Is the West Experiencing a Right-Wing Drift?

I don't think Canada is more right-wing that it was 10 or 20 years ago. It's just that the more left-leaning vote is split between two parties. Also the Liberals have had terrible leadership in the last decade or so.

The conservatives have been pretty good at keeping everyone together and keeping internal dissent to a minimum.

based on comments in this thread obv the answer is "hell yes"

XP xenophobia of Scots towards the english, maybe

other answer is "because the further right we go the further right people think of as 'left wing'"

Renzi's performance in the Euro elections seemed significant. Huge victory for pro-austerity leader who was thought to be much more divisive. It's mostly fiscal conservatism on the rise in Europe. Despite the growth of the far right the mainstream tends to be more socially liberal I think.

dont forget Greece lol

I guess if you look at the actual governments in place, they are more right-wing, but that feels more like the left not getting their shit together rather than the actual people being more conservative. I don't know. We probably don't have the best systems for electing governments.

XP xenophobia of Scots towards the english, maybe

You're making the assumption that people who vote SNP are nationalists... for a start.

just playing with the yanks tom

Suspected as much, but I remember them having difficulty understanding the concept to left wing nationalists during the referendum, bless 'em.

concept of

theyre some craic hey

The United States has a president, who, for all that leftists dislike him, is probably the most left-wing President since the 1970s

lol, picked that decade due to that anarchist Jimmy Carter? (who ruled out reparations to Vietnam because "the destruction was mutual")

the last liberal POTUS was a man named Lyndon Johnson.

both houses of congress and most of the state houses in the u.s. are controlled by a class of republicans who are probably the most right-wing major faction in america since the southern democrats of the antebellum era. i think the u.s. actually is drifting to the left in a lot of ways, but it's not always perceptible in our elections.

it seems hard to dispute that obama's the most progressive president since johnson, his foreign policy's certainly better.

yeah idk if electorates are drifting right as much as right-wing oligarchs are just tightening their reigns of power

xp

xp

well that's a high raw body count to match even when you bomb 7 Muslim countries

and have prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the other presidents in history

and

"progressive" sure is a versatile word is all im sayin'

I don't think Canada is more right-wing that it was 10 or 20 years ago. It's just that the more left-leaning vote is split between two parties.

Why do people always say this? The NDP has been around since 1961; before it, the CCF was winning seats in federal elections since 1935. The Liberals still managed to thoroughly dominate Canada in the 20th century, even with a single 'united' PC or Conservative party until the 90s.

In terms of economic policy, I still think the Liberals of the 90s were at least as right-wing as any other post-war federal government. I actually feel like the mood is shifting left these days (which the AB election demonstrates).

I specified "10 or 20 years" specifically because I didn't really follow politics before that. I think the fact that there were multiple right-wing parties in the 90s is a pretty significant reason as to why the Liberals were able to win elections with such large majorities back then.

Here in Quebec it definitely feels like we have shifted to the right. Every successive Liberal leader has been more right-wing than his predecessor.

The West is definitely rightward leaning. The US left is more or less non-existent, beholden to the same corporate interests as the right. They dangle civil rights issues like gay marriage as a carrot to voters, because they know without those issues, nothing much separates their war-and-banks-driven governmental style from the right's. The hope that Obama will close gitmo is certainly worth more monetarily than him actually closing it down.

The question is: is this a recent development or a general tendency of US representative democracy? I suppose it began as representing mainly the interests of those who could legally vote (white male landowners/oligarchs), which you could say is a rightward position. Since then women have been granted the vote and minorities as well, but is their vote worth the same as the oligarchs that have always monopolized representation? No way in hell.

Perhaps in a way we have become more socially liberal, but the systems of control and oppression are working against that development in a way that greatly negates it. Corporate personhood imo continues to devalue "free speech" and the spits at the virtue of representative democracy.

Going by Wiki numbers, the combined popular vote of the Reform and PC parties was still less than the Liberals' share of the popular vote in the 93 and 97 elections. The combined total of the Alliance's and PCs' share of the popular vote in 2000 was just under the Liberals' share and was well under the combined total of the Liberals and NDP. (I also doubt that all PC voters would have chosen the Alliance over the Liberals if they had to choose. Clark himself preferred the Liberals.) King's, St. Laurent's, Pearson's, and Pierre Trudeau's Liberals all managed to win elections (after elections) despite facing left-wing competition.

I get resentful about 'vote-splitting' arguments for a few reasons but especially because I feel that they are usually made by Liberals to unfairly marginalize/minimize/accuse any progressive alternative.

The Liberals lost in 2006 because they were corrupt, arrogant, and entitled. They haven't managed to convince the voting public since then.

for the record, I agree with you re: vote-splitting. I don't want any kind of NDP/Liberals merger and will most likely vote NDP in the next election.

Still, I think it's difficult to argue that the Conservatives being the only viable party right of center doesn't benefit them enormously, allowing them to form majority governments despite not being able to get beyond 40% support.

The real problem is a lack of any kind of proportional representation.

I don't have the nuanced take on what is left wing, probably a bit dated & old fashioned. Indiscriminately killing civilians with drones and police does throw up some red flags though

most nuanced take

It is all shifted right in the context of most other Western countries.

it seems hard to dispute that obama's the most progressive president since johnson

Obama Lashes Out at Liberal Foes of Pacific Trade Deal
By PETER BAKER 3:07 PM ET
At Nike headquarters in Oregon, the president lashed out at critics within his own party, accusing Democrats of deliberately distorting the impact of the trade agreement he is negotiating with Asia.

i didn't think it'd be terribly controversial to say that obama was more progressive than carter or clinton. but yes i'm aware that the guy isn't bernie sanders.

you are also aware some people never get tired of criticizing him

I don't think the left's popularity is waning. It's just that their appeal is becoming more selective.

http://i.imgur.com/OGFBhT3.jpg

Here in Quebec it definitely feels like we have shifted to the right. Every successive Liberal leader has been more right-wing than his predecessor.

― silverfish, Friday, May 8, 2015 2:20 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not only that, but like in many places across the West, our de facto left wing party has slowly and steadily become right wing.

love the passive voice thread question

plz put the q in active voice for me

present progressive, not passive

de facto left wing party

Had sort of a hollow lol when I realized that this probably refers to the PQ.

h/t the donald trump thread

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/_MxkTUjnGeBaoavzdNapdX_UqkI=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4082854/Figure_7_.0.png

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "shift in the percentage replying..." -- e.g. if 1000 respondents were surveyed from the United States in 1995 and 50 said "good or very good" then, does the chart mean that the number/1000 increased to 55 in 2014, or does it mean it increased to 150?

i.e. are we talking percent change or percentage point change?

the way i understand it, if in 1955 20% said army rule is good, and then in 2015 30% said so, there would be an increase of 10%? does that make sense?

btw i think the premise of this thread is true more than ever right now.

I don't think there's an overall rightward drift in the US. I do think there's a rightward drift on the right.

xp that makes sense, as long as that's what vox means

btw i think the premise of this thread is true more than ever right now.

― Mordy

I dunno. hard to say. to play devil's advocate:

likelihood is the United States will elect a democrat next year for the third election in a row.

Canada just voted out the conservatives in an election where the conservatives purposefully used wedge issues and stoked islamophobia as a vote-winning tactic.

The ruling party the conservative PP in Spain failed to return a majority in the election on Sunday.

I do think there's a rightward drift on the right.

^^^this

otoh france has moved so far to the right that the socialists had to throw their support behind the republicans to keep the national front out of power

terrorist attacks will do that

It's also important not to treat the opinions of the youngest voters as the future, necessarily, because people's opinions can tend to moderate as they age.

"moderate"

Chega, Portugal's far right party, have elected close to 50 MPs. The center right AD just squeezed by the center left PS and will now need a deal with one of the parties to govern - PS has already said they're not available, AD says they won't go into coalition with Chega but that doesn't mean they won't cut some sort of deal.

Actual left decimated, count them all together and they're accounting for 10% of the electorate at this stage.

Depressing.

How much of a surprise are these results?

Also, I was looking at the 2022 results, and it looks like Chega's level of support with 25-34 year olds wasn't just larger than their level of support with 55+ voters, it was double - which isn't something I would have assumed at all

Chega was predicted to hold on to its position of 3rd strongest party and to gain seats but not to this extent.

One historical particularity is in Portugal the 55+ demographic is likely to have first hand experience of having lived through a fascist dictatorship, even if only as small children.

The 55+ demographic in the post-soviet space varies quite a lot country to country in its relationships with previous soviet rule, which makes it not always that predictable what to expect with stuff like that

I also noticed last time around Chega did poorly in the northwest including what looks to be rural seats. And Faro was where they did best. (though thats presumably the whole Algarve not just the town), so it looks to be more than just a rural-urban divide? (though this is based off the much less pronounced 2022 results)

Well I won't say there aren't some fash nostalgists out there, but overall ppl who lived through a fascist dictatorship during which most of the country didn't receive primary education and lived in abject poverty, not to mention a draft for an unjust and bloody colonial war, aren't keen to see that return. Kind of strange to reach for the post-soviet spaces imo, if you want a point of comparison Spain is right next to us :)

Spain would definitely seem a more obvious comparison, but I have almost no conception of Spain at all. It wasn't to draw a direct comparison per se, but more to note that nostalgia prevalence levels for previous autocratic regimes across Europe are pretty varied - using the post-soviet spaces as an example as something that on the surface might seem uniform but vary considerably

Anyway, presuming 24 follows a similar pattern to 22, do you know why Chega appears to do worst in the North West relative to the rest of the country

I don't have a definitive answer to that but traditionally the North West is quite conservative, I would think local Chega candidates would have a tougher time establishing themselves against well connected centre right campaigns. I had a look and AD won handily there this time 'round, the only district where Chega got a majority was again Faro (which yes means the region not just the city).

Are expat “leave” Brits able to vote?

The Faro stuff is interesting, because as far as I can tell tell its the district with the most pronounced population increase, and the only district outside of Lisbon and a couple of surrounding districts to be increasing at all, with population decline elsewhere (may be looking at outdated figures)

although to Boring's point above an increase in the population doesnt necessarily mean an increase in population eligible to vote

Also was listening to this on my run this morning, which is more broadly about the decline of the center-left across Europe post 2004, creating the space for populist parties to move into. Touches briefly on Portugal and Spain. Probably familiar material to many but was useful for me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39V5_ui0XAA

thought this article on Melenchon and the other French lefty parties was interesting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/magazine/french-left-politics-melenchon.html

hope they can somehow beat Le Pen

One thing I think I might mention is Portugal is on the whole a rather homogenous country with not that much variation in demographics, no real separatist groups, centuries old coherence in language, religion, culture - I'm from the Azores which are probably the most distant within that context and it's still nowhere near comparable to the differences I've seen within the UK, Germany, US. So granular district by district analysis might yield limited results in a forest for the trees sense.

thought this article on Melenchon and the other French lefty parties was interesting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/magazine/french-left-politics-melenchon.html
hope they can somehow beat Le Pen

― symsymsym, Wednesday, March 13, 2024 6:58 AM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Le Pen is far ahead in polls, the left coalition is a disaster and full of dissensions, France needs a figure to preserve Macron's legacy (Attal ?) but the French hate themselves too much to know what's good for them. Mélenchon will do a good score again, but under Le Pen. Yet I think the far right will be pushed back yet again, unless Marine gives Jordan Bardella his chance, which I don't think she will.

Yes def need to preserve the glorious legacy of Macron

Has there been a significant increase in 'the same damn candidates for the third election in a row' situations worldwide or does it just seem like it?

Yes def need to preserve the glorious legacy of Macron
― Daniel_Rf, Wednesday, March 13, 2024 11:47 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

Maybe I'm jaded, but I don't really expect more from politicians, and certainly nothing glorious. I see him as a center-right blueprint, and the alternatives as worse. I'm not French nor a close follower though.

He's been steadily dogwhistling to racists, trying to stop the rise of the FN by co-optinh its rhetoric into a more socially palpable framing. He's also presided over increasingly scarier initiatives to clamp down on the right to protest and give the cops more and more leeway for using violence. Even my wife's dad, who is centre left and hates Melenchon, is disgusted with him.

Less important but the fact that there's no obvious good replacement in line for Macron is, for the man himself, a feature not a bug - he hollowed out the PS to benefit a political movement based entirely around his own cult of personality.

I certainly dislike his minister of interior (Darmamin) and surely there are things to criticize, but I still think he's the most competent and likable of the French presidents I've known (counting from Chirac). The immigration bill appeared tactical and potentially a good electoral move: giving an image of toughness, letting the far-right introduce amendments, most of which will be eviscerated by the constitutional court. Anyway, I don't believe Macron is going on a right-wing drift, he's always balanced (maybe more clumsily than adroitly) between the two sides. The cult of personality thing is also a feature arguably.

centrists never gonna stop believing that reactionary immigration policy is 12D chess instead of what their guys actually believe in

what they actually believe in - nice liberals can't be racist so their support for racist policy always has to be framed as some kind of tactical move - it helps them to have a further-right villain to use as a threat against those who take issue with this bullshit

finding macron likeable is only slightly more fathomable to me than finding trump likeable and that's just on an aesthetic level

Security and foreign policy have always been the go-to for easy gains in electoral points, you won't convince me it's ideological.

But what's unfathomable to me is not seeing a difference between Trump and Macron

I guess Macron’s likeable if you don’t care about Muslims or black people or the poor.

You won't convince me that pandering to racists and the far right really is a positive electorally.

It was fun how he tried to move the press room at the Elysee so journalists couldn’t see who came and went, surely not something that would ever backfire with fascists in power

But what's unfathomable to me is not seeing a difference between Trump and Macron

That's not what was said though.

I'm not French nor a close follower though.

The recently released video clips from 2022 of Macron talking to both Zelenskyy and Putin on the phone have such a weird uncanny valley feeling about them (Putins 'sorry bro I'm at the gym about to play hockey' line?). I feel like I'm being duped by a skit

You won't convince me that pandering to racists and the far right really is a positive electorally.

― man in suit and red tie raising his fist (Tom D.), Thursday, March 14, 2024 10:12 AM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Not "pandering", but hard disagree. If there is one thing that European far-right nationalism has taught us in the last 20 years, it's that you cannot let them occupy the security and immigration terrain alone, because that's exactly where you can (and need) to contain their growth. We can discuss how to best manage it and nobody is saying the French immigration bill was the only option.

If there is one thing that European far-right nationalism has taught us in the last 20 years

If there is one thing that European far-right nationalism has taught us in the last 20 years

If there is one thing that European far-right nationalism has taught us in the last 20 years

If there is one thing that European far-right nationalism has taught us in the last 20 years

Here’s an idea: all the fascists’ ideas are bad, and you do not, in fact, need to hand it to them.

The far right have nothing to say on the subject of security that isn’t “persecute Muslims” and “restrict civil liberties”. Most of them take Russian money and hang out with people who are huge security risks.

The thing about is it strategic vs is it ideological is that it doesn't matter - playing with anti immigration sentiment still moves the overton window and the idea that you could then somehow keep things to acceptable levels (whatever those would be) is delusional.

The only acceptable level to the fascists is none and repatriation of people who’ve been there generations. Let’s just be honest about that.

Yes. Also pandering, and that is exactly the right word, hasn't worked and will never work.

hey if there's one thing the history of fascists in power has taught us it's that they definitely moderate their demands if you accommodate them a little

With the proviso of course that if you actually believe in these policies, it isn't pandering.

the "Is" in this thread title needs moving two places to the right, funnily enough

that's not very funny

Security and foreign policy have always been the go-to for easy gains in electoral points

Citation needed, this strategy appears to be a failure when it's tried. Even the glorious centrist revolutions in the west of the past decades (Blair, Clinton, 2017 Macron) were riding on an economic message first and foremost.

If you're a reactionary/racist voter and have the choice of a gleefully reactionary/racist candidate and a candidate that's open to a little bit of reaction/racism for a treat - what, exactly, is supposed to be the draw of the latter?

you won't convince me it's ideological.

Being open to a little strategic racism is itself ideological.

otm

I don’t think Nah, bozo will be responding, somehow.

Seriously doesn’t matter whether those enacting racist policy do so out of conviction or cynicism, but also the whole “I know they don’t believe it in their secret heart of hearts” bit is — at best — naive credulity masquerading as realpolitik. At worst, well.

Reading this thread with Gustavo Petro's quote from last year on the back of my mind: "Many in Europe have already welcomed Hitler into their homes", something like that

The West has been experiencing a right wing drift since about 1979.