If you think the welfare states are the cause of this, I have something to tell you about the complexities of multiculturalism, austerity measures, the actual dismantling of the welfare state, late capitalism and historically unprecedented inequaltiy, racism, etc.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Right does better when a country is doing well from left wing policies?
- Thread starter Raitosaito
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If you think the welfare states are the cause of this, I have something to tell you about the complexities of multiculturalism, austerity measures, the actual dismantling of the welfare state, late capitalism and historically unprecedented inequaltiy, racism, etc.
Far right victory/power is not the same thing as far right support.
Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen are unlikely to have control in the Netherlands and France, but you cannot say that they don't have substantial support when they consistently have 20-30% support (and possibly more with Le Pen).
If the U.S. had an electoral system more like most of mainland Europe, I would bet that Trump would not be president right now.
And Trump still got considerably more than 20-30% of the votes. Didn't Trump get 46% against Hilarys 48% or something similar?
Not that this has anything to do with the point of the OP, which is the rather baseless assertion that wellfare politics leads to far right nationalism.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
And Trump still got considerably more than 20-30% of the votes. Didn't Trump get 46% against Hilarys 48% or something similar?
Not that this has anything to do with the point of the OP, which is the rather baseless assertion that wellfare politics leads to far right nationalism.
That was largely because of the two party system in the United States, which was exactly my point. If the U.S. had a multi-party system like most of mainland Europe, someone like Trump would receive support similar to Wilders and Le Pen. Which is still a lot, but it's not enough to win. (edit: it's not even just the 2 party system, by popular vote nationally he would've lost and if we had runoffs if no candidate was 50%+ he assuredly would have lost there too.)
You seem to have missed my point.
That was largely because of the two party system in the United States, which was exactly my point. If the U.S. had a multi-party system like most of mainland Europe, someone like Trump would receive support similar to Wilders and Le Pen. Which is still a lot, but it's not enough to win.
You seem to have missed my point.
That's just speculation, and in reality he still got 46% of the vote.
But either way, how does your point imply that wellfare policies lead to a rise in white nationalism? And if it doesn't, then what's the point of your point? Hrm.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
That's just speculation, and in reality he still got 46% of the vote.
But either way, how does your point imply that wellfare policies lead to a rise in white nationalism? And if it doesn't, then what's the point of your point? Hrm.
It is informed speculation, not totally baseless. Big difference.
And my point was in response to the person who said that the only places where the far right who saw success were the USA and the UK (in an effort to prove this study's thesis wrong). This is an inaccurate characterization of far right support globally. Just because Le Pen and Wilders don't gain control of government doesn't mean that far right support isn't prevalent in France and the Netherlands. It's the opposite - the parties of both Le Pen and Wilders are polling at the top in their respective countries. It's the electoral system that saves both France and the Netherlands.
I'm really not sure if you read my post at all. I made that point pretty clear.
It is informed speculation, not totally baseless. Big difference.
And my point was in response to the person who said that the only places where the far right who saw success were the USA and the UK (in an effort to prove this study's thesis wrong). This is an inaccurate characterization of far right support globally. Just because Le Pen and Wilders don't gain control of government doesn't mean that far right support isn't prevalent in France and the Netherlands. It's the opposite - the parties of both Le Pen and Wilders are polling at the top in their respective countries. It's the electoral system that saves both France and the Netherlands.
I'm really not sure if you read my post at all. I made that point pretty clear.
"Right-wingers are on the rise everywhere but there is no correlation with the size/power of the welfare state."
THAT was his point, and you didn't do anything to refute that. You just added some "informed speculation" that did absolutely nothing to prove the OP right.
El_Tiguere
Member
I'll never understand this election. The economy had recovered and we were finally out of open warfare after all that time. There were problems in certain parts of the country, sure, but how would electing a silver spoon billionaire real estate grifter who spoke like a 13 year old fix it? Even middle class white women, stable and doing well, believed a false narrative and willingly, enthusiastically voted against their own self interests and the stark reality in front of their lying eyes..
I don't get how people don't get that the economy DID NOT recover from the 2008 crisis for the bottom 80% even of Americans. Get your heads out of the S&P 500, and a recovery of jobs in wealthy liberal metros. 70% were still saying we were headed in the WRONG direction by 2016.
I'm not sure it has been posted yet, but THIS entire thing is how you unite Americans across ALL RACES and CLASSES against sleazebags like Trump and the GOP:
Chris Hayes joins Sen. Bernie Sanders in Trump Country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDyp4AN2Dw
Carpe Libertatem
Member
"Right-wingers are on the rise everywhere but there is no correlation with the size/power of the welfare state."
THAT was his point, and you didn't do anything to refute that. You just added some "informed speculation" that did absolutely nothing to prove the OP right.
Their evidence for that was that the far right has only experienced support (or conflated support and success) in the U.S. and the UK, which is not true. Support and success are not the same thing.
Their evidence for that was that the far right has only experienced support (or conflated support and success) in the U.S. and the UK, which is not true. Support and success are not the same thing.
The claim is that a big welfare state means a rise in white nationalism. That is completely baseless and has nothing to do with reality, as the success of Trump proves emphatically because whatever you say to downplay it, he still got 46% of the votes. That is fact. Speculation that he would have gotten less in a parliamentary system might or might not be true, but adds little of value to the original claim.
There are additionaly many more wellfare states in the world that disproves the assertion stated in the OP much more clearly than France and the Netherlands.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
No amount of assistance would have stopped the "fallout" effect- globalization hit Detroit super hard. The issue was helping the people who couldn't avoid it, and in that we've utterly failed.
This is wrong. Germany is a very strong counter-example.
According to Geoghegan, "Since 2003, it's not China but Germany, that colossus of European socialism, that has either led the world in export sales or at least been tied for first. Even as we in the United States fall more deeply into the clutches of our foreign creditors -- China foremost among them -- Germany has somehow managed to create a high-wage, unionized economy without shipping all its jobs abroad or creating a massive trade deficit, or any trade deficit at all. And even as the Germans outsell the United States, they manage to take six weeks of vacation every year. They're beating us with one hand tied behind their back."
http://www.alternet.org/economy/why-germany-has-it-so-much-better-us
Disclaimer: Germany ain't socialist
So we have two examples that aren't stronger movements than the Trump "make america great" movement, and most likely never will be. Hardly a convincing argument on how left wing wellfare politics gives a rise in far right sentiments.
I don't feel that this is a fair comparison. The US has a two-party system, so the Republican party has more of a broad spectrum from right-leaning to far right, whereas The National Front is far right at its core.
If you think the welfare states are the cause of this, I have something to tell you about the complexities of multiculturalism, austerity measures, the actual dismantling of the welfare state, late capitalism and historically unprecedented inequaltiy, racism, etc.
It's not my thesis, but to play devil's advocate, can't you link a lot of those issues you mentioned to the welfare state? For instance, I seen arguments that one of the challenges to integration in France is the generous unemployment system - the argument being that finding work is one thing that forces more inter-mixing and integration.
(Sidenote: "historically unprecedented racism"? Which planet's history are we talking about?)
The Last Wizard
Member
The line about white voters wanting to support programs to benefit White is exactly what LBJ was saying back in the 60s and people still don't realize this, history repeating itself is so damn true:/
It's not my thesis, but to play devil's advocate, can't you link a lot of those issues you mentioned to the welfare state? For instance, I seen arguments that one of the challenges to integration in France is the generous unemployment system - the argument being that finding work is one thing that forces more inter-mixing and integration.
Welfare states don't just shower people in money as soon as they are unemployed, you need to be constantly on the look out for new jobs and proof that you are actually doing this. Integration similarly has their own strings, i know for a fact on how it works in Finland and the amount of support refugees get to combat segregation more than generous.
Small groups are assigned personal caretakers that handle nearly all of their daily needs, be it transportation or translation and other mundane stuff like shopping with them in case they feel too scared to do it. At the same time they are obligated to go through a condensed version of our primary school that teaches language, mathematics and other basic skills that are legally required of all Finnish citizens. On top of that there is effort to arrange state-sponsored jobs for them. If this does not stop segregation then i don't know what does.
Now the reason why people are pissed at this and the right-wing is getting support is because while there is huge effort for integration, we are facing constant cuts on our own welfare programs and a failing economy. The left offers no solutions besides austerity that will only deepen the problem while the right sings fairytales of leaving the Eurozone and partly blaming leftist integration policies for wasting money.
There is a lot more to this, resentment for leftist parties giving money to Greece despite economic stagnation, propaganda and legitimate concern that foreigners are statistically more inclined to commit crimes and the lefts inability to confront this etc.
tl;dr: Economy is in shit and this is reflected in welfare policies and unemployment, hence we get right-wing rhetoric. Go figure. The idea that welfare is a root cause instead of economic stagnation is a myopic view.
Raitosaito
Member
If you think the welfare states are the cause of this, I have something to tell you about the complexities of multiculturalism, austerity measures, the actual dismantling of the welfare state, late capitalism and historically unprecedented inequaltiy, racism, etc.
I agree with all these points, and I believe the article even agrees with you on several of your statement addressing how the US is greatly different due to factors like more varied immigrant population, and long standing race issues.
He's just pointing out that successful welfare program in the US, and their rise in states where there's more whites seem to also directly correlate with increase numbers for Trump and Tea Party types.
Raitosaito
Member
Welfare states don't just shower people in money as soon as they are unemployed, you need to be constantly on the look out for new jobs and proof that you are actually doing this. Integration similarly has their own strings, i know for a fact on how it works in Finland and the amount of support refugees get to combat segregation more than generous.
Small groups are assigned personal caretakers that handle nearly all of their daily needs, be it transportation or translation and other mundane stuff like shopping with them in case they feel too scared to do it. At the same time they are obligated to go through a condensed version of our primary school that teaches language, mathematics and other basic skills that are legally required of all Finnish citizens. On top of that there is effort to arrange state-sponsored jobs for them. If this does not stop segregation then i don't know what does.
Now the reason why people are pissed at this and the right-wing is getting support is because while there is huge effort for integration, we are facing constant cuts on our own welfare programs and a failing economy. The left offers no solutions besides austerity that will only deepen the problem while the right sings fairytales of leaving the Eurozone and partly blaming leftist integration policies for wasting money.
tl;dr: Economy is in shit and this is reflected in welfare policies and unemployment, hence we get right-wing rhetoric. Go figure. The idea that welfare is a root cause instead of economic stagnation is a myopic view.
You kind of reaffirm the points made already then. Because citizens themselves are getting their program cuts, there's a growing group now that support Halla-aho, and then your left wing party at least base on your description is incompetent. Liberals do not have to be successful for existing progressive policies to be successful. If they're terrible at their job it just obviously multiples the underlying issues that already exist.
Edit: fudge double post. Sorry
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Welfare states don't just shower people in money as soon as they are unemployed, you need to be constantly on the look out for new jobs and proof that you are actually doing this. Integration similarly has their own strings, i know for a fact on how it works in Finland and the amount of support refugees get to combat segregation more than generous.
Small groups are assigned personal caretakers that handle nearly all of their daily needs, be it transportation or translation and other mundane stuff like shopping with them in case they feel too scared to do it. At the same time they are obligated to go through a condensed version of our primary school that teaches language, mathematics and other basic skills that are legally required of all Finnish citizens. On top of that there is effort to arrange state-sponsored jobs for them. If this does not stop segregation then i don't know what does.
Now the reason why people are pissed at this and the right-wing is getting support is because while there is huge effort for integration, we are facing constant cuts on our own welfare programs and a failing economy. The left offers no solutions besides austerity that will only deepen the problem while the right sings fairytales of leaving the Eurozone.
tl;dr: Economy is in shit and this is reflected in welfare policies and unemployment, hence we get right-wing rhetoric. Go figure. The idea that welfare is a root cause instead of economic prosperity is a myopic view.
Increasingly it seems like there's no alternative to a revolutionary left, even if an actual revolution isn't going to break out. Greece elected the "Coalition of the Radical Left" (SYRIZA) party to reject liberal austerity. But even this "radical" coalition was forced by German/French banks to make even deeper cuts. This was a punishment to show Left parties in Spain and elsewhere that there's no alternative to austerity.
The choice was between defaulting on the debt, withdrawing from the Eurozone, and essentially starting a domestic economy from scratch. Or capitulate to the terms of austerity and continue receiving an unsustainable bailout from the European banks.
SYRIZA called for a public referendum on whether to accept the terms, with the understanding that a 'No' vote meant exit from the Eurozone. 61% voted 'Oxi' (no).
However, the following week, SYRIZA kicked out their leftist finance minister Yannis Varoufakis. The party purged several high ranking advocates of exit, and the parliament voted to accept the austerity terms.
A year later, the Greek economy is in shambles, and they are forced to make even deeper cuts.
This is how far-right neonazis (Golden Dawn) could come to power. Greece has tried everything else. The liberals were rejected for their austerity policies. The "radical" left was unable to make a break with austerity. No revolutionary socialist party that would carry through exit is large enough to take power. European liberals have made reform impossible in Greece. So the far right is literally the only option remaining.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.