Lets not forget his admiration for a Nazi propagandist, and that horribly racist book he loves so much.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Right does better when a country is doing well from left wing policies?
- Thread starter Raitosaito
- Start date
- Status
reelbigtink
Member
I'd be willing to wager most of Detroit's problems came from local government gerrymandering along with the auto industry's unwillingness to adapt (until the bailout). The Flint water crisis, with Obama and the feds/EPA/FEMA trying their best to fix the problem, pushes me further down this line of thinking. Oh, and the new conservative regime who covet profiteering over human decency are now leading a campaign against the EPA there. You know, the one big federal agency which was trying to alleviate the situation.
Liberty4all
Banned
No doubt the municipal government was atrocious and corrupt too leading to the bankruptcy.
With that said Flint? That situation has dragged on forever. What exactly did Obama do to bring relief aside from empty words?
Raitosaito
Member
I kind of want to have a full discussion about your viewpoint, but it's hard when you discredit articles that have pretty through research put into it, and I feel like Vox tackles a lot of topics pretty fairly. I read a counter article to this one by another poster and I see the merit on some level also, but Zack Beauchamp backed up his point quite well. The whole piece has a lot of data points touching on the correlation, and you can agree or disagree. Putting blanket statements saying racism isn't a thing because we voted for "Obama" is probably just as ignorant as you claim this article to be. And it took less words to get there.
And I don't feel like Vox is that different to politico, they just seem to approach the topics in more laymen terms than politico.
Moving the goal post. It's local state issue, and evidence of the White House trying pretty damn hard to fix the issue through the channels that they can.
reelbigtink
Member
He declared a state of emergency which gave FEMA the go-ahead to intervene. This helped to bring in much-needed supplies like bottled water, testing facilities, etc. Also there was a $5 mil aid package attached to the declaration, though I feel that was nowhere near enough money.
Off the top of my head he provided millions of liters of clean water, filters, expanded health care, testing services, and signed an aid package of over $100,000,000 eventually. Declared a disaster allowing the relevent agencies to do their thing. Republican obstruction in the house specifically caused huge delays in aid packages the house needed to pass. They dragged their feet for most of the year. And the state government had issues trying to avoid giving water directly to people even after the scandals surounding the disaster came to light.
Yeah. About the money, Speaker Paul Ryan refused to take quick action in bringing aid packages to the floor for a vote. Told the Flint rep it had to go throigh the normal process, ignoring the emergency situation. It finally got passed in December, I think.
i'm somewhat confused as to why you need to do research on steve bannon when before you were adamant that he was in no way, shape or form a white nationalist. what information did you previously go off of to make that statement?
neurosisxeno
Member
And then upon taking a majority in January they ended all investigations into the Flint Water Crisis declaring that there was no wrong doing--despite numerous reports from multiple municipal government officials saying otherwise.
EatinOlives
Member
Indeed. It's a constant cycle of Democrats having to come in and fix everything that Republicans before them fucked up. Then the next Republican comes along and successfully sells people on the idea that 1) the fuckup was the Democrats' fault and 2) they'll be the REAL ones to fix it, only to take control and fuck shit up again.
Liberty4all
Banned
I was speaking more of Trump and his administration in general. Regardless lots of folks have presented ideas I'd like to stew over and research myself, in particular regarding Bannon.
As a right supporter, obviously I'm aware the left hates him although this thread is going into more specifics aside from a generalized "he's a racist". I'm going to as /r/askthe_donald for their take on Bannon to ensure I get a balanced viewpoint from both sides of the fence. Then I'm going to do some of my own research.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskThe_Donald/comments/5zaoxb/stance_on_bannon/
Anyone can post there but I'm interested to see how folks that support Trump respond.
I can't answer some of the accusations made regarding Bannon here, I admit I am not knowledgeable enough on the matter given some of the citated comments made here. I like to float between left and right political discussion boards to find some sort of balance.
How is it thorough research? Why isn't Canada in there? It's a western country with a generous welfare state so how did Trudeau get elected? Those data points are cherry picked and flimsily connected to support the author's weak idea. His overview of the rise of the right in a few countries is ridiculously brief. The author is preying on american/canadian reader's ignorance on the politics in europe which you and I know nothing about. I could do the same with science papers written by anti-global warming hacks. Vox is the same as all the blogger networks, but with a flashier layout. They're terribly written echo chambers driven by clicks that mislead liberals with poor research. Politico is decent. Stick to papers or magazines. At least they have standards.
Couldn't avoid it, huh? Odd, aren't cars being made in southern states? The dems are letting corporations move to the south or mexico and they aren't doing shit about it.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Ah, so that's why instead of offering condolences and outrage in the Quebec mosque shooting thread, regarding a terrorist attack that happened in your own country, the one and only post you made in that thread was to post a link to push the narrative that it was a Muslim and not the white nationalist that did the shooting?
The fact that you're a supporter of a white nationalist who's declared a Christian war against Muslims is likely just a misunderstanding. I'm sure.
Is it also because you like reading "the_donald", to get a "balanced view" of world events?
Yes, we're letting them move because that's how free enterprise works. Regulation isn't supposed to prevent unpopular business decisions from being made, just unethical/unsafe ones.
Liberty4all
Banned
To be honest I was embarrassed. I fully admit I assumed it was going to be another terrorist attack and I admit I fucked up posting an assumption it was a jihadi attack. What happened in Quebec was horrible and I condem it. I think anyone both left and right would do so.
Regarding the_donald , the subreddit offers an overall alternate world view I'm sure is anathema to your views. The president visited the subreddit several times. There's shitty posts there just like anywhere, and yes there are some outright racist posts that get justifiably downvoted or moderated. But overall the subreddit gives a good overall representation of how Trump supporters feel. There are people of all creeds, colours, sex and orientation on the_donald. All united in support of Trumps vision for America.
/r/askthe_donald is a subreddit dedicated to asking supporters of the President questions regarding why they support. The points raised here about Bannon are valid given the citations. I'm not an expert so I've asked to see what they say.
Raitosaito
Member
I think the article was arguing more that alt-right populism grows within these conditions, and not that it takes over our whole political idealogy for a nation (Trump didn't win the popular vote, he just gained more votes than we ever expected) It's just addressing the paradoxies of low income workers loving Obama care, but hate Obama and then votes Trump.
Trudeau winning doesn't cause any outlier because this group exist in Canada also, and the article goes to address the drastic difference where in America where we have pretty weak social nets while still suffering similar political outcome.
Also sources are pretty valid, citing also Arzheimer and Pippan Norris (one of the most renouned and sourced political scientists.) Now obviously political science is a social science, and data and hypotheses can be wrong, but the data is still being tackled with a scientific approach. That's why we're discussing in here what is all this data implying.
The whole argument is that people let liberal policies exist as part of their daily lives, and becoming almost invisible. Now when internally viewing their political ideals they often view it from the lens of race and other factors, and when viewing the information not actually care if the outcome is effecting them, but only if it negatively effects people of minority race. The Crux is how will Democrats reach out and message to these voters and let them understand that they are not voting in their interest. This whole time the discussion should be how we are framing the message when creating a counter populous movement as Bernie implies likely won't work. And if you're arguing that this point of the article is wrong I welcome a counter point because I actually want that so I know Dems have a ducking chance of winning base on this playbook.
This both side shit is so pointless. The_donald is obviously offering a different point of view, but so imbalance on any real substance or evidence you can discredit almost any post with an ounce of evidence.
Do you compare both sides world view when your read the NYT vs reading a blog by a 16 year old with no journalistic integrity? That's essentially what comparing our discussion here to what they do down at Trump's subreddit.
Liberty4all
Banned
I consider NYT to be completely biased, same as CNN, Mother Jones, Huffpost, Salon, and many others. The "fake/biased news" Trump is always talking about. So yes I look for alternate sources but I still do read the mainstream media.
I'm fully aware this is an unpopular opinion on GAF. I revealed my political viewpoints so we can talk about it. Ive been on GAF since 2005 and mostly on OT for the last few years. I don't consider myself racist, sexist, misogynistic or homophobic. Nor do I consider the president to be so, Trump summed up the movement very succinctly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHsZxJlxHYw <--- this is what we believe
Askthe_donald linked an interesting video dissecting Bannon by Stefan Molyneux.
I've watched a few of his videos, enough to know he would be as hated here/considered even worse than Bannon so no point in citating? I want to use sources that both sides find acceptable. It's getting harder every day to do so.
Raitosaito
Member
That was an analogy...
How did you extrapolate that to be "NYT is MSM bad!"? I wasn't talking about that, but let's address it anyways.
I'm saying people from that subreddit for Donald have about as much integrity in reporting correct information to you as a teenage boy would. The fact that you hold R_Donald opinion at the same level as NYT, which has insanely high journalistic standards blows my ducking mind to say the least. Read Al Jazeera too, the news reporting isn't that off the beaten path to NYT if you think it leans heavily Liberal.
I was listening to an interview with Eric Lipton (NYT reporter) on Trump's business. He's so nice and generous when talking about Trump Jr in his article and interview of Jr, and while it's one reporter I fail to see how the NYT overall attack Trump minus editorials. Lipton gave more leeway than I ever could on the "not so blind trust" when reporting on it.
I have great conversations with my conservative friends when they bring some real stuff to the table. I got nothing so far from this.
Liberty4all
Banned
I do read Al Jazeera. I try to read a broad range of news across the political spectrum both mainstream and independent. The problem I feel personally is that with the exception of Fox, the majority of mainstream media has a massive leftist slant. This is the reason why many on the right have moved to alternative media ... media not controlled by one of the very few conglomerates.
Edit: heading to the airport shortly and will only have intermittent internet access. Hopefully we can continue this discussion. I've often heard on GAF, "why why do they support him". "Oh they are too cowardly to come out in support". I'd argue most of "us" are gone by now or like me didn't want to deal with the pile ons, doxing and ad hominem attacks, sticking instead with Gaming side of the forums.
Regardless I'm willing to try to explain "why" from an average guys perspective and provide right counter arguments/talking points in political threads. Sure it won't be the best arguments, in fact I expect to be "blown away" in many. At least though it will provide some balance that's been sorely lacking.
So first the problem is that it's fake news, now it's that it's a leftist slant?
You do know that reality has a well known liberal bias?
Raitosaito
Member
What evil conglomerate does the NYT play to?
Vox?
Politico?
If any answer has the name Carlos and a last name Slim I'm out.
It's frustrating even having conversations because we move on from arguing one point where you present no evidence, and now we're just talking about something else altogether. I'm dead tired of this goal post moving.
You still haven't address why r_donald holds the same weight as any journalistic outlet.
Oh you too? Hi five
Liberty4all
Banned
The left likes to think so, yes.
The two big choices of 2016 proves this.
Convenient of you to respond to my joke and not my actual point.
I mean, I don't really think NeoGAF is missing out on all the white supremacist talking points. I feel like we do just fine without them. Most of the Trump supporters who are gone are gone because being an overt white supremacist tends to get you banned.
Aaron Strife
Banned
No one wants to admit that cutting everything (taxes and social services) to the bone is actually a dumb fucking idea, because then they'd be ceding the extra $5 they'd get per paycheck under a Republican tax cut plan, therefore Republicans will always have a rally effect after the Democrats "fix" our current problem (as best they can without being able to actually address the underlying issues, usually due to being hobbled by a hostile Congress).
The Democrat will get two years of a trifecta to solve everything, and then oh yeah, we really hate actual fucking progress being made, better elect a GOP Congress in the midterm to grind everything to a fucking halt. Fuck fuck fuckity.
The Democrat will get two years of a trifecta to solve everything, and then oh yeah, we really hate actual fucking progress being made, better elect a GOP Congress in the midterm to grind everything to a fucking halt. Fuck fuck fuckity.
Liberty4all
Banned
I am not a white supremacist. Nor are many Trump followers. The majority are nationalists at heart I think but not ethnic nationalists but civic nationalists -- two very different world views.
Sure there are crazy white nationalist groups that have hitched onto the Trump train. Both political parties have crazy fringe groups. But personally I believe the Trump movement to be about Civic Nationalism.
SliceSabre
Banned
This is why running on identity politics and talking about the plight of blacks, hispanics, gays and trans people will never win you an election unless you live in California or New York. And I say this as a black liberal.
An depressingly high amount of white people don't give a shit about those minority issues, hell they'll probably vote against you for focusing on them so much and this article says so to an extent. It is ok to be for those things but don't make it your main platform, it is one of those things you can more heavily promote once you get in the door.
Like how Republicans don't heavily run on tax cuts for the rich, gutting the safety net and tearing up clean air and water protections but certainly heavily promote said things once they get in the door.
An depressingly high amount of white people don't give a shit about those minority issues, hell they'll probably vote against you for focusing on them so much and this article says so to an extent. It is ok to be for those things but don't make it your main platform, it is one of those things you can more heavily promote once you get in the door.
Like how Republicans don't heavily run on tax cuts for the rich, gutting the safety net and tearing up clean air and water protections but certainly heavily promote said things once they get in the door.
Raitosaito
Member
Exactly.
And I'm not even saying Dems are perfect, and some ideas are bad to downright terrible in hindsight when implemented incorrectly, like the influx in huge trade deficits with China without some gradual safeguards causing almost overnight Jon displacement etc. But the policies have fact and data, with the intention of helping the American people. The average Dem isn't so entrenched in their political ideaology to overlook the outcome of those policies, and Obama himself wasn't even.
I mean, Obama tried to do evidence base policies, not idealogical, so yeah the Dems ducking try to do good.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/11/evidencebasedpolicymakingaguideforeffectivegovernment.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/05/obamas-budget-lays-out-an-ambitious-evidence-based-policy-agenda/
Then the million dollar question still is "What do we campaign on?"
Show me the myriad of things he has try to accomplish so far to serve this point.
travisbickle
Member
No way.
The "American Dream" version of the USA is about civic nationalism, Trump's "kick out Muslims and build a wall around Mexico" nationalism is ethnic, and he didn't hide it pre-election.
Lemmie help you
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...stration-alt-right-breitbart-chief-strategist
The problem between both(Trump, Bannon), if you don't think they are in their hearts racist, is that they have no problem trafficing in racism to accomplish their goals. Bannom with his racist-lite website with a section dedicated to 'Black crime' when a national debate about police brutality was happening, etc. Similar to Trump with what all sides agree is a useless wall but serves a symbolic purpose of keeping the 'other' out.
That's the problem with many on the far right. Are they full on nazi's? For many no. But what makes it dangerous is the language, attitude, etc is lock step with those abhorent beliefs...they just don't want to see it because being a nazi is of course bad, except when your argument is that it's about economics, etc.
There's also the elephant in the room is that the immigrants are the bad guys as opposed to the multinational corps who offshore jobs, rely on immigrant labor, etc. The solution is to basically give them what they want (deregulation, even more tax credits since most dont pay taxes through loopholes, etc) and hope they bring the jobs back? Its bizarre to me how they are portrayed as these damsels in distress under attack by unions, taxes...etc when if you really wanted to keep your "values" they would be the first under the fire simply based on the international nature of their business.
Elfotografoalocado
Banned
And how is ending trade, banning muslims and promoting hatred toward them, being a Russian spy and having huge conflicts of interest in a scandal worse than Watergate, attacking free speech, lying every day to their own people, unfoundedly claiming voter election, having a Nazi in the Security Council (illegally) unfunding Planned Parenthood, attacking LGBT+, trying to destroy the health system that covers dozens if millions of people and saves their lives daily, dismantling the EPA and bending down for the petrol companies, criminalizing mexicans, making people flee the country, (some of my best friends) attacking knowledge...
Patriotic in any fucking way? You Trump supporters hate Mexicans, you hate Blacks, and you don't want them in the same level as you. It's been proven time after time.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Hold on now, let's be accurate about things.
Bamelin doesn't hate Muslims. But the only thing he posted in a thread about a white nationalist terrorist attack againdt a mosque in his own country was that it was probably Muslims.
He also doesn't hate Mexicans, but he does believe an undocumented immigrant in the US for 20 years with a husband and five American kids being deported is a "refreshing deterrent" and is glad it's finally happening.
He doesn't have a problem with minorities, but when asked why he supports Steve Bannon, he offers up a story of how he was subjected to diet racism in school by minorities.
He doesn't like fake news like CNN, mother jones etc, that's why he frequent r/the_donald. Because the equal and opposite alternative of "left wing media" is effectively a Donald Trump fan site. After all, how can ANYONE know the full picture without the truly objective guidance of r/the Donald?
Let's keep things based on what we know.
It's funny though. You can show a person a stack of evidence that the chief editor of a news organisation who directly presides over its passive race based narrative is obviously quite okay with racism (even if you could somehow argue he wasn't himself), and their first instinct is not to conduct their own research, but to consult r/the_donald.....You know, so we can get to the unobstructed truth of the matter......
I can't even anymore
Elfotografoalocado
Banned
They say that in the US this very phenomenon is extremely skewed to the rightwing because of extreme racism. As in, it takes much less welfare for whites to be content with it and attack minorities and inmigrants.
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.
Democrats are going to have to clean up yet another GOP mess in four to six years, probably just to have history repeat itself. All I know is that I am moving my retirement funds to the most stable, risk averse options I can, and saving as much as I can.
Democrats are going to have to clean up yet another GOP mess in four to six years, probably just to have history repeat itself. All I know is that I am moving my retirement funds to the most stable, risk averse options I can, and saving as much as I can.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
My understanding of populism is that it's neither good or bad. Scholars disagree on the correct terminology, and the word has different meanings and connotations in the US and Europe and has changed course throughout the centuries.
As far as I can tell, the struggle between the populist politics of the popular politician talking "for the little guy" against the establishment was a fight fought back in rome. As the Elite struggled for power, the populist politicians who was favored by the people who wanted land reform, redistribution of grain and have their interest listened to in the senate, was countered by the conservative movement;
Couldn't you say that when a single-issue political party runs on abolishing slavery or giving womens rights to votes or fighting for worker rights or abortion, that that is a populist movement? You have a status quo where something is illegal, but the status quo changes its tune once enough people become in favor of the populist ideas.
With tentpole parties like the Democrats and Republicans, they've historically co-opted populist third party ideas once they got traction. The populists get their main single-issue causes represented by the establishment, and the tentpole party gets a lot of new people.
That essentially was the story of Bernie Sanders and the Democrats. Bernie Sanders has a movement and he uses that movement to squeeze the agenda. He doesn't give in and keep his bargaining chips close to his chest. Even when he cannot win he approaches the Democratic party and negotiates concessions. What can they give Bernie in terms of what he wants in favor of his support and the support of his voters? That's classical populist politics. That is how politicians exercise power and exercise influence.
It's why the first line of defense on both the republican and democratic side is always to wave the same air of: "unity, fall in line, vote for least worst party or we're doomed". And normally it works. Normally people will set aside their differences to not let the other side win- Until, like in 2016 when too many people have lost complete faith in the system and wanted to see the system burn.
So this struggle between the populist and status quo is as old as republics themselves. Because we human beings base our civilizations on hierarchy; meaning that some people are below others, and some people have more than others, and some people have more power than others, we seem destined to have this duality play out. Class warfare is impossible because we cannot be equal. It's simply beyond our comprehension or understanding, because greed, corruption and tunnel vision seems to cloud all attempts at equalizing. Flat structured societies to abolish classes have all failed. We might not like capitalism, but nobody has suggested any real alternative to it.
Is there a cause and correlation here? Without having looked into it specifically it seems self evident to me that many many countries with no real solid welfare state is deeply racist and discriminatory as well.
If it is the case that countries with robust welfare states have stronger far-right movements, might simply be a side effect of countries with strong welfare states tend to be countries with more opportunity and wealth?
I absolutely think that as long as there been borders- national states, that there has been a dislike of outsiders. Too many foreigners of any group is disliked. People who live in a place don't want that place being taken over. That doesn't mean if it's someone different coming into your village with new ideas or differences, or on the larger scale.
America has always tried to obstruct the movement of a mass amount of certain people. Benjamin Franklin was famous for thinking that there was way too many Germans. It was too many one of one specific group. At other times it was too many Irish, too many Chinese, too many Japanese, too many Italians.
And the fear has changed in dimension as well. Today the west is afraid of terrorists, but 50 years ago it was communists. 100 years ago, it feared anarchists. It was a massive worry. And going further back to the early beginning of the United States, even the french revolution and its call for liberty was seen as a threat to the American way of life that didn't want to have anything to do with the extremism of Europe and its monarchies.
So I don't think that you can blame far-right strength movement on the idea that having a welfare state is a breeding ground for strong far-right movements. Some of the worst shitshows with regards to welfare have some of the most hostile far-right movements.
In Europe it is clear- Just like it was at the dawn of fascism that economic depression makes people everywhere more conservative. It's when countries are doing bad that they become conservative. It's when people are suffering they go from "please don't eat too much of our pie to" too "get the fuck out of my country before you and your kin destroys everything we've build".
Far-right sentiments in Europe has grown since the late 90s, but it's not until 2008 at the recession (and the aftermath) that millions and millions of people had their lives, businesses and careers ruined in a way that didn't give anybody justice. This turned into anger and a populist idea that banks escape the law and control a lot of the worlds government through lobbying. Besides Island, virtually no countries managed to put irresponsible bankers, hedgefund creditors or real estate agencies into court for misuse, greed and incompetence.
Immigrants and minorities ALWAYS feel the wrath when things go bad. They are always the first to take the blame. People on the bottom cannot defend themselves and they are seen as taking up the most resources. from homeless, to alcoholics and abusers, to single mothers, to welfare recipients- all of those people are perceived as being bootstrap lacking lazy people.
As far as I can tell, the struggle between the populist politics of the popular politician talking "for the little guy" against the establishment was a fight fought back in rome. As the Elite struggled for power, the populist politicians who was favored by the people who wanted land reform, redistribution of grain and have their interest listened to in the senate, was countered by the conservative movement;
Couldn't you say that when a single-issue political party runs on abolishing slavery or giving womens rights to votes or fighting for worker rights or abortion, that that is a populist movement? You have a status quo where something is illegal, but the status quo changes its tune once enough people become in favor of the populist ideas.
With tentpole parties like the Democrats and Republicans, they've historically co-opted populist third party ideas once they got traction. The populists get their main single-issue causes represented by the establishment, and the tentpole party gets a lot of new people.
That essentially was the story of Bernie Sanders and the Democrats. Bernie Sanders has a movement and he uses that movement to squeeze the agenda. He doesn't give in and keep his bargaining chips close to his chest. Even when he cannot win he approaches the Democratic party and negotiates concessions. What can they give Bernie in terms of what he wants in favor of his support and the support of his voters? That's classical populist politics. That is how politicians exercise power and exercise influence.
It's why the first line of defense on both the republican and democratic side is always to wave the same air of: "unity, fall in line, vote for least worst party or we're doomed". And normally it works. Normally people will set aside their differences to not let the other side win- Until, like in 2016 when too many people have lost complete faith in the system and wanted to see the system burn.
So this struggle between the populist and status quo is as old as republics themselves. Because we human beings base our civilizations on hierarchy; meaning that some people are below others, and some people have more than others, and some people have more power than others, we seem destined to have this duality play out. Class warfare is impossible because we cannot be equal. It's simply beyond our comprehension or understanding, because greed, corruption and tunnel vision seems to cloud all attempts at equalizing. Flat structured societies to abolish classes have all failed. We might not like capitalism, but nobody has suggested any real alternative to it.
Is there a cause and correlation here? Without having looked into it specifically it seems self evident to me that many many countries with no real solid welfare state is deeply racist and discriminatory as well.
If it is the case that countries with robust welfare states have stronger far-right movements, might simply be a side effect of countries with strong welfare states tend to be countries with more opportunity and wealth?
I absolutely think that as long as there been borders- national states, that there has been a dislike of outsiders. Too many foreigners of any group is disliked. People who live in a place don't want that place being taken over. That doesn't mean if it's someone different coming into your village with new ideas or differences, or on the larger scale.
America has always tried to obstruct the movement of a mass amount of certain people. Benjamin Franklin was famous for thinking that there was way too many Germans. It was too many one of one specific group. At other times it was too many Irish, too many Chinese, too many Japanese, too many Italians.
And the fear has changed in dimension as well. Today the west is afraid of terrorists, but 50 years ago it was communists. 100 years ago, it feared anarchists. It was a massive worry. And going further back to the early beginning of the United States, even the french revolution and its call for liberty was seen as a threat to the American way of life that didn't want to have anything to do with the extremism of Europe and its monarchies.
So I don't think that you can blame far-right strength movement on the idea that having a welfare state is a breeding ground for strong far-right movements. Some of the worst shitshows with regards to welfare have some of the most hostile far-right movements.
In Europe it is clear- Just like it was at the dawn of fascism that economic depression makes people everywhere more conservative. It's when countries are doing bad that they become conservative. It's when people are suffering they go from "please don't eat too much of our pie to" too "get the fuck out of my country before you and your kin destroys everything we've build".
Far-right sentiments in Europe has grown since the late 90s, but it's not until 2008 at the recession (and the aftermath) that millions and millions of people had their lives, businesses and careers ruined in a way that didn't give anybody justice. This turned into anger and a populist idea that banks escape the law and control a lot of the worlds government through lobbying. Besides Island, virtually no countries managed to put irresponsible bankers, hedgefund creditors or real estate agencies into court for misuse, greed and incompetence.
Immigrants and minorities ALWAYS feel the wrath when things go bad. They are always the first to take the blame. People on the bottom cannot defend themselves and they are seen as taking up the most resources. from homeless, to alcoholics and abusers, to single mothers, to welfare recipients- all of those people are perceived as being bootstrap lacking lazy people.
Liberty4all
Banned
Whats wrong with asking the_donald exactly? Their opinions are about as unbiased as yours. At least it represents another point of view that won't get you piled on. To be fair the main subreddit the_donald is its own echo chamber but that's by choice - r/askthe_donald on the other hand was created specifically for debate and discourse.
As for everything else you are saying, that's fine, character assassination is par the course, I knew what I was getting into revealing my political beliefs. Yes I must be an evil racist who hates Muslims and Mexicans. Seriously that's where you are going with my coming out? I'm making a genuine effort at respectful discussion, but is it any wonder others don't bother knowing they will be demeaned, words twisted or misconstrued, character attacked.
Instead of attacking me, why not just debate and discuss? I'm willing to listen and offer counter arguments when I can. I'm reading the articles posted in this thread. I didn't know about the saints book thing.
Getting on a plane, will be out of wifi for 5 hours or more.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
These people are getting a solid salary to summarize what black folks been saying for decades.
Here is an easy way to put it, you dont care about the dirty rug when your house is on fire. Once the fire is put out then you can go back to worrying about the rug.
Here is an easy way to put it, you dont care about the dirty rug when your house is on fire. Once the fire is put out then you can go back to worrying about the rug.
Allow me to invoke my psychic powers to tell you that the author of this article was inspired to write it based on the recent rise of Marine Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, among others. While it is entirely possible they will not be elected, they have a plausible chance of winning, and they fit the model of far-right white nationalists better than Donald Trump does.
Umm when was the last time you went to Detroit? I go pretty much every week. Some areas look hollowed out, but Downtown is the most built up it's been in my 20+ years living in the metro Detroit area.
Also, let's talk about how white flight and the suburbs' unwillingness to work with Detroit. We could have regional Transit but the people in the suburbs don't wanna pay for something that would make it easier for those "scary Detroit people" to come to the suburbs.
plagiarize
Banned
Whats wrong with asking the_donald exactly? Their opinions are about as unbiased as yours. At least it represents another point of view that won't get you piled on. To be fair the main subreddit the_donald is its own echo chamber but that's by choice - r/askthe_donald on the other hand was created specifically for debate and discourse.
As for everything else you are saying, that's fine, character assassination is par the course, I knew what I was getting into revealing my political beliefs. Yes I must be an evil racist who hates Muslims and Mexicans. Seriously that's where you are going with my coming out? I'm making a genuine effort at respectful discussion, but is it any wonder others don't bother knowing they will be demeaned, words twisted or misconstrued, character attacked.
Instead of attacking me, why not just debate and discuss? I'm willing to listen and offer counter arguments when I can. I'm reading the articles posted in this thread. I didn't know about the saints book thing.
Getting on a plane, will be out of wifi for 5 hours or more.
Instead of complaining about being attacked, why not highlight the parts of his post you think are untrue or unfair and addressing the points?
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.
In Sweden the far right was polling at 3-4% when the Swedish left was focused on workers rights issues. When they started to shift to identity politics and pretty much abandoned workers rights politics, the far right started to poll higher and higher and higher. They got 13% last election and are now polling at 22%.
I don't know if correlation -> causation in this case, but it does not exactly help the argument in the OP. I'm however pretty sure that Sanders is right and the best way to combat the far right nationalists is by returning to traditional left party issues. But that's for Sweden, i dunno how that translates to the US exactly.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
People just want change and often times become complacent when times are good. Especially in the U.S. where people seemingly want divided government because of "checks and balances."
Having 12+ years of single party control of the presidency is the exception, not the norm.
Basically, if Democrats want to win after being in control for 8 years, they need to be anti establishment and an outsider. But even then that's difficult - you'd need an independent (key: not a Democrat) like Bernie to really do that and even that is no sure thing. Either that or you need popularity on the level of Reagan combined with an opponent on the level of Dukakis, which.. good luck.
Camp Freddie
Member
The OP argument is nonsense.
Right-wing populism's two biggest victories have been in the UK and America, which have very low welfare provision relative to most of Europe. Right-wingers are on the rise everywhere but there is no correlation with the size/power of the welfare state.
Furthermore, it's generally the case that populist movements tend to occur during periods of socioeconomic anxiety, such as a global recession. People get scared about their future and believe the charismatic demagogues, or any political movement with a simple "it's their fault things are bad" message.
Right-wing populism's two biggest victories have been in the UK and America, which have very low welfare provision relative to most of Europe. Right-wingers are on the rise everywhere but there is no correlation with the size/power of the welfare state.
Furthermore, it's generally the case that populist movements tend to occur during periods of socioeconomic anxiety, such as a global recession. People get scared about their future and believe the charismatic demagogues, or any political movement with a simple "it's their fault things are bad" message.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked