting it's antithesis, and sometime in the future we'll see a synthesis?

User avatar
Calimera II
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8790
Founded: Jan 03, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby 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?

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.

User avatar
Utilitarian Garibaldi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 451
Founded: Sep 12, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

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.

User avatar
Calimera II
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8790
Founded: Jan 03, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby 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.

It was just to demonstrate that there is no synthesis per se. The pink tide was not the synthesis as it was in no way a "blend" but rather a change in discourse; political and economic policies. Of course, not everything changed, but more emphasis was put on social inclusion and regional integration. I don't think political developments are "processes of theses and syntheses," rather one of smooth or abrupt changes.

User avatar
Imperium Sidhicum
Senator
 
Posts: 4324
Founded: May 28, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperium Sidhicum » Sat May 07, 2016 6:20 pm

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.
Freedom doesn't mean being able to do as one please, but rather not to do as one doesn't please.

A fool sees religion as the truth. A smart man sees religion as a lie. A ruler sees religion as a useful tool.

The more God in one's mouth, the less in one's heart.

User avatar
Kuruinulah
Attaché
 
Posts: 74
Founded: Apr 11, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Kuruinulah » Sun May 08, 2016 7:05 am

We need radical solutions to problems, because the solutions the mainstream parties have been dishing out for years haven't worked.
Pro: Iran, Russia, Assad, Palestine, Libertarianism, Third Position, Jobbik, Sufism, Yugoslav Reunification, Traditionalism, 2nd Amendment, British people, Pan-Indoaryanism, Western Sahara, Hezbollah.
Mixed: India, UK government, Refugees, China, Socialism.
Anti: NATO, US government, Military-Industrial Complex, EU, Israel, Zionism, "Democratic Socialism", Progressivism, Kosovo, Fatah, Saudi Arabia,"Anti Border activists".
Countries under foreign command quickly forget their history, their past, their tradition, their national symbols, their way of living, often their own literary language- Slobodan Milosevic

“Ahmadis are Muslims, If They Say They are Muslims and No One, Not Even the Sovereign Legislature, has the Right to Say Otherwise.” – Jinnah

User avatar
Sadist France
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Sadist France » Sun May 08, 2016 8:08 am

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.
Last edited by Sadist France on Sun May 08, 2016 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Irl Views

Pro: Liberalism (Both Social and Classical), Libertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Sex-positive Feminism, Sex Work, Drug Legalization, Israel, America, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, FSA, Turkey, Ukraine

Neutral: Social Democracy, Liberal-Conservatives

Con: Communism, Fascism/Nazisim, Religious Fundamentalism, Left-Wing Nationalism, Palestine, Russia, China, North Korea, Assad, IRA, PKK, YPG, Conservatism, Donesk, Donbass


Economic Left/Right: 10
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10

User avatar
Sasar De
Envoy
 
Posts: 283
Founded: May 06, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

What about libertarians?

User avatar
Othelos
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12533
Founded: Feb 05, 2013
New York Times Democracy

Postby 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.

Are you just talking about with the refugees when you reference "social policies"?
  • American/German, Ich kann auch Deutsch

User avatar
Zoice
Minister
 
Posts: 3041
Founded: Oct 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

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.
♂♀Copy and Paste this in your sig if you're ignorant about human sexuality and want to let everyone know. ♂♀
Or if you're an asshole that goes out of your way to bully minorities and call them words with the strict intent of upsetting a demographic that is already at a huge risk of suicide, or being murdered for who they are. :)

For: Abortions, Anomalocaris, Atheism, Anti-theism, Being a good person, Genetic Engineering, LGBT rights, Sammy Harris, the Sandman, Science, Secular humanism
Against: AGW Denialism, Anti-Semitism, Banning religion, Ends, Hillary Clinton, Islamophobia, Means, Mother Theresa, Organized religion, Pacifism, Prejudice, the Pope, Political Correctness, Racism, Regressive Lefties and Righties, Republican Candidates, Theism, Violence

User avatar
Dinake
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1470
Founded: Nov 25, 2014
Moralistic Democracy

Postby 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.

That's like saying "blockbuster wouldn't be losing ground to netflix if there wasn't any netflix".
Catholic traditionalist, anti-capitalist with medievalist/distributist influences, monarchist. The drunk uncle of nationstates. Puppet of Dio. Don't sell the vatican.
Look if you name your child "Reince Priebus" and he ends up as a functionary in an authoritarian regime you only have yourself to blame
-Ross Douthat, reacting to Trump's presumptive nomination.
Darrell Castle 2016!

User avatar
Martean
Minister
 
Posts: 2017
Founded: Aug 08, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Martean » Wed May 11, 2016 1:26 pm

I think there hasn't been much of change. The difference between now and before is that ''extremists'' have stopped supporting the parties they used to vote for, but there has always been a lot of racism and xenophobia in the EU, or socialists/almost communists supporting social-liberal and social-democratic parties.

For example, France has always been a blalantly racist country, although this wasn't important when there were not many immigrants and therefore 'true' racists were 'hidden' from the public. But when tens of thousands started to move to France, many people let their racism out, and FN gained tracktion, fuelled both by leftists who feel the PSF has betrayed their rights, favouring globalization and free-market policies; and also conservatives who thought the UMP was 'too soft' when dealing with immigrantion, and now Marine Le-Pen will most surely win the first round of the presidential election.

Other countries, such as Spain, have seen left-wing parties rise, instead of far-right. But, again, this was going to happen sooner or later, each generation was becoming less fond of free market and more socially liberal, while the two main parties (especially the Socialist) were becoming more and more progressive, but also pro-free market. When the difference between the party and it's voters became too big, the Socialist party just collapsed and was split in two, almost equal parties: Podemos, a left-wing party (20.7%) and the old centre-left mainstream PSOE (22%).

I think in a couple of decades far-right parties will be something of the past, society tends to move to more progressive ideas. As for left-wing parties, history tells us that they might have a better shot at surviving, but not many countries have insurgent leftist parties, anyway.
Compass:
Left/Right: -9.00
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.03
Spanish, communist
Pro: Democracy, Nationalized economy, socialism, LGTB Rights, Free Speech, Atheism, Inmigration, Direct Democracy
Anti: Dictatorship, Fascism, Social-democracy, Social Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Nationalism, Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia.
''When you have an imaginary friend, you're crazy, but when many people have the same imaginary friend, it's called religion''

User avatar
Delacroix
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: May 10, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Delacroix » Wed May 11, 2016 1:35 pm

Martean wrote:
For example, France has always been a blalantly racist country


Who are you to decide which countries are racist and which aren't?
A multiracial cajun dude from Louisiana who enjoys beer and bbq. Red blooded American and damn proud of it.

Small Government Free Marketer, Republican. Trump 2016!

PreviousNext

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aellex, Corodova, Dumb Ideologies, Hurdergaryp, Immoren, Mazda-otta, Mushet, Petrolheadia, The Parkus Empire, Viridus

Remove ads