The rise of right populism

[UNLEASH IT]

I dunno, the media played a part but I think the beginning of the end was when it came to light that the DNC snubbed Sanders in favour of their chosen one Hillary.

I also think that this played a major part. And it's not just the fact that they snubbed him, it's the way in which they did it as well.

Edited November 11, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Res]

Yeah, I was looking more at the majority who voted for Trump because he is leading the Republican Party rather than at the portion who switched their votes to Trump.

Also; I think it's worth looking at the difference between calling his supporters (or anyone) racist, which is contentious and is going to receive a (rightly) knee-jerk reaction, and talking about ways in which systemic racism is upheld (which a LOT of us, people on the left included, are responsible for).

For example: People supported Trump's wall, which is proposed for the Mexican border, but not the Canadian one. This is despite more Mexicans having left the U.S. between '09 and '14 than having entered it. This is despite many illegal immigrants entering through the Canada border, with Michigan being a hotspot according to usimmigration.com. I'm an immigrant, but I'm white, and my legal status has never been questioned, yet I have an obviously foreign accent.

Or how about how the perceived terrorist threat is seen as coming from the Muslim community, when more white men have committed terrorism on U.S. soil?

[Time the Crestfallen]

Yeah, I was looking more at the majority who voted for Trump because he is leading the Republican Party rather than at the portion who switched their votes to Trump.

Also; I think it's worth looking at the difference between calling his supporters (or anyone) racist, which is contentious and is going to receive a (rightly) knee-jerk reaction, and talking about ways in which systemic racism is upheld (which a LOT of us, people on the left included, are responsible for).

For example: People supported Trump's wall, which is proposed for the Mexican border, but not the Canadian one. This is despite more Mexicans having left the U.S. between '09 and '14 than having entered it. This is despite many illegal immigrants entering through the Canada border, with Michigan being a hotspot according to usimmigration.com. I'm an immigrant, but I'm white, and my legal status has never been questioned, yet I have an obviously foreign accent.

Or how about how the perceived terrorist threat is seen as coming from the Muslim community, when more white men have committed terrorism on U.S. soil?

For the sake of fairness, that was before July 2015 if I recall correctly. Islamic terrorism has overtaken right-wing extremism and home-grown terrorism in terms of fatalities recently.

[Res]

What about number of perpetrators, though? I'm trying to find non-biased (as much as possible) data but data from post-July 2015 is thin on the ground. I have no doubt you are right about fatalities.

[Pride]

I've thought of quite a bit to say but I probably won't have the opportunity to write it all up until tomorrow so I'll ask a similar question to what I asked Life, albeit for different reasons: given that polls haven't really indicated that people voted for Trump for primarily economic reasons, are they really lashing out and for what reason - what are they being denied/threatened by?

I do maintain that I'm seeing systemic/unconscious racism/religious (abortion/anti-gay marriage) reasons more than economic and I'm also seeing that for many, it wasn't so much a vote of protest as a vote of ordinary republicanism above all else.

That is to say, I'm not really seeing the extremism - just the usual conservatism.

I also don't think BLM is an apt comparison but that's a whoooole other discussion. :)

No this was anything but usual conservatism. Trump split the party very intensely, Republicans at all levels of the party broke away from it just because of his personality. The people that won Trump the election (working-class whites) voted him because he is the first candidate in a long time to speak directly to them, by making a sell for bringing manufaturing jobs back by any means necessary. The republican party has long catered to these voters via their stances on social views but I believe that is a misunderstanding of what the working-class white demographic prioritizes. Are they generally anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, etc? Yes. But are those things the most important things to them? I think this election showed us that it is not, that they feel far more threatened by the economic shift away from local production that has not been addressed in decades than whatever social issues progressives consider to be the most important items of the day.

The elements UNLEASH IT brought up are important too. The culture of American liberalism has proven to be dehumanizing in its own way toward opposition, and it's not surprising that when you mock a group long enough as backwards ignorant rednecks, they get a bit upset.

I voted Clinton because I believe that Trump's policies will not return manufacturing jobs to the US, or really accomplish anything he promised. I think the country is in too deep as a consumer economy, but

what do i know

i live in a california suburb where the job market is mostly warehouse work

i dont really know shit about manufacturing or what its like in these areas that voted trump

so maybe they saw something in his promises that i didnt

[Balcerzak]

I read that article yesterday and was really liking it up until it turned smug itself (the last 6th or so) and painted disenfranchised Trump voters as being poor and country, which the polls are disproving.

But yeah, I'll be aiming to be more politically active!

If polls weren't accurate before the election (Hillary broadly painted as favorite) why are the exit polls suddenly now trustworthy? Especially about income. I never tell the truth on polls when they ask my income, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that.

[Time the Crestfallen]

If polls weren't accurate before the election (Hillary broadly painted as favorite) why are the exit polls suddenly now trustworthy? Especially about income. I never tell the truth on polls when they ask my income, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that.

Between this election and Brexit, I will never trust another poll again. I've already been skeptical, but my God...

[Res]

The republican party has long catered to these voters via their stances on social views but I believe that is a misunderstanding of what the working-class white demographic prioritizes. Are they generally anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, etc? Yes. But are those things the most important things to them? I think this election showed us that it is not, that they feel far more threatened by the economic shift away from local production that has not been addressed in decades than whatever social issues progressives consider to be the most important items of the day.

As a working class white, I can understand, even empathize, and yet not agree. I think it'd be easier if I'd seen even one fellow working class white actually say, 'shit, I'm unemployed and I'm voting for Trump because he's promised to revitalize domestic production work'. Instead the only place I continue to see that said are in opinion articles taking guesses at why the working white class voted Trump.

And the phrasing of the last sentence is pretty dismissive; those are social issues that actually are pretty important to many people, not just a trend.

The elements UNLEASH IT brought up are important too. The culture of American liberalism has proven to be dehumanizing in its own way toward opposition, and it's not surprising that when you mock a group long enough as backwards ignorant rednecks, they get a bit upset.

I've acknowledged the elements UNLEASH IT has brought up several times in the past couple of days; I agree with them and I definitely don't condone insulting the opposition. The same with any direct, impenitent attacks on Trump or Melania (for example, the nude statue of Trump paraded around cities and mentions of Melania's model past - neither are acceptable).

At the same time, the insults aren't wholly responsible for actual physical, racial attacks.

If polls weren't accurate before the election (Hillary broadly painted as favorite) why are the exit polls suddenly now trustworthy? Especially about income. I never tell the truth on polls when they ask my income, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that.

True; they're not necessarily trustworthy, and people lie. However, the statistics are borne out from what I've seen personally (Trump supporters with a higher income than mine).

[Irysa]

I agree that racists formed a major portion of Trump supporters, but I still feel like the idea portrayed in the media that every Trump supporter was a racist has led us to where we are at the moment and if we continue with this mindset, he can very well win a second term.

Mindset isn't the problem, the problem is not sugar-coating it. Indifference to the negative connotations of Trump upon ethnic minorities is effectively supporting racism, even if those individuals don't actively persecute others.

Even if you want to talk about intent, the alternatives don't look great either; People have such intense reality distortion fields that they legitimately can't see the negative connotations? People legitimately weighed up the pros and cons and decided the negative connotations were not significant enough to change their choice? These are pretty troubling in their own right.

Basically, I agree that telling people they're racists isn't "helpful" but that doesn't mean you need to change your understanding of racism.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Irysa

[Pride]

As a working class white, I can understand, even empathize, and yet not agree. I think it'd be easier if I'd seen even one fellow working class white actually say, 'shit, I'm unemployed and I'm voting for Trump because he's promised to revitalize domestic production work'. Instead the only place I continue to see that said are in opinion articles taking guesses at why the working white class voted Trump.

And the phrasing of the last sentence is pretty dismissive; those are social issues that actually are pretty important to many people, not just a trend.

Then I bow to your insight on the matter. I'm not white, and I have spent more of my life out of the workforce than in it. I derived that opinion from articles like what you mentioned and interviews with people, mainly in the rust belt, and believe it because it seems like a more realistic explanation for why there was a large Trump turnout than the majority of nearly 60 million americans being racist, sexist or some combination thereof.

Perhaps that's naivete, but I'll keep from speaking on this until I've talked to several Trump supporters myself and come to a thorough understanding of why they voted the way they did.

[Res]

believe it because it seems like a more realistic explanation for why there was a large Trump turnout than the majority of nearly 60 million americans being racist, sexist or some combination thereof.

It's definitely the more palatable explanation! And it's not to say it isn't true for some... I just very much doubt it's true for the majority, unfortunately.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Between this election and Brexit, I will never trust another poll again. I've already been skeptical, but my God...

In both cases, the polls didn't miss by much, just 2-3 percentage points. (Looks like 2% in the case Clinton vs. Trump, just a critical 2% of course). You should always, always take polls with a grain of salt, even if you believe the pollster to be unbiased, because they do have a margin of error, and methodologies can be flawed. Actually, the polls likely missed by more in the 2012 US election (we'll see for sure once the final popular vote is tallied), it just didn't matter because all it did was turn a "narrow Obama victory" into a "clear Obama victory".

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/

The above is an excellent article on the subject.

[Life]

Uh, dude. You said transgender people forfeit their humanity (as one of the commonly understood pre-requisites for well... human rights) and even referred to yourself as bigoted in this regard when pushed on it. I don't think you're inherently homophobic, racist or sexist from what I've seen but that is a red flag for that particular thing. Whatever, I couldn't care less about the rest.

That's because I think that purposely throwing away your biological purpose in order to "feel better" means shedding your humanity.

​But I would never want to actually take away their rights. I've said that multiple times. I simply look at it from a biological viewpoint.

[Yojinbo]

Yeah, hate to invoke godwin here, but there's a reason why hitler's party was called national socialists. fascism is all about reappropriating left-wing rhetoric to get the same kind of popular support, but it does the opposite of liberating and scapegoats minorities and poor people instead of the people actually doing the exploiting.

not saying trump is literally fascist, but at the same time i'm not interested in getting bogged down in the details here because the broader point about far right populist movements remains the same.

No need to call yourself out on bringing in godwin when you're spot-on. Hitler himself said -in a speech in 1927- that the NSDAP party considers ifself socialist and that they reject the capitalist world-order, which according to them was represented by the Jews and their slavic, bolschewist co-conspirers in the USSR.

The danger in socialism lies in its collectivist nature, a trait it shares with racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism and nearly every religion out there. That's why it's so important to stress the differences between socialism and social democracy - social democracy seeks to balance the individual rights of a liberal, constitutional democracy's citizens with the collective's need for fair distribution of wealth among those who perform the labor that brings economic growth. Neglect the economic aspect of it and you'll end up with disastrous results like in maoist china. Neglect the social aspect and you'll run the risk of false prophets coming to power - Hitler, Lenin, Trump, Obama ... those are all people that got into their position of power by appealing to a dissatisfied crowd of people who were willing to go to a new extreme to bring attention to their social issues. If you're lucky enough you'll end up with a few broken promises but otherwise no harm done, as in Obama's case. If you're out of luck you'll end up in an authoritatian regime with all its potential threats, including genocide. The latter certainly won't happen under Trump, but I suspect that the amount of promises he will fail to keep is going to become an issue soon.

[Radiant head]

I'm actually fully Marxist and anti-capitalist (no love for the communist regimes though, I'm more anarchist/libertarian leaning) so going to disagree here though maybe this discussion is better for another thread. I think social democracy is absolutely a good thing and necessary right now which is why i supported bernie, but it ultimately leaves the same system of hierarchy and exploitation of capitalism in place, and history has shown that it wasn't sustainable after the post-war boom.

[Yojinbo]

I support social democracy and the soziale marktwirtschaft. The reason that it did't sustain, however, wasn't because the system is not inherently sustainable but because leading european social democrats in the 1990's - specifically Gerd Schröder and Tony Blair - failed to protect the common worker from globalization's negative impact on the domestic job market and it instead exposed them even further. That marked the moment european social democracy went into a coma, where it remains until today.

Edit: I also disagree that this subject belongs into a different thread. It's impossible to understand the rise of right-populism without knowing the history of social democracy.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Yojinbo

[Res]

Mindset isn't the problem, the problem is not sugar-coating it. Indifference to the negative connotations of Trump upon ethnic minorities is effectively supporting racism, even if those individuals don't actively persecute others.

Even if you want to talk about intent, the alternatives don't look great either; People have such intense reality distortion fields that they legitimately can't see the negative connotations? People legitimately weighed up the pros and cons and decided the negative connotations were not significant enough to change their choice? These are pretty troubling in their own right.

Basically, I agree that telling people they're racists isn't "helpful" but that doesn't mean you need to change your understanding of racism.

I feel this is really important; and it's a very eloquent post, thank you.

UNLEASH IT - I was linked this article this morning on the problem with liberalism. As I said, I've been struggling with the definition and I don't label myself as a liberal; also, not all leftists are liberals. It's a good read of the history of liberalism and I think you'll like it.

(It's not a complete criticism, and doesn't look at the past century - part 2 of the article is here, and discusses the parts of the book the article's author don't agree with.)

Edited November 11, 2016 by Res

[eclipse]

That's because I think that purposely throwing away your biological purpose in order to "feel better" means shedding your humanity.

​But I would never want to actually take away their rights. I've said that multiple times. I simply look at it from a biological viewpoint.

I will reserve judgment on this issue until there's more understanding in regards to how the brain works. Gender is a really tricky subject. We're still trying to understand depression, and that's a lot more common.

---

I've been doing my best to fight the overuse of labels, which I think is one of the indicators of the us-vs-them mindset. IMO the name-calling and shaming has been done on both sides, except the left lost this time. I think that if someone is so set against something that the thought of an opposing ideal being valid is alien to them, then they fall under this category - and the only difference is what they're supporting. The ends don't justify the means.

EDIT: . . .and switching two words totally changes the meaning of things. Who would've thunk?

Edited November 11, 2016 by eggclipse

[UNLEASH IT]

I will reserve judgment on this issue until there's more understanding in regards to how the brain works. Gender is a really tricky subject. We're still trying to understand depression, and that's a lot more common.

---

I've been doing my best to fight the overuse of labels, which I think is one of the indicators of the us-vs-them mindset. IMO the name-calling and shaming has been done on both sides, except the left lost this time. I think that if someone is so set against something that the thought of an opposing ideal being valid is alien to them, then they fall under this category - and the only difference is what they're supporting. The ends don't justify the means.

EDIT: . . .and switching two words totally changes the meaning of things. Who would've thunk?

I agree with this. We have to accept that some people are just against the things we believe and not have our first reply be "How could you?". Res, Irysa, etc. some people are just either against certain progressive values, apathetic to them or simply don't put them at the top of their list of concerns and it's something we need to come to terms with.

Edited November 11, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Crysta]

I don't really agree with that at all.

"How could you?" is a question worth asking especially if you have any true desire to have an understanding of someone's viewpoint which does not agree with yours. You may get to the conclusion that it is simply an ideological difference, but it is a conversation worth having.

[UNLEASH IT]

I don't really agree with that at all.

"How could you?" is a question worth asking especially if you have any true desire to have an understanding of someone's viewpoint which does not agree with yours. You may get to the conclusion that it is simply an ideological difference, but it is a conversation worth having.

Maybe I should have phrased that differently, because I can see where I worded that in an ambiguous way. You know how people say the phrase "How could you do X?" not really looking for an answer but rather as an expression of disbelief? That's really what I meant, and I apologise for wording it that way. So maybe "You're not serious?" and "Are you kidding me?" would be better expressions. Expressions that I actually see a lot in the media.

Edited November 11, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Radiant head]

I support social democracy and the soziale marktwirtschaft. The reason that it did't sustain, however, wasn't because the system is not inherently sustainable but because leading european social democrats in the 1990's - specifically Gerd Schröder and Tony Blair - failed to protect the common worker from globalization's negative impact on the domestic job market and it instead exposed them even further. That marked the moment european social democracy went into a coma, where it remains until today.

Edit: I also disagree that this subject belongs into a different thread. It's impossible to understand the rise of right-populism without knowing the history of social democracy.

it goes just beyond what certain politicians did though - you have to look at and analyze the actual material conditions that lead to the rise of centrist politics like new labour in those parties. social democracy was always a fragile compromise between the capitalist class and the labor class. the difference is that one side here had not only the desire to break that compromise and take that power, but also the actual means (money, control of the economy) to do so. things like the economic boom that supported all those welfare programs coming to an end and the globalization of labour killing the bargaining power of unions, etc. is what enabled that to happen.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Radiant head

[Irysa]

I agree with this. We have to accept that some people are just against the things we believe and not have our first reply be "How could you?". Res, Irysa, etc. some people are just either against certain progressive values, apathetic to them or simply don't put them at the top of their list of concerns and it's something we need to come to terms with.

I don't really know why you're directing this at me, because my earlier post in this thread outlines that specifically? That people either don't care, don't seem to understand so they lack the ability to care, or have somehow come to the conclusion that it's not a big deal. Are you trying to say that I shouldn't view this as a problem?

I mean, I've always understood people don't have the same concerns as I do, that's obvious. The main "difference" that has come to my attention these past few years is that a lot of common values I used to believe (take for granted even) that I shared with others...aren't.

Basically, whilst I haven't read Res's links entirely yet, I can see where they're going already since I've been thinking about this for a while now. Liberal values within liberal democracies have never really been taken to heart by the populace in the universal way that they're meant to apply. In reality, these values have been selectively applied to be relevant to one's collective. Most people, regardless of background or political leaning, are advocates for things like moderation, freedom, respect for the rule of law, openness and concern for others...as long as it benefits them and the people they identify with. Everyone's for freedom as long as it applies to their group, but especially moreso if that freedom enables them to fuck other groups they don't like over.

And don't get me wrong, it's not like there's no fault of liberals over this either. I think in general many people have just taken these things for granted and assumed that because there was some kind of shared understanding, that backlash to pushes for particular rights wouldn't be so opposed, and if they were, analogies and debate would help to clarify misgivings. We assumed we had a foot in the door already, and that we just needed to keep talking through it. The reality is that the people we thought we were engaging with had the door shut in our faces the whole time. We've failed to actually make the fundamental arguments for the universality of liberal principles and win people over to our starting premises, all that's ever really happened is that some folk got on board with stuff that sounds like it'll be good for now, and they can quite easily discard it when it no longer suits them.

When people of other idealogies spouted vaguely similar lingo about freedom and rights for their own purposes, we thought they shared something with us, but they didn't. They were just co-opting palatable ideas of the time.

So basically, yes, complacency is a big part of the problem, as has been talking down to people, but that didn't happen because of some hidden resentment amongst elites for workers or the poor or w/e. It's because of the mistake of thinking society believed in things that they never really believed in. Liberalism didn't change jack shit about people.

So, rather than approach politics as a matter of course, I think the left needs to decide if it wants to go for more directly confrontational and effective strategies such as all out class warfare (assuming they purge their upper echelons), or decide to try to reapproach the teaching of liberal values. I'm not terribly optimistic about the latter.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Irysa

[Yojinbo]

the difference is that one side here had not only the desire to break that compromise and take that power, but also the actual means (money, control of the economy) to do so [...]

Which, I argue, could've been prevented had leading social democrats done a better job at handling the changes that came along with globalization.

[peener weener]

That's because I think that purposely throwing away your biological purpose in order to "feel better" means shedding your humanity.

​But I would never want to actually take away their rights. I've said that multiple times. I simply look at it from a biological viewpoint.

that's not really a biological viewpoint, that's a philosophical viewpoint, don't get them confused

no such thing as purpose or meaning in biology, just chemical reactions