Is the West Experiencing a Right-Wing Drift?

i think as this century goes on we're gonna see ever greater pressure put on the distinction (increasingly explicit) between those are afforded the benefits of the security apparatus of the modern nation state and those who will be reduced, essentially, to barbarians at the gate. hope i shuffle off before it gets worse but it will.

Also they seem, from the the perspective of the UK, more middle class. More like the Indian community in the UK. (xp)

on an optimistic note, however, i think we're about to see, in the US at least, a real revival of progressive politics at the grass roots level--trump will have his own version of the tea party to deal with. whether this accelerates the rightward drift or slows it down is impossible to say.

World population predictions suggest you're right.

Re your first point.

yeah, and the "security" idea may be the key to really fleshing out how this differs from the 30s. this is about drawing the ladder up after you.

Possibly because there's so few of them?

also a lot more space, also geographically isolated: when the US pulls some shit in the middle east it is Europe that has to clean up after.

What, all 1% of them?

not saying it's rational, but my sense is that an overwhelming majority of Americans want a complete stop to further Muslim immigration to the US, although can't/won't admit this in public. I think this is a wedge issue

other contributors, specific to US:

* dismay at recent riots, strong desire to keep crime rate low. Fear of a return to early 90s crime rates looms large in the minds of older Americans, especially property owners. yes it's racist
* street-level knowledge of Mexican black-tar heroin distribution rings and frustration at meaningful law enforcement efforts to curb them (think this underreported issue might have swung Ohio and PA)
* frustration with PC witch hunts, desire never to hear word "microaggression" again, don't want to lose job over a stray tweet
* visceral, gut-level hatred of HRC

also—and this is worldwide—a sense that the left no longer has any ideas, and indeed, that what's called the "left" is just a placeholder for centrist, technocratic, ineffective political management

* frustration with PC witch hunts, desire never to hear word "microaggression" again, don't want to lose job over a stray tweet

Think there has been a massive failure with this, it's true - failure to communicate the fact that most/all of us humans still have some level of sexism / racism / prejudice and that it's all of our duty as rational human beings to recognise and deal with that. There has been a tendency to pull out somebody's off-colour remark or bad-taste joke and go after them as "the enemy" - the (silent) reaction of many is going to be that they've said similar things before and are scared they will be next - witch-hunts do not lead to the needed self-questioning, and this needs to be recognised quickly. (Want to be clear that I'm not saying we should in any way compromise with genuine shitbags or give white males special treatment, in case anyone was wondering)

a placeholder for centrist, technocratic, ineffective political management

tbf, as government goes, this is one of the most benign formulations any of us is ever likely to live under. just about anything we exchange this for will be worse.

It's so weird this worldwide international nationalism right I feel like we've barely touched on it but it's obv very real. Is it comparable to Germany Japan and Italy or is this some weird new thing?

Key difference I suppose is that 30s Axis countries didn't have the same historical perspective on 30s Axis countries that we do. Well, duh. Obviously. But seems worth clarifying? Mussolini didn't have to deal with people comparing him to Mussolini, or have to sell himself to people who knew that Mussolini was a bad thing.

What do Russian patriots and US patriots and French patriots really have in common? It's really international white supremacism isn't t?

Well, re: Russia: in a country on a whole other scale to most, several decades of Soviet communism (never really tried before, a historically new thing) flat-out eradicate traditional bourgeois liberalism (its people, its institutions, the very idea itself). Then communism is wiped out, with no concern for what actually gets left over. Leaving what? Nationalism in a weird, purified form.

As to France, well. Assuming the 19th century situation underlies and to some extent determines the 21st century situation. The British Empire was paternalistic towards its subjects. Within that there is at least a route towards a genuinely fraternal relationship later. Compare to the French Empire ...? Going back further into the past of each country, could also compare our patchy, organic, wooly semi-secularism-or-is-it to France's one fell swoop highly abstract and centrally planned secularism (as influences on how things play out today).

I was listening to an interesting interview with someone (possibly Alex Zaitchik) who said that a lot of the Trump supporters he spoke to saw 'political correctness' not as a tool for combating racism but as a shared language used by liberals both to mask their own racism and to exclude anyone who didn't 'get it' from polite society. It's a bad take but probably one that needs to be kept in mind.

Talking about "Russian nationalism" as 'a thing' is close to meaningless. Russia has a number of competing strains of nationalism. The government form does have some fairly traditional links to post-imperial anxiety, defence, declining birthrate, etc, etc, as well as harsh laws against undocumented workers but it's also the default party for millions of Muslim / non-white Russians, has built extremely strong alliances with Muslim power bases, has a Minister of Defence (and possible future leader) from an Asian Buddhist/Animist minority (though he is probably orthodox), has actively courted Jewish business and religious leaders and has good ties with Israel, etc. The capital-letters Russian Nationalism of Zhirinovsky, etc, is much closer to the traditional international far right but there's also a strain of what i interpret as white nationalism / antisemitism in a lot of the 'liberal' opposition to Putin (Navalny, etc) who resent what they see as un-European influences on the country.

What underpins most of the mainstream nationalism (in the anti-free trade, pro-nationalisation, Russia must be strong and independent, keep your nose out of our business, sense) is the complete, nightmarish failure of what was presented as internationalist liberalism in the 90s.

France has always had a vocal minority of people who have been happy to vote for a fascist Le Pen. Would Marine have as much support as she does now without that traditional racist / French exceptionalist strain? No. Would she have less support if France didn't have the same youth unemployment rate as Portugal - with a quarter of young people unable to find a job? Probably not.

It's possibly more interesting to look at the huge success of antisemitic / conspiracy-theorising Catholic revanchism in Poland where, if you look at the data, you'd think the economy has been performing substantially better than almost anywhere in Europe, the previous government was a model of efficiency, etc. One of the things that keeps getting called out is the fact that the rising tide has not lifted all boats - rural areas, low-skilled workers and pensioners have all had to deal with huge increases in the cost of living without seeing many of the benefits of the booming urban zones.

Does that explain Orban? Does it explain the Baltic state rehabilitating their Nazi war criminals? Is centering "whiteness" a mistake in itself given the rise of populist neo-Fascism in India and the Philippines? idk.

Would Marine have as much support as she does now without that traditional racist / French exceptionalist strain? No. Would she have less support if France didn't have the same youth unemployment rate as Portugal - with a quarter of young people unable to find a job? Probably not.

That should have been 'probably', obvs.

also—and this is worldwide—a sense that the left no longer has any ideas

Most of this thread is over my head but maybe the problem isn't that "the left" is out of ideas but that they've already all been rejected or made to seem so fringe-y that everyone has decided to stick with predatory capitalism or whatever system enriches the already powerful and is painted as more "reasonable" than open borders, universal basic income, participatory structures, socialism, etc etc....

the left's place in mainstream politics has been aggressively and systematically co-opted. we saw a little of the friction caused by the left trying to reassert itself with sanders but much more exaggerated and transparent with the reaction to corbyn in the uk.

just rehashing here but the "right wing drift" is in 2 parts, chronic rightward drift of the centre and acute rise of the extreme right as part of the overall reaction to the centre. the sidelining of the left is a big part of the former of course, but when the latter occurs it makes the rightward reaction more obvious and effective because the alternative of the leftward reaction is more obscure and marginalized

The left has tons of ideas! Obamacare, single payer healthcare, free college, affordable college, universal basic income, police accountability, cap and trade, carbon taxes, investments in green energy, bolstering the epa, immigration amnesty, a three pronged approach, pacifist foreign policy, cautious foreign policy, leading from behind... The trumpist right is nearly down on ideas, in fact, they're down to one: Build a wall. But it's a big one. Problem is, the left has no one big idea anymore, instead it's a coalition of small ideas, but too many people treat their idea as the one big idea that should be more important than anything, and then go away and skulk when inevitably that fails to become universally accepted.

lol most that stuff u just listed was pilloried as the crazy rantings of deluded Bernie Bros. who don't know "how government really works"

Yep, and I've also included a lot of clintonist compromise, which was pilloried as selloutism and just as bad as Trump. That's kinda my point.

xp Yes that was my point above. Those are sound ideas afaict but have been pushed into the margins and discredited by...whomever could be said to control the space of discourse. Traditional media? Right and center-right electeds and Koch-funded interest groups masquerading as policy makers? Idk.

a lot of the Trump supporters he spoke to saw 'political correctness' not as a tool for combating racism but as a shared language used by liberals both to mask their own racism and to exclude anyone who didn't 'get it' from polite society

I think the Trump supporters perceive this accurately, FWIW.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think this is what sunk the left. Trump's ability to withstand a PC-witch hunt/economic blackmail was key to his early popularity, and it drove a lot of people to the polls.

On the other hand, self-congratulatory "political incorrectness" morphed into vicious, open racism by the campaign's end. I expect this will get worse before it gets better.

anyone who didn't 'get it' from polite society

Wtf constitutes polite society when all their discourse is shallowly encoded racism?? Letting ppl feel good about their bigotry because challenging it is "impolite"? Ceding over the space to talk about politics or policy because it's considered a private matter, so that ppl can never be confronted about their prejudice and hate?

otm

A friend of mine from another school says that what feels craziest to her--she knows some of her colleagues are Trump fans--is that instead of mourning together, everyone is very carefully not talking about it. The narrative for a lot of schools in NYC is being united and giving time to comfort children's fears, let students say what they feel, ask if their families will be safe, doing healing activities, and gearing up to protect our communities. But in places where not everyone is united (ie let's be real, places with exurban/suburban white ppl on staff), it's this big off-limits "controversial" topic lest any of our racist colleagues feel impugned.

Letting ppl feel good about their bigotry because challenging it is "impolite"

There's a difference between this, which is constructive, and the co-ordinated public shaming campaigns that were a recurrent public feature of Obama's second term. There was a lot of bullying from the left, and a lot of hypocritical scolding. New York media was particularly bad, and I say this as a participating member. Academia was worse.

Anti-racist arguments must continue to be made. This is especially important now, with openly bigoted elements of American society in ascendence. But the tone has to change. There's proof it doesn't work.

I think I might be really far outside of whatever you're talking about. I can't think of anything I know of that qualifies as PC haranguing or hypocritical scolding or w/e, I guess outside of thinkpieces on like xojane or whatever crappy sources with low standards for content quality.

I try to argue with friends and colleagues about racist and bigoted attitudes and policies. Have done it a lot since Brexit and try to do it respectfully and honestly. There is a swathe of people who are massively butthurt and angry at the mere suggestion that bigoted opinions are bigoted. How do you "reach" them? How do you hold a discussion with people who demand their entitlement to think in terms of prejudice and generalized hate?

it feels like nothing works unless those people have to live and work and hang out with people of the groups about whom they are bigoted

I think I might be really far outside of whatever you're talking about. I can't think of anything I know of that qualifies as PC haranguing or hypocritical scolding or w/e, I guess outside of thinkpieces on like xojane or whatever crappy sources with low standards for content quality.

I think this is otm, fwiw.

What's described as political correctness is overwhelmingly the kind of strong, critical, educationally-focused challenge to bigotry, both hard and soft, that should be taking place, imo. It's unequivocally a good thing and, for the most part, despite an over-reliance on academic jargon at times, done in the right way. The kind of performative talk you occasionally see from (white) clickbait commentators celebrating the demise of the white man as a relevant political actor is (obviously with hindsight) wrong and could barely be more counterproductive if it tried. The idea that white working class interests and the interests of minorities are necessarily in conflict, and no amount of learning or proactive attempts at forging solidarity can change that, is poisonous and needs to be confronted with almost as much vehemence as racism itself. It has a much wider reach than the kind of useful discussions taking place in schools, offices, etc.

I think there are broader / more common issues with the way that race is discussed in liberal circles but that's probably a discussion for a different day.

i think an anti-PC backlash probably has something to do with the right-wing drift but i think it's a very very minor piece. after all the PC policing, no matter how annoying or misguided it may be, is a response to something already in the culture - the bigotry it's trying to address. it's like saying that blowing air canisters at the burning building caused the fire - at most they made the fire worse but they didn't light the match.

I've been surprised by post-election discussions with a priori "liberal" American friends, Sanders supporters, who are "I told you so"ing me that making the election a referendum on race or gender would backfire because white men people have "opinions" about those that may sound, but are not, problematic, and have not been addressed respectively enough. "Evidence": campus wars (that as a tenured humanities professor I seem to have missed), hate speech laws, people feeling bad about having weird feeling about trans people, etc. People got upset and voted Trump. Hmm.

So yeah, discussions of race and gender in liberal circles : a good topic : because "the left" contains multitudes here, and going forward we're going to need to find our ways through this.

i have a five year old and when i harangue him or raise my voice or make him feel guilty, it backfires and it makes it worse. what works is when i quietly roll my eyes and adopt a gentle tone and say the same things but express them in a more positive way and talk him down. so i think maybe sometimes the way to talk to bigoted assholes is to talk to them like the children they are.

like they deserve a tongue-lashing, but i always worry that it just makes them more angry and drives them away and into the waiting arms of breitbart and the like.

The idea that white working class interests and the interests of minorities are necessarily in conflict, and no amount of learning or proactive attempts at forging solidarity can change that, is poisonous and needs to be confronted with almost as much vehemence as racism itself. It has a much wider reach than the kind of useful discussions taking place in schools, offices, etc.

― Bubba H.O.T.A.P.E (ShariVari), Thursday, November 10, 2016 12:34 PM (thirteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm.

i have a five year old and when i harangue him or raise my voice or make him feel guilty, it backfires and it makes it worse. what works is when i quietly roll my eyes and adopt a gentle tone and say the same things but express them in a more positive way and talk him down. so i think maybe sometimes the way to talk to bigoted assholes is to talk to them like the children they are.

I agree with the impulse here but the basic condescension of this is exactly what ppl find insulting and dismissive! And yet, if you aren't supposed to "harangue" them (which I guess is anything that makes them feel embarrassed/persecuted/defensive??) and you're not supposed to patronize them, how the fuck are you supposed to interact with people who have said by their actions that racism and misogyny are acceptable or even desirable.

ShariVari otm there

i'm not saying it would work, btw! i think racism is such a deeply entrenched thing that certain segments of the adult population are beyond repair and beyond hope.

Also let's face it none of us has unlimited wells of emotional energy to hold these assholes' hands through this. I mean as white ppl it's our job to go out and corral our idiots and bring them into the light however we have to, but as individuals we have limits of how many times we can nod patiently at "It's not about race!" or some goddamn bullshit and be patient teachers. Personally I'm on the verge of tears 24/7 but I work with ppl who say things like "This school started to go downhill when the Black kids started coming here" and "No one helped my grandparents who spoke Italian, so why should we translate for immigrant families?" so that uses me up p much from jump.

like i sorta said in one of the other half dozen threads about this miserable week, i think in an era where people have increasing access to media that tells them what they want to hear and only presents evidence that supports their beliefs, it only gets more difficult.

i can't even look at any Facebook post which mentions the election and then i see 20 comments bc i know i'm going to read something exhausting and infuriating. i can't even talk to my cousins anymore.

I don't believe this drift in question is going to be solved by hand-holding or outreach. It is a response to major global issues, population shifts, maybe climate change effects, changing economies, etc. If someone votes for Le Pen because they want all Muslims out of France there's no amount of soft-talk you can give them to change their mind. So if you find that kind of work exhausting - and I can understand why you would - I wouldn't even bother. At best it's a drop in the bucket but more likely it's just nothingness to fill the empty space of despair in a world where our actions seem to lack any real impact.

i feel like living in los angeles my voice has zero impact, i don't talk to anyone in person who needs convincing. everyone pretty much agrees on how shitty this all is. meanwhile, somewhere else everyone is agreeing on how awesome it is. and we'll only meet online and that never ends well.

We're all caught in a tidal wave and some ppl are saying we just need to bail the water out with our little beach buckets and that'll keep us afloat. I posit a. we are at the mercy of an unfolding history that we can only observe not effect and b. that history is complex and we barely understand enough of it to even know what we're looking at. Actually I think Benjamin's thing is probably closer to what I want to express here --

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Klee,_paul,_angelus_novus,_1920.jpg/240px-Klee,_paul,_angelus_novus,_1920.jpg

io is especially otm here but yes to everything posted in the last 30 mins. Even patient arguing feels like a privileged response

The protoypical voter who decided this election was a white, middle-class Rust Belt independent who voted for Obama in 08 and perhaps 12, then switched to Trump in 16. (Think Ken Bone.)

These are decent people and not deliberately racist. However, they often hold certain unexamined assumptions that are startlingly bigoted. Obama was able to reach them, partly through patience, partly through even-handedness, and partly by simply embodying in his person an effective counterexample to many of their worst prejudices.

Clinton, who had a more imperial, entitled tone, was not.

tbqh, although personal outreach (particularly to friends and family) is useful wherever possible, it's never going to be sufficient. The idea that universal tolerance at an individual level would mean the death of racism is one the areas where i think a lot of well-meaning liberal analysis goes off track. As things stand, i don't really see much alternative to trying to proactively forge solidarity through mutual self interest - whether that's organised labour, breaking down barriers to education, healthcare, etc. It's obviously easier said than done but that has to be where the left's attention is.

I think that's right. Approaching racism as an individual moral failing may be accurate but it doesn't address that a lot of it is driven by a zero-sum attitude towards access to dwindling resources. If your race is your one and only ticket to be part of the "in" group, the ones deserving of protection, then to attack a racist directly will in fact exacerbate that anxiety. You can't demand empathy from others unless you offer it first.

Even patient arguing feels like a privileged response

Over here in brexit land, behind the racism is usually big personal problems/money problems/mix of that the person has and I wd say you shouldn't feel like you have to be able to tackle those problems if you aren't their psychologist therefore perhaps engagement on an individual level should be swapped for something else

I should add: you are under no obligation to offer empathy to a racist