|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 09 2015 05:39 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know if I'd paint it so dire. Social democrats and conservatives in almost all European countries still hold an absolute majority by quite a healthy margin. And although it's pretty scary how fast parties like the FN are growing, they're rarely getting more than a quarter of the votes. Which I still find pretty fucked up but it's not like they're going to rule any time soon.
In regards to dominant ideology, I think there are pretty much two different worlds. People who cheer for Le Pen, Wilders or Trump are living in a different world. They don't believe the "mainstream media", there's no rational thing you could say to convince them to give up their position and there are a shit-ton of conspiracy ideas floating around. If you're carrying a gallows through the street to protest a trade agreement you're not acting rationally any more.
The exact opposite is true. People who still read and believe everything coming from the mainstream media live in a different world. You can argue with them all you want, they will never take seriously even one argument coming from the opposing side, too binded by their blind faith for the european process and the benefit of liberalism.
|
On December 09 2015 04:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 22:33 OtherWorld wrote:On December 08 2015 05:46 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2015 05:36 cLutZ wrote:
FN has almost nothing to do with the American Republican party (for American's commenting) its a bit like if Trump had his own party, but just slightly. I think WhiteDog would agree that the FN generally says something along the lines of "France needs to stay French" plus "Keep groups XYZ (not me) from receiving government welfare so I can keep mine". Really there's many national front in reality. The national front in the south (PACA region, provence alpes côtes d'azur) is mostly racist, and in this region the FN existed for a long time. In the north (nord pas de calais) and the east it's a vote of frustration and resentment, in a place that has been to the left almost from the revolution (it's one of the hot spot of the revolution by the way...), and in this land, it's a party that resemble the old communist party. Long story short : the FN says to the people what the people wants to hear. Demagogy at its finest. On December 08 2015 00:51 Velr wrote:
Its an AFD that used to be the NPD. That's pretty accurate. like all parties ?
Nope. Demagogy at its finest means hate. Hate of the stranger [in France : immigrants + Muslims/Arabs, Chinese people, etc], hate of the system [the "big" parties, the current government, the medias], hate of every institution that could threaten the so-called "national sovereignty" [the EU, the FMI, the OTAN, the US], hate of social progress & changes in society [increased rights for LGBTs, downfall of agriculture & the countryside]. I don't find this hate in other parties' programs (well, you can find some of it, but not as much as in the FN's). Another trait of "demagogy at its finest" means a certain inclination for unrealistic excessiveness, as you noted yourself earlier by saying that the FN's program includes points that would straight-up kill the French economy (earlier age of retirement, higher minimal wage, higher retirement wage).
I mean, just compare Hollande's 2012 program ( http://presidentielle2012.ouest-france.fr/actualite/en-60-points-francois-hollande-detaille-son-programme-26-01-2012-402 ) to Le Pen's ( http://quoi.info/actualite-politique/le-programme-de-marine-le-pen-resume-1133616/ ) : you can't tell me both are telling to the people what the people wants to hear, at least not in the same proportions. One is soft and moderate, the other is hard and extreme (eh, how surprising !). One has propositions that wouldn't make the crowd bat an eye if you shouted them on the street, the other has propositions that can unite people behind them because people unite behind hate.
|
Isn't "earlier age of retirement, higher minimal wage, higher retirement wage" what socialism is all about, though?
How would this kill off the French economy? I'm pretty sure it's already dead either way,
|
On December 09 2015 16:05 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2015 22:33 OtherWorld wrote:On December 08 2015 05:46 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2015 05:36 cLutZ wrote:
FN has almost nothing to do with the American Republican party (for American's commenting) its a bit like if Trump had his own party, but just slightly. I think WhiteDog would agree that the FN generally says something along the lines of "France needs to stay French" plus "Keep groups XYZ (not me) from receiving government welfare so I can keep mine". Really there's many national front in reality. The national front in the south (PACA region, provence alpes côtes d'azur) is mostly racist, and in this region the FN existed for a long time. In the north (nord pas de calais) and the east it's a vote of frustration and resentment, in a place that has been to the left almost from the revolution (it's one of the hot spot of the revolution by the way...), and in this land, it's a party that resemble the old communist party. Long story short : the FN says to the people what the people wants to hear. Demagogy at its finest. On December 08 2015 00:51 Velr wrote:
Its an AFD that used to be the NPD. That's pretty accurate. like all parties ? Nope. Demagogy at its finest means hate. Hate of the stranger [in France : immigrants + Muslims/Arabs, Chinese people, etc], hate of the system [the "big" parties, the current government, the medias], hate of every institution that could threaten the so-called "national sovereignty" [the EU, the FMI, the OTAN, the US], hate of social progress & changes in society [increased rights for LGBTs, downfall of agriculture & the countryside]. I don't find this hate in other parties' programs (well, you can find some of it, but not as much as in the FN's). Another trait of "demagogy at its finest" means a certain inclination for unrealistic excessiveness, as you noted yourself earlier by saying that the FN's program includes points that would straight-up kill the French economy (earlier age of retirement, higher minimal wage, higher retirement wage). I mean, just compare Hollande's 2012 program ( http://presidentielle2012.ouest-france.fr/actualite/en-60-points-francois-hollande-detaille-son-programme-26-01-2012-402 ) to Le Pen's ( http://quoi.info/actualite-politique/le-programme-de-marine-le-pen-resume-1133616/ ) : you can't tell me both are telling to the people what the people wants to hear, at least not in the same proportions. One is soft and moderate, the other is hard and extreme (eh, how surprising !). One has propositions that wouldn't make the crowd bat an eye if you shouted them on the street, the other has propositions that can unite people behind them because people unite behind hate.
The demagogy in the description linked is in the wording/target audience, not the hate it brings.
For randomguy#001, it is almost impossible to assert the impact of Hollande's propositions. "Deficits will be brought back to 3%" ... so what ? How is that a concern for me, what will it change ?. The main communication difficulty is explaining how the propositions will benefit the country/its citizens, which is very hard to do with simple catchphrases randomguy#001 will hear and accept.
On the other hand, Le Pen's is straightforward: "you will earn 200€ more, you will retire 5 years earlier and everything will be paid by taxes on foreigners". The burden of the explaining is reversed: others have to explain why/how this simply does not work in the real world, while Le Pen can simply go on hammering the propositions and/or attack the other candidates.
If the propositions of Hollande after 5 years didn't bring paradise on earth as promised, then maybe his explanations regarding why I shouldn't earn more and retire early are also false.
|
On December 09 2015 19:09 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 16:05 OtherWorld wrote:On December 09 2015 04:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2015 22:33 OtherWorld wrote:On December 08 2015 05:46 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2015 05:36 cLutZ wrote:
FN has almost nothing to do with the American Republican party (for American's commenting) its a bit like if Trump had his own party, but just slightly. I think WhiteDog would agree that the FN generally says something along the lines of "France needs to stay French" plus "Keep groups XYZ (not me) from receiving government welfare so I can keep mine". Really there's many national front in reality. The national front in the south (PACA region, provence alpes côtes d'azur) is mostly racist, and in this region the FN existed for a long time. In the north (nord pas de calais) and the east it's a vote of frustration and resentment, in a place that has been to the left almost from the revolution (it's one of the hot spot of the revolution by the way...), and in this land, it's a party that resemble the old communist party. Long story short : the FN says to the people what the people wants to hear. Demagogy at its finest. On December 08 2015 00:51 Velr wrote:
Its an AFD that used to be the NPD. That's pretty accurate. like all parties ? Nope. Demagogy at its finest means hate. Hate of the stranger [in France : immigrants + Muslims/Arabs, Chinese people, etc], hate of the system [the "big" parties, the current government, the medias], hate of every institution that could threaten the so-called "national sovereignty" [the EU, the FMI, the OTAN, the US], hate of social progress & changes in society [increased rights for LGBTs, downfall of agriculture & the countryside]. I don't find this hate in other parties' programs (well, you can find some of it, but not as much as in the FN's). Another trait of "demagogy at its finest" means a certain inclination for unrealistic excessiveness, as you noted yourself earlier by saying that the FN's program includes points that would straight-up kill the French economy (earlier age of retirement, higher minimal wage, higher retirement wage). I mean, just compare Hollande's 2012 program ( http://presidentielle2012.ouest-france.fr/actualite/en-60-points-francois-hollande-detaille-son-programme-26-01-2012-402 ) to Le Pen's ( http://quoi.info/actualite-politique/le-programme-de-marine-le-pen-resume-1133616/ ) : you can't tell me both are telling to the people what the people wants to hear, at least not in the same proportions. One is soft and moderate, the other is hard and extreme (eh, how surprising !). One has propositions that wouldn't make the crowd bat an eye if you shouted them on the street, the other has propositions that can unite people behind them because people unite behind hate. The demagogy in the description linked is in the wording/target audience, not the hate it brings. For randomguy#001, it is almost impossible to assert the impact of Hollande's propositions. "Deficits will be brought back to 3%" ... so what ? How is that a concern for me, what will it change ?. The main communication difficulty is explaining how the propositions will benefit the country/its citizens, which is very hard to do with simple catchphrases randomguy#001 will hear and accept. On the other hand, Le Pen's is straightforward: "you will earn 200€ more, you will retire 5 years earlier and everything will be paid by taxes on foreigners". The burden of the explaining is reversed: others have to explain why/how this simply does not work in the real world, while Le Pen can simply go on hammering the propositions and/or attack the other candidates. If the propositions of Hollande after 5 years didn't bring paradise on earth as promised, then maybe his explanations regarding why I shouldn't earn more and retire early are also false.
Yes, what you say is very true (tho for the last paragraph you have to take into account that most of his propositions weren't applied : http://www.bilanduchangement.fr/ ). Still, I think it's important to note that people unite way more easily behind a discourse based on hate rather than based on constructive, non-extreme criticism, which is one of the strength of the FN (as it was one of the strength of the far-left back in its time).
On December 09 2015 17:30 Incognoto wrote:
Isn't "earlier age of retirement, higher minimal wage, higher retirement wage" what socialism is all about, though?
How would this kill off the French economy? I'm pretty sure it's already dead either way,
I dunno, to me its sounds like standard, historical far-right "socialism" (after all, the farther right party which existed in Europe in the XXth had "socialist" in its name, and it wasn't uncommun at all for early-XXth far-right/facists parties to organize "popular soups" where they gave soup to the poor people).
As for retirement, well with the progress of medicine (which aren't going to stop there, believe me), as well as the general trend of people spending more time studying and getting diplomas before getting a job compared to before, in addition to the progress of employee's rights and the slow disappearence of most manual tasks to the profit of machines, people die later and later. Thus, if you keep retirement at the same level, you'll have more and more people being retirees for 30+ years, which means they'll have spent between a quarter and a third of their life (childhood included) being retirees. Combine that with the fact that people don't make a lot of children per couple, thus there is not enough young people working and paying for the retirees' retirement wages, and you got a serious problem on your hands.
Now don't get me wrong, I consider myself absolutely not competent on economy questions such as these, thus I can't tell you if it's a legit reasoning or bullshit. But as far as I've understood it's basically why earlier retirement (for all jobs, at least) is not a good idea.
|
On December 09 2015 16:05 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 04:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2015 22:33 OtherWorld wrote:On December 08 2015 05:46 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2015 05:36 cLutZ wrote:
FN has almost nothing to do with the American Republican party (for American's commenting) its a bit like if Trump had his own party, but just slightly. I think WhiteDog would agree that the FN generally says something along the lines of "France needs to stay French" plus "Keep groups XYZ (not me) from receiving government welfare so I can keep mine". Really there's many national front in reality. The national front in the south (PACA region, provence alpes côtes d'azur) is mostly racist, and in this region the FN existed for a long time. In the north (nord pas de calais) and the east it's a vote of frustration and resentment, in a place that has been to the left almost from the revolution (it's one of the hot spot of the revolution by the way...), and in this land, it's a party that resemble the old communist party. Long story short : the FN says to the people what the people wants to hear. Demagogy at its finest. On December 08 2015 00:51 Velr wrote:
Its an AFD that used to be the NPD. That's pretty accurate. like all parties ? Nope. Demagogy at its finest means hate. Hate of the stranger [in France : immigrants + Muslims/Arabs, Chinese people, etc], hate of the system [the "big" parties, the current government, the medias], hate of every institution that could threaten the so-called "national sovereignty" [the EU, the FMI, the OTAN, the US], hate of social progress & changes in society [increased rights for LGBTs, downfall of agriculture & the countryside]. I don't find this hate in other parties' programs (well, you can find some of it, but not as much as in the FN's). Another trait of "demagogy at its finest" means a certain inclination for unrealistic excessiveness, as you noted yourself earlier by saying that the FN's program includes points that would straight-up kill the French economy (earlier age of retirement, higher minimal wage, higher retirement wage). I mean, just compare Hollande's 2012 program ( http://presidentielle2012.ouest-france.fr/actualite/en-60-points-francois-hollande-detaille-son-programme-26-01-2012-402 ) to Le Pen's ( http://quoi.info/actualite-politique/le-programme-de-marine-le-pen-resume-1133616/ ) : you can't tell me both are telling to the people what the people wants to hear, at least not in the same proportions. One is soft and moderate, the other is hard and extreme (eh, how surprising !). One has propositions that wouldn't make the crowd bat an eye if you shouted them on the street, the other has propositions that can unite people behind them because people unite behind hate.
That's actually on a difference of strategy. Big parties believe the elections are won in the middle - by motivating the few that have no real position, while the few that are in the extreme are already decided on their votes. The problem is that nowadays a big part of the population does not believe in the main stream parties and in this specific situation a strategy of the extreme, like that of the national front, can win elections.
|
On December 09 2015 17:30 Incognoto wrote:
Isn't "earlier age of retirement, higher minimal wage, higher retirement wage" what socialism is all about, though?
How would this kill off the French economy? I'm pretty sure it's already dead either way,
The problem with the French is that they are stuck in the past, they don't want to make any reforms or change anything ever. There is no progress and there wont be progress for a very long time, its a cultural thing.
I love france for this,but it will be its downfall.
|
On December 10 2015 07:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 16:05 OtherWorld wrote:On December 09 2015 04:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2015 22:33 OtherWorld wrote:On December 08 2015 05:46 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2015 05:36 cLutZ wrote:
FN has almost nothing to do with the American Republican party (for American's commenting) its a bit like if Trump had his own party, but just slightly. I think WhiteDog would agree that the FN generally says something along the lines of "France needs to stay French" plus "Keep groups XYZ (not me) from receiving government welfare so I can keep mine". Really there's many national front in reality. The national front in the south (PACA region, provence alpes côtes d'azur) is mostly racist, and in this region the FN existed for a long time. In the north (nord pas de calais) and the east it's a vote of frustration and resentment, in a place that has been to the left almost from the revolution (it's one of the hot spot of the revolution by the way...), and in this land, it's a party that resemble the old communist party. Long story short : the FN says to the people what the people wants to hear. Demagogy at its finest. On December 08 2015 00:51 Velr wrote:
Its an AFD that used to be the NPD. That's pretty accurate. like all parties ? Nope. Demagogy at its finest means hate. Hate of the stranger [in France : immigrants + Muslims/Arabs, Chinese people, etc], hate of the system [the "big" parties, the current government, the medias], hate of every institution that could threaten the so-called "national sovereignty" [the EU, the FMI, the OTAN, the US], hate of social progress & changes in society [increased rights for LGBTs, downfall of agriculture & the countryside]. I don't find this hate in other parties' programs (well, you can find some of it, but not as much as in the FN's). Another trait of "demagogy at its finest" means a certain inclination for unrealistic excessiveness, as you noted yourself earlier by saying that the FN's program includes points that would straight-up kill the French economy (earlier age of retirement, higher minimal wage, higher retirement wage). I mean, just compare Hollande's 2012 program ( http://presidentielle2012.ouest-france.fr/actualite/en-60-points-francois-hollande-detaille-son-programme-26-01-2012-402 ) to Le Pen's ( http://quoi.info/actualite-politique/le-programme-de-marine-le-pen-resume-1133616/ ) : you can't tell me both are telling to the people what the people wants to hear, at least not in the same proportions. One is soft and moderate, the other is hard and extreme (eh, how surprising !). One has propositions that wouldn't make the crowd bat an eye if you shouted them on the street, the other has propositions that can unite people behind them because people unite behind hate. That's actually on a difference of strategy. Big parties believe the elections are won in the middle - by motivating the few that have no real position, while the few that are in the extreme are already decided on their votes. The problem is that nowadays a big part of the population does not believe in the main stream parties and in this specific situation a strategy of the extreme, like that of the national front, can win elections.
Big parties believe the elections are won in the middle - by motivating the few that have no real position,
This used to be the case but I think that time has passed and we are now in a different time.
It seems that now elections are won by parties who take extreme positions. Well maybe not won yet but they do have a huge influence. They even force more moderate partys to more or less change their moderate vieuw on some isues (immigration for example) to compete. The radicalization of society does not only take place in the Islamic world, at the same time it also takes place in the western world, its a global thing and that is a very worrying development.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i thunk liberalisation led globalization with the characteristics of big corps and free flowing capital is a given that cannot be turned back. it is a political result sure, but for mostly better it has changed the world and there is no going back to isolation and traditional nationalism. because traditional national states are no longer sovereign in the global market place. capital and attendant production and knowledge chains are dominant over states, especially in europe. under this situation it is adapt, compete or fall by the wayside. the system can still function but it also is demanding for the displaced and disrupted.
|
On December 10 2015 15:15 oneofthem wrote:
i thunk liberalisation led globalization with the characteristics of big corps and free flowing capital is a given that cannot be turned back. it is a political result sure, but for mostly better it has changed the world and there is no going back to isolation and traditional nationalism. because traditional national states are no longer sovereign in the global market place. capital and attendant production and knowledge chains are dominant over states, especially in europe. under this situation it is adapt, compete or fall by the wayside. the system can still function but it also is demanding for the displaced and disrupted.
Your comment is to me wrong both factually an morally. Factually the state of the world you describe is not sustainable and will crumble one day or another - not sustainable socially and environmentally. Morally it is wrong because you are defacto accepting the dissembeddness of the economical sphere in regard to politics and thus you leave the democratic discussion empty, a situation that can only give life to frustration and parties like the national front - a violent and xenophobic response.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is just how things are going. as a matter of attainable goals, i'd be more concerned with incremental improvements within the context of this globalization. establishing strong and robust framework of regulation and taxation now requires international cooperation. there is also a need to fight against concentration and monopoly power. but it seems strategic political thinking still trumps all. everyone wants to protect their own IP holders and exporters.
so like you i see the situation worsening quite a bit before it getting better. but i don't see any collapse. people on balance are living far more comfortably today than they were in 1848 or 1933
|
On December 10 2015 21:53 oneofthem wrote:
this is just how things are going. as a matter of attainable goals, i'd be more concerned with incremental improvements within the context of this globalization. establishing strong and robust framework of regulation and taxation now requires international cooperation. there is also a need to fight against concentration and monopoly power. but it seems strategic political thinking still trumps all. everyone wants to protect their own IP holders and exporters.
so like you i see the situation worsening quite a bit before it getting better. but i don't see any collapse. people on balance are living far more comfortably today than they were in 1848 or 1933
They live more comfortably but it's irrelevant. People don't care about absolute fact, but move according to relative opinions and feelings. In regard to the current situation, the situation is getting worse, and has been for the last generation, even if overall the last generation is still much better off than any other generation before. There's also a limit to how much we can get happy by simply increasing the production of goods of services, especially if that increase production require from us more flexibility, which means less stability in our daily lives and our social relationships for exemple.
|
I don't think it's about the economy at all, because although some countries especially in Southern Europe are struggling, large support for this new movements comes from countries that are doing good or are growing rapidly. Poland, Denmark the UK and other Eastern European countries, while Portugal and Spain are surprisingly immune to this, at least to the right-wing version.
I feel like it's essentially some mild of fascism. People are fed up with getting technical and rational answers to their problems and instead want some kind of national, primitive power back. It doesn't actually seem to matter what the outcome of this is and facts aren't important either. Donald Trump is pretty much the personification of this.
|
Slovakia has a left wing government and the new ruling party in Poland is not new or fascist. If you count the votes from our recent elections you can see that our society is still split 50-50 between liberals and conservatives. Your turbonazis won those elections only because they're united and liberals ruled for 10 years so people got "bored" with them. Maybe voters in the West and South are getting more radical but here it was just a normal shift of power.
Iirc UKIP had terrible results in British elections so its not like UK is changing its course drastically either
|
On December 10 2015 20:07 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 15:15 oneofthem wrote:
i thunk liberalisation led globalization with the characteristics of big corps and free flowing capital is a given that cannot be turned back. it is a political result sure, but for mostly better it has changed the world and there is no going back to isolation and traditional nationalism. because traditional national states are no longer sovereign in the global market place. capital and attendant production and knowledge chains are dominant over states, especially in europe. under this situation it is adapt, compete or fall by the wayside. the system can still function but it also is demanding for the displaced and disrupted. Your comment is to me wrong both factually an morally. Factually the state of the world you describe is not sustainable and will crumble one day or another - not sustainable socially and environmentally. Morally it is wrong because you are defacto accepting the dissembeddness of the economical sphere in regard to politics and thus you leave the democratic discussion empty, a situation that can only give life to frustration and parties like the national front - a violent and xenophobic response.
Was there ever a state of the world which was sustainable socially and environmentally? If yes, then why did we change? Don't you think the very nature of the state of the world is to be unsustainable, and thus to be changing regularly?
|
this is a pretty much the whole logic behind the populist parties. We are right now in a "crisis" and when you are in a crisis you can't help refugees, you need to implement more security stuff, liberal things have to be sacrificed, you need to topple the "establishment" who can't handle the crisis and so on.
The thing is we are always in some stupid crisis. There is no higher order to return to and people will have to accept that neither the FN or Yobbik will take care of their personal lives just because they feel lost in the modern world. I wouldn't go as far as accepting oneofthem's fatalism but going back to 30's style national socialism and paternalism can't be the answer either.
|
On December 09 2015 12:14 TMG26 wrote:
Socialism simply does not work with open borders. Look at Sweden, it was a paridise untill it got flooded.
That Flood will always happen in a well off socialist country with open borders.
Future primary beneficiaries won't be native Swedes anyway, so who cares. If the new population can't pick up the slack, Sweden needs to have less public welfare programs.
|
On December 11 2015 08:37 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 20:07 WhiteDog wrote:On December 10 2015 15:15 oneofthem wrote:
i thunk liberalisation led globalization with the characteristics of big corps and free flowing capital is a given that cannot be turned back. it is a political result sure, but for mostly better it has changed the world and there is no going back to isolation and traditional nationalism. because traditional national states are no longer sovereign in the global market place. capital and attendant production and knowledge chains are dominant over states, especially in europe. under this situation it is adapt, compete or fall by the wayside. the system can still function but it also is demanding for the displaced and disrupted. Your comment is to me wrong both factually an morally. Factually the state of the world you describe is not sustainable and will crumble one day or another - not sustainable socially and environmentally. Morally it is wrong because you are defacto accepting the dissembeddness of the economical sphere in regard to politics and thus you leave the democratic discussion empty, a situation that can only give life to frustration and parties like the national front - a violent and xenophobic response. Was there ever a state of the world which was sustainable socially and environmentally? If yes, then why did we change? Don't you think the very nature of the state of the world is to be unsustainable, and thus to be changing regularly?
The society is never "sustainable", the system we create can be sustainable by making change possible : it is the idea of the democracy or of most institutions. The problem is that in oneofthem mind the globalization is a fact no one can discuss, and we're not in a democracy anyway in europe since the europe stripper us of half of what matter, so the society can only break violently rather than changing smoothly through the pacific and democratic discussion.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's entirely ridiculous and inaccurate. i am simply stating that globalization is irreversible via realistic (or desirable) political means. thus you are better off trying to solve problems wtihin this framework.
|
On December 11 2015 07:20 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think it's about the economy at all, because although some countries especially in Southern Europe are struggling, large support for this new movements comes from countries that are doing good or are growing rapidly. Poland, Denmark the UK and other Eastern European countries, while Portugal and Spain are surprisingly immune to this, at least to the right-wing version.
I feel like it's essentially some mild of fascism. People are fed up with getting technical and rational answers to their problems and instead want some kind of national, primitive power back. It doesn't actually seem to matter what the outcome of this is and facts aren't important either. Donald Trump is pretty much the personification of this.
In the case of Portugal, it's mainly because we were under a right wing party during austerity, so it's natural to switch to a Left after.
But still, the most voted party in the October elections was a right wing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
