Political Developments in Western Societies

[Grand Britannia]

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.

[Forsher]

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.

[The Liberated Territories]

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.

[Othelos]

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.

[Forsher]

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.

[Othelos]

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.

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.

[Truckee Meadows]

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.

[Othelos]

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.

[The balkens]

None of it good, either.

[Forsher]

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.

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.

[Calimera II]

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.

[Calimera II]

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.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

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?

[Calimera II]

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.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

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.

[Calimera II]

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.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

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.

[Kuruinulah]

We need radical solutions to problems, because the solutions the mainstream parties have been dishing out for years haven't worked.

[Sadist France]

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.

[Sasar De]

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?

[Othelos]

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"?

[Zoice]

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.

[Dinake]

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".

[Martean]

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.

[Delacroix]

For example, France has always been a blalantly racist country

Who are you to decide which countries are racist and which aren't?