CNN: Europe’s center ground is shifting further to the right

[IceJad]

What I hate about modern day "western" politics are the identity politics they enjoy playing. Labeling people as right, left and center. And then putting in characteristics of each side as though there is no nuance to it.

You voted for the right therefore you must be anti-LBGT, anti immigration, nationalist and pro-traditions. You voted for the left therefore you must be pro-LBGT, for immigration, globalist and pro-diversity. That is where those who believe in a simplistic version of voting habit failed. That's why I watch an increase of news articles about "the right rising". Seldom do they understand that people just wanted change. Many are not ideological.

Ideological people can't wrap their heads around non-partisanship. You didn't vote the way I want? You must be fascist or communist. It can't be the current government screwed up the country badly and we just wanted a change.

The media likes to play up the bogeyman factor. Beware! Far-right on the rise! Fascism will return! Nazi! Liberal democratic values will parish! Europe is turning authoritarian! We can all look back at this post in 5 years and if Europe turns out the way the media says, I'll officially delete my account here.

 

[trophy33]

Media like to play up the bogeyman factor. Beware! Far-right on the rise! Fascism will return! Nazi!

Well, calling fascism or nazism far-right is nonsensical. Those are extreme forms of socialism, like communism.

The extreme form of the right would be anarchism. But surprisingly, it is commonly called far-left. Quite a mess.

 

[IceJad]

Well, calling fascism or nazism far-right is nonsensical. They are extreme forms of socialism, like communism.

The extreme form of the right would be anarchism. But surprisingly, it is commonly called far-left. Quite a mess.

Yes I have heard that argument. In fact Nazi full name has the word socialist in it. You're also correct that the extreme right would actually be anarchism which as you said is more identified by the Left label today. Indeed it is quite a mess.

People just don't like to think too deeply unfortunately.

 

[Nithavela]

Fallacy, which democratic European country has experience that? Which example you can provide?

Hungary and Poland (I know that the PIS party got voted out, but the supression of the opposition and any free press was very real and the current ruling party is still having to work hard to dismantle it) are the most current examples. Maybe they haven't completely abolished democracy yet, but they have stacked the deck so far in their favour that their countries can no longer be seen as a functional democracy.

Historically, Germany is an example, with the NSDAP killing any kind of democracy in their first year of government. There are leading members of the AfD on record who are already planning for ways to bring that one back.

AfD-Mann will "Parteienstaat abschaffen"

Der Brandenburger AfD-Abgeordnete Hünich fordert, den "Parteienstaat" abzuschaffen - zu sehen im ZDF. Der Verfassungsschutz ist alarmiert.

www-zdf-de.translate.goog

And of course the far left also can exhibit similiar behaviour, so please leave the whataboutisms about left authoritarian governments at the door.

 

[RDKirk]

Except that the far right has the bad habit of not allowing people to vote them out of office once they obtain it.

You mean like Macron dissolving Parliament?

 

[RDKirk]

And of course the far left also can exhibit similiar behaviour, so please leave the whataboutisms about left authoritarian governments at the door.

So, why did you make that statement about the far right in the first place?

Reminds me of a caveat the CIA often made in their intelligence assessments in my day. Used to drive me crazy: "The possibility of the converse cannot be discounted." Any of my commanders would have kicked me out of the room if I'd finished an intelligence briefing with a statement like that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, calling fascism or nazism far-right is nonsensical. Those are extreme forms of socialism, like communism.

The extreme form of the right would be anarchism. But surprisingly, it is commonly called far-left. Quite a mess.

Anarcho-capitalism is on the right. Anarcho-syndicalism tends to be on the left.

Fascism was actually an authoritarian centrist ideology that combined elements of both left and right. It also was a mess of contradictions, and was more of an aesthetic gesture than a coherent ideology.

 

[RDKirk]

You voted for the right therefore you must be anti-LBGT, anti immigration, nationalist and pro-traditions. You voted for the left therefore you must be pro-LBGT, for immigration, globalist and pro-diversity. That is where those who believe in a simplistic version of voting habit failed. That's why I watch an increase of news articles about "the right rising". Seldom do they understand that people just wanted change. Many are not ideological.

While I agree with your statement, in the US this works the other way around. You are far right if you are for any one of the following: anti-LBGT, anti-immigration, nationalist, or traditionalist. If you are far left for any one of the following: LBGT, immigration, globalism, or diversity.

 

[BCP1928]

While I agree with your statement, in the US this works the other way around. You are far right if you are for any one of the following: anti-LBGT, anti-immigration, nationalist, or traditionalist. If you are far left for any one of the following: LBGT, immigration, globalism, or diversity.

It's the "one drop" rule.

 

[Nithavela]

So, why did you make that statement about the far right in the first place?

Because the thread is about the far right.

 

[Nithavela]

You mean like Macron dissolving Parliament?

Macron is not a far right politician.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While I agree with your statement, in the US this works the other way around. You are far right if you are for any one of the following: anti-LBGT, anti-immigration, nationalist, or traditionalist. If you are far left for any one of the following: LBGT, immigration, globalism, or diversity.

Within the framework of the US two-party system, when you vote for one you are, in essence, voting for the rest by proxy.

For instance, if one is so passionate about one of the topics that they're willing to vote for a person/party that's holding some views considered to be "undesirable" (by the other team, even if the label isn't entirely accurate) on the other issues, it tends to signal one of two things to the other team.

1) That the person also holds those other views
2) That the person is aware of those other views, but doesn't doesn't see them as a deal-breaker.

...which, I understand how that puts people in a rather tough spot. They want to vote based on the issue(s) most important to them, but if the person they're voting for has baggage, in terms of perceptions by the other team, people are basically choosing to between being viewed as "bad" or at best "apathetic".


That introduces ideological question of "How bad does the person, who agrees with me on Issue A, have to be on the other things, that it'd actually get me to vote against them and pick the other team?"

 

[RDKirk]

Macron is not a far right politician.

That's my point.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's my point.

What I was touching on earlier is that certain things that wouldn't be considered "far-right" by US standards, perhaps would be in some Euro countries compared to where their respective countries have been on certain issues for the past decades.

I think the earliest "high profile" iteration of the kind of thing I'm talking about was Nigel Farage. He's considered "far-right" by progressives in Britain. But if you were inject him into the US political landscape, he certainly wouldn't be "far-right", he'd probably be somewhere near our "center" if you look at his positions on certain issues.

Much in the same way that many of our "conservative/right" politicians would be considered quite progressive on some of the social issues if injected into the political spectrum of a region like the Middle East.

 

[Pommer]

Anarcho-capitalism is on the right. Anarcho-syndicalism tends to be on the left.

Fascism was actually an authoritarian centrist ideology that combined elements of both left and right. It also was a mess of contradictions, and was more of an aesthetic gesture than a coherent ideology.

Fascism requires a “National mythos” per Il Duce, as a central tenet.

 

[RDKirk]

Fascism requires a “National mythos” per Il Duce, as a central tenet.

As defined by the fascists themselves, there must be a national mythos that is embodied within a single "inspired individual." If you don't have that inspired individual, it's some other kind of authoritarianism, not fascism.

 

[FireDragon76]

Fascism requires a “National mythos” per Il Duce, as a central tenet.

Sure, but all historical Fascist movements have more or less been center-right authoritarians. Making a new myth, even a national one, is actually quite radical, especially as many European conservatives, who felt forced into a corner to back Hitler, at the time were rooted in a transnational notion of "Christendom".

Remember, Fascists hated traditional religion, and only saw the religious institutions as empty shell to use for their ideology. They weren't conserving much, if any. The Nazis threw out most of the old Protestant hymns, replaced several with hymns to Blood and Soil, and they completely abrogated most of the Bible, because it was Jewish (one thing that Bonhoeffer did, in a dialectical move, was to reassert the revelation of God to the Jews, and to ponder whether true Christianity really needed some of the promises in the New Testament, like otherworldly salvation).

 

[BCP1928]

What I hate about modern day "western" politics are the identity politics they enjoy playing. Labeling people as right, left and center. And then putting in characteristics of each side as though there is no nuance to it.

You voted for the right therefore you must be anti-LBGT, anti immigration, nationalist and pro-traditions. You voted for the left therefore you must be pro-LBGT, for immigration, globalist and pro-diversity. That is where those who believe in a simplistic version of voting habit failed. That's why I watch an increase of news articles about "the right rising". Seldom do they understand that people just wanted change. Many are not ideological.

Ideological people can't wrap their heads around non-partisanship. You didn't vote the way I want? You must be fascist or communist. It can't be the current government screwed up the country badly and we just wanted a change.

The media likes to play up the bogeyman factor. Beware! Far-right on the rise! Fascism will return! Nazi! Liberal democratic values will parish! Europe is turning authoritarian! We can all look back at this post in 5 years and if Europe turns out the way the media says, I'll officially delete my account here.

Part of the problem arises from the fact that the issues you mention (you forgot gun control and global warming ) are portrayed as Christian issues. Thus, the Right is pro-Christian and the Left are all anti-Christian atheists. That can turn manichaean really fast.

 

[Nithavela]

That's my point.

Then why bring him up in a thread about the far right?

 

[IceJad]

Part of the problem arises from the fact that the issues you mention (you forgot gun control and global warming ) are portrayed as Christian issues. Thus, the Right is pro-Christian and the Left are all anti-Christian atheists. That can turn manichaean really fast.

You will have to give proof of that. Many right wing European parties don't run on a religious platform neither did they frame their struggle as such either. They may agree more with traditional religious values (values shared by other religions as well not just Christianity) but I have never seen a speech framing it as Christian vs non-Christian. It is more nationalism vs collectivism. Eurosceptic vs Eurocentric.

In fact many more centrist and center left leaning parties openly call themselves Christians like Germany's Christian Democrats. Which despite labeling themselves as center right have been more center left in policies especially under Merkel. In fact the far-right like Germany's AFD is more ethnocentric than religious centric in their policies.