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.
The problem with the (populist) right / far right support increase have root in both racism and the population's living standard / economic well being.
The shift to the right had been happening for a long time, not in recent years. In the USA, Tea party formed in the 2000s, and the Brexit discussion started in late 2010s, and National Rally of France and AfD in Germany existed far more than 5 years. Just some of the examples.
I don't believe the "centrist" politician is too stupid to recognize it. However, "the elite" chose to ignore it because the increase in inqueality is the (desire) result of their policy. If you look across various countries, including USA, europe (especially western europe), or even india, the (result of ) policy have been to prop up the wealth of the (mega) rich as oppose to provide essential to the general public.
It is understandable from the view of the politician, it is much easier to get enough donation if you only required to please a small group of people (who are super rich) as oppose to the general public. Then what they need to do is to distract the general public with "them", the "them" can be anything, immigrant, muslim, russian, chinese, white, black, whatever. But the reality is that the politician took the public money (tax) and give them to the small group of people who in turn give back some to the politician (i.e. corruption, but within regulation, so it is legal).
On June 13 2024 22:14 Uldridge wrote: Sadly, many seem to be deeply racist and use the "they're taking our jobs and replace us and how can they ride around in these types of cars and are on average more violent/criminal and are benefiting from the welfare state way more than natives etc.." excuse to validate themselves. This mostly comes from people that are from communities that are deeply shielded from other cultures other than their own, whatever their culture even means. If they see one brown person on the street they experience great discomfort. The other day someone told me that 80% of a city (with the most immigrants) was immigrants. I had to bring this person down to reality, but overestimation fallacy/bias whatever it is, is a real and problematic thing.
This kind of condescending discourse about far-right voters is a broken record at this point. Not taking seriously the problems they point to will only lead to bigger support for right-wing populism. The rise in gun violence, drug dealing and organized crime in general in Sweden as a direct result of non-European immigration is so obvious it is ridiculous. Not even the left-wing parties try to deny it anymore. 10 years ago we had perhaps 4-5 shootings per yer in Sweden, now we have around 150 (101 and counting so far this year).
This is the crux of it. The left could be pragmatic here and try to address the issues rationally and probably retain a lot of the voters. Instead their go-to play is to either deny the problem exists or call you a racist for even bringing up the problem.
Bill Maher says it succinctly in the last minute of this video
If you want to be taken seriously on immigration, come with policy proposals. Don't cry in a corner and blame the left for it. And especially don't vote fascist and then when you start to regret it yell "but the left made us do it!". It is just not true. You can whine and complain all you want about being called a racist. But that's not going to change anything. Toughen up already!
On June 14 2024 16:19 Suibne wrote: If you want to be taken seriously on immigration, come with policy proposals. Don't cry in a corner and blame the left for it. And especially don't vote fascist and then when you start to regret it yell "but the left made us do it!". It is just not true. You can whine and complain all you want about being called a racist. But that's not going to change anything. Toughen up already!
In the UK the tories have been in power for 14 years, claimed before each election or leadership contest that immigration is the priorty, manged to get Brexit done so we could control our borders, and last year we had more legal and illegal immigration than we've ever had in our history, growing at a faster rate than its ever grown before.
What I've learned is that the right wing might want to solve immigration, but the cost of no longer having immigration to campaign on is too great for them, so they won't actually do anything about it.
In most of Europe, the traditional right has been in power for long stretches of time in the last 20 years. In many countries, they campaigned on and promised to limit immigration. They did not. It is not even that they didn't limit it because they want to campaign on it. But it is because they desperately need labour immigration for the economy. And they have no idea at all how to stop asylum seekers or very desperate people from subSaharan Africa.
It is these false promises, not the failure of the left to face reality and accept there is a problem, that makes voters vote far right.
In fact, even the far right has failed to limit immigration when in power. They have a bunch of racist talking points during the campaign. Some even going into Umvolkung/great replacement conspiracy theories. But they have no policy. Zilch. Nada. Naught.
Denmark is the only country in the that EU that actually has an immigration opt-out. And guess what. Some Denmark, for example the representatives of industry & entrepreneurs aka employers' federation, actually wants the Danish government to get rid of it because their economy needs more immigrants.
On June 14 2024 18:22 Suibne wrote: In most of Europe, the traditional right has been in power for long stretches of time in the last 20 years. In many countries, they campaigned on and promised to limit immigration. They did not. It is not even that they didn't limit it because they want to campaign on it. But it is because they desperately need labour immigration for the economy. And they have no idea at all how to stop asylum seekers or very desperate people from subSaharan Africa.
It is these false promises, not the failure of the left to face reality and accept there is a problem, that makes voters vote far right.
In fact, even the far right has failed to limit immigration when in power. They have a bunch of racist talking points during the campaign. Some even going into Umvolkung/great replacement conspiracy theories. But they have no policy. Zilch. Nada. Naught.
Denmark is the only country in the that EU that actually has an immigration opt-out. And guess what. Some Denmark, for example the representatives of industry & entrepreneurs aka employers' federation, actually wants the Danish government to get rid of it because their economy needs more immigrants.
Its almost as if having a capitalist economy that requires quarter on quarter growth infinitely into the future and reducing the number of immigrants willing to do the work for it are two ideas that are completely antithetical to each other.
You have to look at the growing elderly population. Who is going to support that? If you limit immigration you put huge pressure on the younger population. I'm not saying you couldn't do it, but you're going to put society into a labor/caregiving situation for at least a few generations until it population strata even out and you're in homeostasis again. Is any society up for that? How do you prevent brain drain? Do you put hard limits on how many people can do certain education? Who wants to do the actual labor (sit at an assembly line or care for screaming/crying toddlers or cleaning or being supermarket employee) you know, things that need to be done even when your immigration is halted? It's much easier to keep trying to chug along even when you see the freight train coming and you know it will flatten you completely, then to wander to either side in the wilderness where it's filled to the brim with unknown variables.
This problem is a perfect set up for some kind of autocratic installation. Not saying this is a problem in itself -- perhaps modern Western societies don't actually need democracy any longer, I'll leave that up for discussion. What we need more and more, though, is direction, and not like small incremental "let's see what we can do in an election cycle", or get sidetracked, or try to pander or course correct because you feel like the pendulum has swung too far one way.
On June 14 2024 18:22 Suibne wrote: In most of Europe, the traditional right has been in power for long stretches of time in the last 20 years. In many countries, they campaigned on and promised to limit immigration. They did not. It is not even that they didn't limit it because they want to campaign on it. But it is because they desperately need labour immigration for the economy. And they have no idea at all how to stop asylum seekers or very desperate people from subSaharan Africa.
It is these false promises, not the failure of the left to face reality and accept there is a problem, that makes voters vote far right.
In fact, even the far right has failed to limit immigration when in power. They have a bunch of racist talking points during the campaign. Some even going into Umvolkung/great replacement conspiracy theories. But they have no policy. Zilch. Nada. Naught.
Denmark is the only country in the that EU that actually has an immigration opt-out. And guess what. Some Denmark, for example the representatives of industry & entrepreneurs aka employers' federation, actually wants the Danish government to get rid of it because their economy needs more immigrants.
Its almost as if having a capitalist economy that requires quarter on quarter growth infinitely into the future and reducing the number of immigrants willing to do the work for it are two ideas that are completely antithetical to each other.
On June 14 2024 02:19 Uldridge wrote: What's the alternative?
Immigration is a byproduct of a larger systemic problem, which is that people don't want to have children because their standard of living is becoming too high. I don't see how you solve that by "listening to the people".
I promise I am not playing devil's advocate, but this conversation has made me wonder: If the core mechanisms of income inequality are so deeply entrenched and so closely controlled my enormously powerful billionaires, is it possible that income inequality has a higher chance of being reduced by simply cutting off the pipe of immigrants? Forcing society to reshape around this labor coming from existing citizens, paying them and training them appropriately, and letting the pieces fall where they will?
What if immigration is such a fiery and emotionally charged topic that it has a better chance of improving income inequality than hopelessly trying to directly address income inequality?
I know this sounds like a dumb sophist bullshit question. But maybe I am just so jaded at this point that I'm losing my mind. But I think it is reasonable to wonder if the western oligarchy has become so entrenched and powerful that there aren't any realistic direct paths to eroding their power.
I think, once again, that income inequality is a byproduct of the way we incentivize people to set up trade and businesses and how the money flows based on how success is measured. Large number = good so larger number = better. And if you get CEO's who can maintain/achieve large and larger number, we want to celebrate that.. for whatever reason. It is for many things really good to have large number. So many industries have big players that do really good things for our society without anyone ever notices, but I do keep questioning how this asymmetrical wealth distribution still makes sense when these monstrous enterprises are so incredibly diverse in what they have to do to achieve their large number. Can one quantify the actualities of the high level ceo tasks and then justify their large paychecks? Perhaps, but almost certainly it's disproportional.
For the real elite of the elite it's just another ballpark. They do what they want and their fortunes are so vast, entire countries basically let them do what they want because then they - or so the countries they reside in seem to think so - have a higher chance of distributing their wealth into said country. I mean, a billionaire being taxed or a minimum wage income citizen, I know which person I'd pour more effort into.
We need to get off the hoarding assets train because it's just not a prodctive way forward in the long run imo. Living conditions having ameliorated in the last whatever years they use as a metric is nice and all (I sure am grateful I don't need to be a coal miner), but I do fucking loathe the fact that I can't do whatever the fuck I want because somehow there's so much wealth to go around to feed and house literally everyone, yet I still need to collect a wage in order to have those. I do think there needs to be an incentive for people to work though, because our entire supply chain, innovation and maintenance sectors rely on people doing those jobs. You can't just automate those (yet).
I hear France's left party had a victory and the far right party had a failure, once more I am in admiration of France and wish that brand of French energy would pervade everywhere else
On July 08 2024 05:08 Zambrah wrote: I hear France's left party had a victory and the far right party had a failure, once more I am in admiration of France and wish that brand of French energy would pervade everywhere else
I mean it is something of a quirk of their electoral systems that they do get that second shot and the ‘oh shit the far right are doing well, better stop that particular train’
Although at least they do have a record of stopping that particular train though, credit where credit is due
On July 08 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote: Unbelievable fail for Emmanuel, I can't lie I knew what he did was risky but I didn't think it would fail this hard
Wasn't the whole point to head off a far right victory? If that succeeded how did it fail hard? Yes his own party lost a lot but that was always expected to happen, whether the election was today or a year from now. (I don't know when there would normally have been elections if Macron didn't call one early)
On July 08 2024 05:08 Zambrah wrote: I hear France's left party had a victory and the far right party had a failure, once more I am in admiration of France and wish that brand of French energy would pervade everywhere else
France has a system where they can get 3-way run-offs, and over half of constituencies would have been in that situation. But in over 2/3 of those the 3rd place withdrew to help the non-RN candindate win. So I guess props to all the other parties for compromising to defeat the far right, but it was very much a tactical win rather than an ideological one.
35-ish percent of the French electorate being far right is anything but praise worthy, shit's not looking good for the future, with an aging local population increasingly bitter about immigration and a climate change migration crisis looming over the horizon.
On July 08 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote: Unbelievable fail for Emmanuel, I can't lie I knew what he did was risky but I didn't think it would fail this hard
Wasn't the whole point to head off a far right victory? If that succeeded how did it fail hard? Yes his own party lost a lot but that was always expected to happen, whether the election was today or a year from now. (I don't know when there would normally have been elections if Macron didn't call one early)
Macron has spent pretty much the last five years legitimizing the far right and delegitimizing the left. He wants to represent the leftist option against the far right, in the same way that Democrats crush the left and then present as the only option vs Republicans, or Starmer does in the UK. Having the left win instead means his efforts to realign France as a center vs far right party have all been in vain so far, and so even though there's definitely danger in the future still this is still a good opportunity to say: "Cheh!"
Shockingly strong result for the left and the Republican Front. However, for context: the far-right went from having around 10 seats in the National Assembly to having 40 in 2022 and now 140 after yesterday. So however you frame it, it seems very much like a Pyrrhic victory.
The predominant narrative in the French media (I mainly read Le Monde, center left, and listen to some debates) is that the rise of the far-right is Macron's fault for "legitimizing" them. In short, this means that he's talking about problems of unrest in the suburbs, Islamic terrorism, and other things related to migration.
I don't agree with that interpretation. If the established media and the established parties are going to continue to try to sweep these problems under the rug, it will only benefit the far-right.
Similarly, right now the elections are a choice between the far-right and the rest (the Republican front). The Assembly as it stands now will have to resort to an Ampel-coalition like compromise, which no-one likes, or a left-leaning government, which the overwhelmingly right-leaning population in France won't like. That's a dynamic that can win in the shot-term, but I doubt it will be effective for long.
On July 08 2024 16:15 Elroi wrote: Shockingly strong result for the left and the Republican Front. However, for context: the far-right went from having around 10 seats in the National Assembly to having 40 in 2022 and now 140 after yesterday. So however you frame it, it seems very much like a Pyrrhic victory.
The predominant narrative in the French media (I mainly read Le Monde, center left, and listen to some debates) is that the rise of the far-right is Macron's fault for "legitimizing" them. In short, this means that he's talking about problems of unrest in the suburbs, Islamic terrorism, and other things related to migration.
I don't agree with that interpretation. If the established media and the established parties are going to continue to try to sweep these problems under the rug, it will only benefit the far-right.
Similarly, right now the elections are a choice between the far-right and the rest (the Republican front). That's a dynamic that can win in the shot-term, but I doubt it will be effective for long.
I believe it’s somewhere in the middle of those two explanations. Or at least broadly across Europe it is, I can’t speak for Macron specifically as I’m not intimately familiar with his rhetorical style.
I agree with you that ignoring the sentiment of large swathes of the populace on certain issues means that they’ll fester, and eventually find an inevitable outlet valve in the far right.
Equally, it’s how you address dealing with those political hot potatoes that’s also extremely important. If you start to pivot right, be it in policy or adopting their phraseology, you shift the Overton window in that direction. Or alternatively, if you’re a long-serving part of the political establishment who hasn’t addressed these concerns for considerable periods of time, I think electorates can smell the opportunism in such pivots. Why not just vote with the people who, like them or loathe them have a long track record of having genuine political convictions in these domains. Once the more traditionally centre-right Dutch parties started aping Geert Wilders for example, lo and behold he and his party start making breakthroughs.
And to add to the whole thing, there’s a lot more overlap between aspects of the left, or traditional left-wing voting blocs and the far right than many acknowledge. So the ground is somewhat set for quite volatile shifts from what we’re used to in relatively short periods of time.
Be it on the EU as an institution, or social issues versus economic conditions a lot of folks are caught between a rock and a hard place so to speak, especially in countries without much of a ‘genuine’ left wing option. Be it Labour in the UK struggling in previous traditional heartlands over the European issue, or a more wider-spread economic struggle in people’s day-to-day. The failure of many of Europe’s centre-left to address the latter, and a focus on ‘woke issues’ instead (even if just an issue of perception), not addressing issues you’ve mentioned and a far-right that says it will change those things sees plenty going to those shores, even if reluctantly.
On July 08 2024 16:15 Elroi wrote: Shockingly strong result for the left and the Republican Front. However, for context: the far-right went from having around 10 seats in the National Assembly to having 40 in 2022 and now 140 after yesterday. So however you frame it, it seems very much like a Pyrrhic victory.
The predominant narrative in the French media (I mainly read Le Monde, center left, and listen to some debates) is that the rise of the far-right is Macron's fault for "legitimizing" them. In short, this means that he's talking about problems of unrest in the suburbs, Islamic terrorism, and other things related to migration.
I don't agree with that interpretation. If the established media and the established parties are going to continue to try to sweep these problems under the rug, it will only benefit the far-right.
Similarly, right now the elections are a choice between the far-right and the rest (the Republican front). The Assembly as it stands now will have to resort to an Ampel-coalition like compromise, which no-one likes, or a left-leaning government, which the overwhelmingly right-leaning population in France won't like. That's a dynamic that can win in the shot-term, but I doubt it will be effective for long.
Talking about immigration and saying that Le Pen is too weak and should take some vitamins is a problem, I agree, but I don't think your "in short" is a very apt summary of how much they propped the far right. There was a very large coordinated campaign to try and dispell the notion that racism plays a role in voting for the far right, and instead if you vote for the far right it's more because you're a poor, sad individual who was left behind by globalization and is looking for an outlet to voice your discontent. It isn't shameful to be this person, so when you frame it like this, there's no reason why you should have an issue with voting far right.
The media figure of Colombe was representative of this push, Colombe is this poor nursing assistant who is on benefits and is just really at the end of the rope, she can't take it anymore, that's why she votes far right... But also Colombe voted for the far right in 1990 when Le Pen Senior was openly talking about race inequality and the jewish question, so here's my theory maybe she's a bit of a racist?
On top of that every media invites far right candidates and representants all the time, and ask deep questions like "Are you racist?" so that they can answer "No, and the left is evil for saying I am" to no counterargument.
Contrast that with how they painted the left, a bunch of jew-hating antirepublican extremists who hate France... Islamoleftism, a genuine-ass far right conspiracy theory similar to judeo-bolshevism in which leftists, academicians and islamists are allied to destroy France, made it in the speeches of several ministers and was quoted positively by the then minister of Education. And when LFI makes it to macronist media, let alone CNews and other far right media, the questions are more like "There are so many antisemites in your party, why do you hate Jews so much?" There's no comparison between this treatment and the softballs that Bardella gets.
So, yeah... It is very clear that Le Monde is correct in their analysis.
Edit: ultimately Emmanuel's miscalculation was that he thought the socialist party would join the centrist alliance and not the leftist one, in which case his coalition would have been the largest and he would have been able to cement his role much in the same way as Starmer's labour or the Democrats in the States. So really on this one Olivier Faure is MVP by a mile.
EPT
