How does this make any sense? The whole point of nationalism is seeking the advantage of one's own country as against others, and particularly neighbors. Since when does French nationalism want Germany to be more nationalistic, too? Don't these people read history? Peace and prosperity are always just too boring for some folks.
2
The Radical Right reared its ugly head around the world in the 30's. The seeds they sowed led us to WWII. We can't have a WWIII because there will be no winners. We will all be losers. Trump doesn't seem to care about anything but winning so he won't go so far as starting a world war.
Americans need to wake-up to Trump. He's a con man, he has no secret plan. He's an airhead, a non-reader, someone who consumes more TV viewing time than the average couch potato or shut-in. Trump is mesmerized by the media. He's convinced millions that he's a smart businessman, he's not. He's convinced millions he's a great deal maker, he's not. He's had numerous bankruptcies not because they were a part of some grand strategy. He failed miserably.
Trump now only has his name, his supposed reputation, which he cultivated, into convincing the poorly educated he's smart. To someone who's extremely dumb, Trump seems smart.
One would have to be one helluva ignoramus to buy what Trump is selling. 60 million did. Conclusion: America is pretty dumb, an anti-intellectual mob of know-nothing goobers. What's worse, they won't admit it.
True, not all smart folks do smart things. But is sure is better to at least start off from a baseline of hiring someone who is considered smart to lead us. It may or not work out. But hiring an idiot like Trump guarantees failure.
DD
Manhattan
Americans need to wake-up to Trump. He's a con man, he has no secret plan. He's an airhead, a non-reader, someone who consumes more TV viewing time than the average couch potato or shut-in. Trump is mesmerized by the media. He's convinced millions that he's a smart businessman, he's not. He's convinced millions he's a great deal maker, he's not. He's had numerous bankruptcies not because they were a part of some grand strategy. He failed miserably.
Trump now only has his name, his supposed reputation, which he cultivated, into convincing the poorly educated he's smart. To someone who's extremely dumb, Trump seems smart.
One would have to be one helluva ignoramus to buy what Trump is selling. 60 million did. Conclusion: America is pretty dumb, an anti-intellectual mob of know-nothing goobers. What's worse, they won't admit it.
True, not all smart folks do smart things. But is sure is better to at least start off from a baseline of hiring someone who is considered smart to lead us. It may or not work out. But hiring an idiot like Trump guarantees failure.
DD
Manhattan
4
What most people want, and what the the radical right is promising is a sense of security and order. As long as the so-called liberal elite doesn't find a way to offer that sense of security to people in a fast changing world, a sense of security that is inclusive and not exclusive (like Trump et al are doing), the radical right is going to thrive.
It was not the EU that saved Europe from war and communism for 7 decades, it was social security, national health and education services, social housing, payed holidays, payed maternity leave, secure long-term working contracts and so on...the very things that the self-proclaimed liberal elite has been busy dismantling piece by piece.
So far the radical right are the only ones that seem to be offering a comforting, secure alternative: go back to the nation-state, to your national-ethnic-religious-racial identity and exclude those that do not fit and everything will be like it used to.
In the meantime, the left seems incapable of articulating any coherent alternatives and the liberal elite continues in denial, full-throttle ahead with the deregulated capitalist agenda: Rome is burning and they keep playing the lire.
It was not the EU that saved Europe from war and communism for 7 decades, it was social security, national health and education services, social housing, payed holidays, payed maternity leave, secure long-term working contracts and so on...the very things that the self-proclaimed liberal elite has been busy dismantling piece by piece.
So far the radical right are the only ones that seem to be offering a comforting, secure alternative: go back to the nation-state, to your national-ethnic-religious-racial identity and exclude those that do not fit and everything will be like it used to.
In the meantime, the left seems incapable of articulating any coherent alternatives and the liberal elite continues in denial, full-throttle ahead with the deregulated capitalist agenda: Rome is burning and they keep playing the lire.
4
Lire is Italian money. Is that trade policy you're discussing?
4
Whenever we here relative terms like right, left, radical right, and far right we should asked compared to what. If it is compared to the authors personal center, then it may be way out of line with the country's center.
Far right, or radical right, in my opinion refers to views were perhaps 95% or more of the people would see those views to the right of their own. Perhaps what individual authors or commenters of the NYT would consider right, others would consider centrist. I can believe a view a NYT writer considers right wing, may be centrist from the view of the U. S. population. By this I mean that as many Americans consider the view to their personal right as consider it to their personal left.
How does the times define center, left, right radical left, and radical right. What is the defines the center that these terms are relative to. If the center is what to the American people is left of center, or far left of center, then perhaps the terms like right and far right mean center and right of center.
Far right, or radical right, in my opinion refers to views were perhaps 95% or more of the people would see those views to the right of their own. Perhaps what individual authors or commenters of the NYT would consider right, others would consider centrist. I can believe a view a NYT writer considers right wing, may be centrist from the view of the U. S. population. By this I mean that as many Americans consider the view to their personal right as consider it to their personal left.
How does the times define center, left, right radical left, and radical right. What is the defines the center that these terms are relative to. If the center is what to the American people is left of center, or far left of center, then perhaps the terms like right and far right mean center and right of center.
2
Dear John:
You committed the sin of trying to explain too much. You started out by saying Right is defined in the eye of the beholder. oui? Then leave it be.
I disagree. The eye of the beholder theory has limits. There are strict definitions of Beauty. There are broad parameters of Beauty Defined but we can differentiate.
Take Trump. That is Ugly. When one sees Trump no one can call this guy appealing. Trump's appearance is atrocious; a paunchy, orange-faced, gravity-defying comb over dyed some awful hue. Then, when he opens his mouth to speak, Trump confirms what we New Yorkers who have known him for decades: he's an idiot to boot.
Meanwhile, back to the Radical Right. It's much like obscenity, we know it when we see it. Trump is too much a political weather vane to adhere to any classification. Trump is a cipher. He is whatever you want him to be.
Conversely, Steve Bannon is a White Supremacist, the Radical Right. Republicans are Right, Democrats are Left. A broad generality to be sure, but our politics have come to emulate the British, Liberal versus Conservative parties. And maybe that simplicity would better define us for a very simplistic electorate.
Your Right and my Right may differ slightly, but neither is that far off the mark. People should not mind identifying themselves with labels. People do not like to be pigeonholed but we are all so predictable. We just don't like ti admit it.
DD
Manhattan
You committed the sin of trying to explain too much. You started out by saying Right is defined in the eye of the beholder. oui? Then leave it be.
I disagree. The eye of the beholder theory has limits. There are strict definitions of Beauty. There are broad parameters of Beauty Defined but we can differentiate.
Take Trump. That is Ugly. When one sees Trump no one can call this guy appealing. Trump's appearance is atrocious; a paunchy, orange-faced, gravity-defying comb over dyed some awful hue. Then, when he opens his mouth to speak, Trump confirms what we New Yorkers who have known him for decades: he's an idiot to boot.
Meanwhile, back to the Radical Right. It's much like obscenity, we know it when we see it. Trump is too much a political weather vane to adhere to any classification. Trump is a cipher. He is whatever you want him to be.
Conversely, Steve Bannon is a White Supremacist, the Radical Right. Republicans are Right, Democrats are Left. A broad generality to be sure, but our politics have come to emulate the British, Liberal versus Conservative parties. And maybe that simplicity would better define us for a very simplistic electorate.
Your Right and my Right may differ slightly, but neither is that far off the mark. People should not mind identifying themselves with labels. People do not like to be pigeonholed but we are all so predictable. We just don't like ti admit it.
DD
Manhattan
3
"Radical Right"? What is the NYT name for the left of center democrats? They have a self labeled socialist in Bernie Sanders, just a couple years ago the last KKK member was still a standing member in congress and he was a democrat, then there are the people like Bill Ayers that are/were close friends with Obama, etc. They are all just democrats to you? Instead of labeling "radical" to anyone who believes in the constitution and the power of the individual to live their own lives free from intrusion from the government and believe in personal accountability and risk, how about naming them "Americans" instead.
4
Dear FA:
Senator Robert Byrd said he would take the sin of the KKK to his death. He said it was the worse act he ever committed. He is now in Hades. Are you satisfied? Or are you going to continue to hate him?
Democrats in the South were called Dixiecrats. They remained Democrats to celebrate the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican. They voted Democrat for one hundred years until LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act.
Nixon's Southern Strategy went after the Dixiecrats with their appeal to racists. This continued with Reagan. He went to the South preaching States Rights, code for Racism.
Trump continues this KKK tradition in the GOP with Jefferson Davis Beauregard Sessions of Alabama and his manager White Supremacist Breitbart president Steve Bannon.
The racists in Congress are Republicans now. The Democrats are Liberals, Blacks, Hispanics and foreigners who have become American citizens and will form a majority in the US.
In fact they already have, voting for Hillary by 3 million more votes. They were robbed of the presidency by the irrelevant Electoral College. Since Trump has taken office only a week ago he has managed to galvanize the Resistance to his presidency by millions.
More Women marched Saturday than were at the Inauguration, and Trump who is an egotistical idiot can't get that out of his pea-brain. Trump is a joke leading a bunch of poorly politically educated jokers. Trump is going to make a mockery of the presidency.
DD
Manhattan
Senator Robert Byrd said he would take the sin of the KKK to his death. He said it was the worse act he ever committed. He is now in Hades. Are you satisfied? Or are you going to continue to hate him?
Democrats in the South were called Dixiecrats. They remained Democrats to celebrate the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican. They voted Democrat for one hundred years until LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act.
Nixon's Southern Strategy went after the Dixiecrats with their appeal to racists. This continued with Reagan. He went to the South preaching States Rights, code for Racism.
Trump continues this KKK tradition in the GOP with Jefferson Davis Beauregard Sessions of Alabama and his manager White Supremacist Breitbart president Steve Bannon.
The racists in Congress are Republicans now. The Democrats are Liberals, Blacks, Hispanics and foreigners who have become American citizens and will form a majority in the US.
In fact they already have, voting for Hillary by 3 million more votes. They were robbed of the presidency by the irrelevant Electoral College. Since Trump has taken office only a week ago he has managed to galvanize the Resistance to his presidency by millions.
More Women marched Saturday than were at the Inauguration, and Trump who is an egotistical idiot can't get that out of his pea-brain. Trump is a joke leading a bunch of poorly politically educated jokers. Trump is going to make a mockery of the presidency.
DD
Manhattan
3
Hello, World War Three. Catastrophe is what we deserve for not learning from history. Expect the cities of western civilization to become homes for coyotes feeding on human corpses.
2
Rightist politics in Europe is colorful and distracting, but memories and the legacy of the right inspired events of genocide, surrender and collaboration of the World War II epoch are still very close to nerve endings in the continuing postwar struggle with cultural and social identity. Europe was physically brought ot its knees and saw its governance systems stripped of legitimacy overnight. Their experience is very different to that of is in the USA. I lived in France for 20 years, after 1985.
Using a finer frame of demographics and history, I see the present populist phenomena in terms of a terminal struggle within my Boomer cohort. By attrition of the war cohort, and the subsequent loss of their moral weight in the longer continuity of public opinon, the historical glue of community cohesion is gone. Reagan Boomers in congress driven to intense frustration by the Obama presidency's looking at a future past them are in a death struggle with the pospect of their own lack of legitimacy before their own generation before younger citizens with no reason to be inspired by Reagan's vision fired by nostagia and a long look backward.
The emerging younger mass of experience today is not fearful of transformative complexity that is part of moving in a promising direction toward expanding opportuity in a global future; they are moving in the direction of history, and they shall move beyond this storm in a tea-coup, this pitiable Boomer melodrama.
Using a finer frame of demographics and history, I see the present populist phenomena in terms of a terminal struggle within my Boomer cohort. By attrition of the war cohort, and the subsequent loss of their moral weight in the longer continuity of public opinon, the historical glue of community cohesion is gone. Reagan Boomers in congress driven to intense frustration by the Obama presidency's looking at a future past them are in a death struggle with the pospect of their own lack of legitimacy before their own generation before younger citizens with no reason to be inspired by Reagan's vision fired by nostagia and a long look backward.
The emerging younger mass of experience today is not fearful of transformative complexity that is part of moving in a promising direction toward expanding opportuity in a global future; they are moving in the direction of history, and they shall move beyond this storm in a tea-coup, this pitiable Boomer melodrama.
The real leader in the trend toward the right has been Israel, where conservative nationalists such as Bibi Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon have been in power for most of the last two decades.
1
The right has been good at identifying the problems. Europe isn't well integrated and many in the better off countries in Europe are scared that lower paid Eastern Europeans will take jobs. They are also afraid of radicalized Islam. This isn't bigotry and what is worse, intelligent people in the middle and on the left have let these problems fester. The problems aren't quite the same in the US, but the left has been almost completely unwilling to allow anyone to criticize Islam or even to name it as a problem. Islam is a problem, the fact that a tiny minority acts means that a larger minority accepts this an enables it. This is madness.
5
The author is correct that all so-called "radical right" parties are different. Some aren't even radical right. The Five Star movement in Italy, which didn't attend this conference has been branded as populist, which is a code word for radical right, yet few in Italy would brand them radical right (although they do want to tighten immigration). Even Ms Le Pen's National Front these days doesn't see so radical. As mentioned in this article, she is staunchly traditional (in French terms) in her economic policies for wanting to protect French workers and not embrace the more draconian aspects of neoliberalism. The one thing that all of these parties share is their reaction to 20 or so years of more less open immigration policies and the problems of social integration these have brought to their countries. It may be that the truly "radical right" parties now in Europe are the traditional center left and center right. They are the ones who have insisted on neoliberal austerity that has caused so much economic hardship in Europe. They too have pushed the idea that open-ended immigration would be good for Europe, which is is scarcely a traditional European belief. Perhaps who is radical and who is not needs to rethought.
4
Some of your comment is very correct. But I want to stress that "immigration" as you mention it means immigration from outside the European Union, mostly from Muslim countries and/or Africa. "Immigration" is often confused with freedom of movement of labor within the Union which is not opposed much anywhere else but in the UK (a major reason of Brexit).
I somewhat oppose your approach to the "austerity" also. Some of it was necessary to force restructuring and stop debt levels rising. Depends on the country. Spain for ex is well on its way up so is Portugal and even Greece. France is a question mark until we see who wins the elections in April/May. It will not be Le Pen.
I somewhat oppose your approach to the "austerity" also. Some of it was necessary to force restructuring and stop debt levels rising. Depends on the country. Spain for ex is well on its way up so is Portugal and even Greece. France is a question mark until we see who wins the elections in April/May. It will not be Le Pen.
Europe's far-right parties don't necessarily need to unit to achieve many of their goals. If they can ride the wave of nationalistic populism in their own countries well enough and be swept into power, they'll collectively undo the European experiment without ever having to work together. Progressives and believers in "Europe's strength in unity" are called upon to reflect on the future they want to offer their followers (and non-followers) in light of the growing distrust of citizens in their governments, concerns about immigration, safety, the rise in income inequality, and other societal challenges. It's important to stop the contagion that Brexit and Trump's election have set in motion.
1
The photograph is pure genius.
3
I just read what Bannon said about professional journalism. To the NYT and others: if they want war, give it to them. You are the only institution left to challenge the absolute lies these people tell. Call them liars, because they are. Call them dangerous, because they are. Call the Republican leaders of Congress enablers, because they are. The vast majority of patriotic Americans know the country this is and it is not the dark land of Bannon/Trump.
7
Hard to envision the French going right. The precious forward looking model of, a 30 hour work week and a couple months holidays are part of their culture.
Serbian nationalism is different and will survive...Euro nattionalism , no
The radical right sees that their wealth has been taken away from them and they need someone to blame. The radical left sees so much wealth in the world surrounded by poverty and decides to recommend giving some of the wealth to the poor to 'equalize' the two groups. What they both fail to see is that wealth and human improvement occur because of the cooperation between people in order to produce growth and opportunity for all.
What the radical right don't see is that many of the wealthy have gained that wealth because they have taken the wealth of society without giving back. The disadvantaged radical right are poorer not because the left took the money or immigrants took the money but because the wealthy avoided contributing their fair share to society and instead were hoarders of money. The wealthy have been successful in their propaganda of 'job creators', 'tax cuts increase revenues', and 'trade agreements steal jobs' despite facts to the contrary. The alt-right masses have believed them.
The left is just as at fault by preaching that you can equalize opportunity and outcomes by throwing money to people. That just is not true. Most humans have a desire to be productive and respected and will work hard to achieve as long as their reward in commensurate with the work done and the total capital produced by that work.
There is a better way and it is not confrontational, it is one of cooperation. Fat chance with the emotions as high as they are now.
What the radical right don't see is that many of the wealthy have gained that wealth because they have taken the wealth of society without giving back. The disadvantaged radical right are poorer not because the left took the money or immigrants took the money but because the wealthy avoided contributing their fair share to society and instead were hoarders of money. The wealthy have been successful in their propaganda of 'job creators', 'tax cuts increase revenues', and 'trade agreements steal jobs' despite facts to the contrary. The alt-right masses have believed them.
The left is just as at fault by preaching that you can equalize opportunity and outcomes by throwing money to people. That just is not true. Most humans have a desire to be productive and respected and will work hard to achieve as long as their reward in commensurate with the work done and the total capital produced by that work.
There is a better way and it is not confrontational, it is one of cooperation. Fat chance with the emotions as high as they are now.
2
No, it is not more "ominous" when words are spoken in German. What a racist, offensive thing to write -- as if any German on the far right must be a direct representative of Naziism, and any sentiment expressed in German is somehow 'ominous.' Please. It's just a language.
And Germans are just as entitled as anyone else to be alarmed about what is happening in their country, not least the arrival of 1 million migrants in a short period. Believe it or not, anti-immigration sentiment in modern Germany is not automatically equal to Naziism or even xenophobia.
And Germans are just as entitled as anyone else to be alarmed about what is happening in their country, not least the arrival of 1 million migrants in a short period. Believe it or not, anti-immigration sentiment in modern Germany is not automatically equal to Naziism or even xenophobia.
7
Ask yourself one question: what kind of world do you think the far right wants to rule over, deep down, in their heart of hearts? You know, the one they don't dare speak of aloud? If you think long and hard about it, in all absolute honesty, and you still decide to vote for them or even worse, look the other way because your skin is white, hopefully your comeuppance will be severe.
3
I've asked that question & here's my answer: the only thing they all share in common is their desire to hit the halt (or some, the permanent stop) button on immigration. Few of them are potential autocrats. In fact, they bring a healthy dose of true, bottom-up democracy to some rather closed-shop political systems. Remember, immigration into European countries is not the same animal that it is is an almost 100% immigrant populated country like the U.S. These are vastly different countries with longer, deeper histories (and memories) than the U.S. You have to look at this through their eyes. If you think that open-ended immigration is good, you'll dislike them. If, like me, you feel that Europe is way overdue in a rethink of these policies, you'll see them as a breath of fresh air.
4
The Left's "vision of a tolerant multiethnic society" takes a hit every time there is an Islam-inspired terrorist atrocity. I don't think there is anything mainstream politicians can do about that.
6
A look at history should make every-one shiver: the extreme right was always power hungry, repressive and detrimental to peace. Look at the catastrophes that came from Nazi and Fascist governments less than a century ago.
These "movements" thrived by creating artificial enemies, maligning the opposition and the free press, and ultimately by suppressing dissent via brute force. Nothing good has ever come from the extreme right.
These "movements" thrived by creating artificial enemies, maligning the opposition and the free press, and ultimately by suppressing dissent via brute force. Nothing good has ever come from the extreme right.
8
It probably doesn’t help that these worthies all look like the “Surgeon General of Beverly Hills” from the Kurt Russell Snake Plisskin vehicle “Escape from L.A.” They’re scary people.
But they may have a MUCH snarlier row to hoe in Europe than Trump has in America, primarily because so many of them espouse ideologies that are “Hitler-meets-Lenin”, undoubtedly the very worst of populist nightmare combinations. Even Le Pen is a champion for Euro-collectivism, and her most notable claim to fame is Fortress France. That’s hardly Trump, who wants to unleash American innovation to chase a greater and more general American prosperity through LOWER taxes and LESS EXTEME regulation, resulting in LESS dependency on the state. These characters may as well BE Germans and French for their love of state-guided dependency.
If they eventually assume real power, the only thing that will change in Europe is that the dependency will be dictated and faces likely will be whiter over time. Their entrenched challenges with structural high-unemployment, particularly among the young, and an inability to find the resources to defend themselves while ALSO providing so much butter for no churning won’t be addressed any more effectively by these surgeons general than by the current rascals.
But they may have a MUCH snarlier row to hoe in Europe than Trump has in America, primarily because so many of them espouse ideologies that are “Hitler-meets-Lenin”, undoubtedly the very worst of populist nightmare combinations. Even Le Pen is a champion for Euro-collectivism, and her most notable claim to fame is Fortress France. That’s hardly Trump, who wants to unleash American innovation to chase a greater and more general American prosperity through LOWER taxes and LESS EXTEME regulation, resulting in LESS dependency on the state. These characters may as well BE Germans and French for their love of state-guided dependency.
If they eventually assume real power, the only thing that will change in Europe is that the dependency will be dictated and faces likely will be whiter over time. Their entrenched challenges with structural high-unemployment, particularly among the young, and an inability to find the resources to defend themselves while ALSO providing so much butter for no churning won’t be addressed any more effectively by these surgeons general than by the current rascals.
1
Lower taxes? Maybe for the rich. But that double margarita and guacamole and chips, necessitated by listening to him, is going to be heavily taxed to pay for the wall. Not paid for by Mexico, but by those AMERICANS who buy Mexican products.
And I thought you Republicans thought tax was a four letter word?
Reminder, Mexico is the second largest recipients of American exports. I'm thinking salas for the goose is going to be salsa for the gander. And that won't fly with the Agriculture lobby, among others.
And I thought you Republicans thought tax was a four letter word?
Reminder, Mexico is the second largest recipients of American exports. I'm thinking salas for the goose is going to be salsa for the gander. And that won't fly with the Agriculture lobby, among others.
2
Geert Wilders, with the eyebrows and the pompadour, and Marine Le Pen look like the Aryan couple chosen to repopulate the earth after the nuclear holocaust. Hopefully, they're too old for the task.
7
Paul:
To enjoy lower taxes, you have to PAY taxes. Yet Trump has said, again and again, that his interest in reducing taxes extends to ALL people who pay them.
Trump never promised that he'd rebuild an American middle-class AND keep the price of goods and services dirt-cheap. What he wants to do is strike a better balance between the two than exists now.
And I thought that loss of unionized middle-class jobs was anathema to LIBERALS! But, then, judging from your performance with your own traditional constituencies this past election, it's obvious that this was an old wives' tale, too.
To enjoy lower taxes, you have to PAY taxes. Yet Trump has said, again and again, that his interest in reducing taxes extends to ALL people who pay them.
Trump never promised that he'd rebuild an American middle-class AND keep the price of goods and services dirt-cheap. What he wants to do is strike a better balance between the two than exists now.
And I thought that loss of unionized middle-class jobs was anathema to LIBERALS! But, then, judging from your performance with your own traditional constituencies this past election, it's obvious that this was an old wives' tale, too.
2
Believe us, Europe -- you do not want the Far Right in charge. We are less than a week into their reign, and believe us -- YOU DO NOT WANT THE FAR RIGHT IN CHARGE!
20
What country's capital would Tel Aviv be?
2
Radical right, alt-right, far right, Trump Republican...can't we just label it what it is: fascist?
40
Poll numbers would have added some basis for this writer's view.
To NYT: The headline for this article should either have been followed by a question mark, or should have stated that the radical right is not as united as it seems.
3
Perhaps, Times, you should focus on the strangle hold the extreme right agenda has on the current presidency. Quit pointing your finger at Europe and report what is happening in Washington!!! I realize that this does not appear on Trump's Twitter feed, but surely there must be at least one journalist still working there.
9
Have you actually been reading the NY Times? Your comment leads me to believe you haven't.
3
Amazing to reflect and see, after all these untold years we are still fighting the crusades.
5
While not unexpected, the endless use of the term radical right is inaccurate unless you paint the democratic party with the term radical left.
8
What a foolish and spurious comment! Only a rightwing extremist would mischaracterize today's Democratic Party as "radical left." Today's Democratic Party is no more "radical" than the Republican Party of Richard Nixon (1969-1974). If that's the vantage point that your optics misperceive the world, then Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal," Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, and Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal would appear as "radical" as well as an anathema to you. I surmise and submit that only those who either do not know American history or who deliberately misrepresent it would attempt to lie about our nation's historical and political past and present. Your screed belongs with the likes of those who, in history, have intentionally subverted evidence and facts in order to advance their iniquitous despotistic and anti-democratic agendas. The names of these radical deceivers belong to the annals of Fascism, Communism, and Naziism.
2
I've read this excuse for radical right nonsense here and there lately. If there is a radical right then there HAS TO BE a radical left. Like there's balance. The orange juice or the milk? Nah....put on your thinking cap. The Trump years have started very very badly. The hilarious buffoonery, the banana peel pratfalls of the new administration in front of the press, the wildly funny SNL skits, the retaliatory goofy stupidity of the ongoing DT twitter rants feeding more and more comedy. This isn't going to end well but no one is going to remember the left. They are too entertained by the roaringly funny (albeit sad!) Trump fail.
1
I believe that Ms. Le Pen was at Trump Tower in the weeks before the inauguration.
4
They will all fail! Europeans can and will do better than that.
2
Or better yet, the left can learn why the so-called far right is attracting their traditional working class voters, rather than trying to defeat them politically.
7
Absolutely right. The fascinating truth is that it is a class-based movement. Although the nationalist right would never use the language of class warfare, it is riding on the backs of a disaffected and scared cohort of the middle class that thinks its revolting against a ruling class.
What that cohort of the middle class has yet to recognize is that their 'leaders' do not have their interests at heart. In the US, anyway, most of the Trumpians are either billionaires or religious crusaders. The religious crusaders view the middle class as expendable, and the billionaires, who no longer need the 'human resource,' view the middle class as surplus population.
What that cohort of the middle class has yet to recognize is that their 'leaders' do not have their interests at heart. In the US, anyway, most of the Trumpians are either billionaires or religious crusaders. The religious crusaders view the middle class as expendable, and the billionaires, who no longer need the 'human resource,' view the middle class as surplus population.
1
You are underestimating the appeal and power of the far right parties of Marine Le Pen and others. You underestimated Donald Trump's chances of winning the presidency and all but declared Hillary Clnton the winner. Look what happened. To the dismay of the liberal progressives he won the electoral college vote and now is our president.
Do not wrote off these far-right parties as they may surprise you. You may be eating humble pie.
Do not wrote off these far-right parties as they may surprise you. You may be eating humble pie.
5
I meant to say "do not write off." Sorry for the error.
Not MY president.
1
Why does the headline read "The Radical Right's United Front," while the underlying article goes to great lengths to emphasize the differences between the parties?
3
It doesn't matter whether Europes Right co-operate or not, if the Dutch Right win it's curtains for the EU, if the French Right win it's curtains for the EU, the same goes for Italy & of course Germany.
6
Sacre bleu! And Europeans often say we Americans are more naive, less worldly, and less aware of history, than they. As they say in Italy, che cretinate.
4
If "the challenge to provide more details" had been stronger pre-election, one wonders what the outcome might have been
1
The author is professor at the University of Georgia, United States I suppose, but is better to put it clearly.
This ilk which we fought and lost millions of lives during WWII , I hope will never see political power.
History is one more time charting in its cliché destination, repeat.
Not this time, we shall not back down, We are not socialist, we are not communists. we are main, middle of the way simply center left and right.
We build a world 70 years relative mayhem-less.
Mainly Fascists and sometimes Communists are the main reason this relative mayhem-less time also saw unspeakable atrocities.
Fascists You cannot beat us, never again.
Post WWII American-British politics which this world enjoyed last 70 years will endure you barbarians.
Rome will not surrender this time to these barbarians.
History is one more time charting in its cliché destination, repeat.
Not this time, we shall not back down, We are not socialist, we are not communists. we are main, middle of the way simply center left and right.
We build a world 70 years relative mayhem-less.
Mainly Fascists and sometimes Communists are the main reason this relative mayhem-less time also saw unspeakable atrocities.
Fascists You cannot beat us, never again.
Post WWII American-British politics which this world enjoyed last 70 years will endure you barbarians.
Rome will not surrender this time to these barbarians.
2
Prof Mudde,
I am an observer, from the vantage, or disadvantage, of living a few hundred yards from where some Muslims killed a few thousand Americans (and others) by weaponizing commercial aviation, and weaponizing a religious doctrine;
from here, the emerging coalition is real, at least in the global northern hemisphere.
=
One of the first rules of warfare, is 'honor the threat.'
That means, when people say they want to kill you, believe them; and likewise, when people say they wish a nationalist, um Internationale, world order, honor that threat also.
=
Denial is a river in Egypt, as the phrase goes.
=
As for "populism a short intro," I hope this is not a denial or a dismissal.
=
As our latest Nobelist poet said
- 'something is happening here and you don't know what it is, do you Mr Jones,'
and that was NOT a question.
I am an observer, from the vantage, or disadvantage, of living a few hundred yards from where some Muslims killed a few thousand Americans (and others) by weaponizing commercial aviation, and weaponizing a religious doctrine;
from here, the emerging coalition is real, at least in the global northern hemisphere.
=
One of the first rules of warfare, is 'honor the threat.'
That means, when people say they want to kill you, believe them; and likewise, when people say they wish a nationalist, um Internationale, world order, honor that threat also.
=
Denial is a river in Egypt, as the phrase goes.
=
As for "populism a short intro," I hope this is not a denial or a dismissal.
=
As our latest Nobelist poet said
- 'something is happening here and you don't know what it is, do you Mr Jones,'
and that was NOT a question.
1
Say what you will, this situation bears close watching, as it is not as cut and dry as this authour portrays it.
After all, the pundits and professionals were wrong about Trump too.
As it now stands, Americans, safely isolated on this side of the ocean, with the promises of becoming even more isolated at the behest of Mr. Trump, have no real idea of what's going on in Europe, as most are unable to speak another language and have access to the Foreign Press.
That means they are, and will be dependent on the "FAKE NEWS" and lies reported to them by a U.S. media ultimately controlled by a president who has taken no measures to hide his true affilliations with the populist-right movement.
That said. What is happening in Europe should come as a surprise to no one.
Between the onslaught of refugees & migrants brought on by Chancellor Merkel's "Willkommenskultur", an increase in the amount of crime & terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims seeking asylum, the rise the of right-wing populist parties in Germany and the rest of Europe, and the results of the recent elections in the U.S. -- this was a universal movement waiting to happen. It has.
And then of course, there's Russia waiting silently in the wings with one eye cast on NATO, and the other eye focused on the upcoming elections in France, Germany & the Netherlands.
Americans would be wise to keep an eye open too.
Since their new leader embraces this same radical right ideology, and an ocean no longer seperates us.
After all, the pundits and professionals were wrong about Trump too.
As it now stands, Americans, safely isolated on this side of the ocean, with the promises of becoming even more isolated at the behest of Mr. Trump, have no real idea of what's going on in Europe, as most are unable to speak another language and have access to the Foreign Press.
That means they are, and will be dependent on the "FAKE NEWS" and lies reported to them by a U.S. media ultimately controlled by a president who has taken no measures to hide his true affilliations with the populist-right movement.
That said. What is happening in Europe should come as a surprise to no one.
Between the onslaught of refugees & migrants brought on by Chancellor Merkel's "Willkommenskultur", an increase in the amount of crime & terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims seeking asylum, the rise the of right-wing populist parties in Germany and the rest of Europe, and the results of the recent elections in the U.S. -- this was a universal movement waiting to happen. It has.
And then of course, there's Russia waiting silently in the wings with one eye cast on NATO, and the other eye focused on the upcoming elections in France, Germany & the Netherlands.
Americans would be wise to keep an eye open too.
Since their new leader embraces this same radical right ideology, and an ocean no longer seperates us.
3
Is comparing Trump with the so-called European "radical right" an apt or productive comparison? I would argue that the differences in worldview, objectives, and above all coherence of political underpinnings are so great as to make any such comparison superficially appealing but substantially wanting.
2
In The United States- We tried it the liberal way and it didn't work- we were taken advantage of and carried too far left, ultimately hijacked by SJW. Now let's go hard right until the wheels fall off. Eventually we will find the sweet spot issue which will motivate the 32 million Americans who didn't bother to vote in the last election to take part in the next one..
2
The ultimate measure of the far rights influence and impact may be the extent to which mainstream parties find it necessary to co-opt a good part of the far right's agenda, as the price of their continued political dominance.
2
How is Donald Trump a "populist" when he lost the popular vote from some three million voters who rejected his policies, outbursts and prejudices?
What makes Le Pen a "populist" when her anti-EU screeds are not shared by French voters who will vote massively against her in the final round for the presidency of France?
The only thing that gives rise to the extremists of France, Germany and Holland is what is felt by their citizens to be an uncontrolled tide of migrants from non-European cultures, a tide of desperate humanity that resulted from elective US wars aided by the piddling militaries of European countries who are suffering the consequences of the violation of and contempt for international law and the lives of innocent people.
What makes Le Pen a "populist" when her anti-EU screeds are not shared by French voters who will vote massively against her in the final round for the presidency of France?
The only thing that gives rise to the extremists of France, Germany and Holland is what is felt by their citizens to be an uncontrolled tide of migrants from non-European cultures, a tide of desperate humanity that resulted from elective US wars aided by the piddling militaries of European countries who are suffering the consequences of the violation of and contempt for international law and the lives of innocent people.
5
So a new term is born - radical right; Far right or extreme right was not good enough.
The right is primarily opposing mass uncontrolled migration to Europe; does that make them radical to be concerned about a real challenge to their national identity, security, safety, culture, religion & finances? How radical could a party be that supports the LGBT community, anyway? Answer - not radical at all!!
Also, none of the leaders featured here are anti-semitic at all. Unfortunately, anti-semites exist in present-day Europe, but they are not right leaning, they are mostly members of the left or are being sponsored by the left.
The right is primarily opposing mass uncontrolled migration to Europe; does that make them radical to be concerned about a real challenge to their national identity, security, safety, culture, religion & finances? How radical could a party be that supports the LGBT community, anyway? Answer - not radical at all!!
Also, none of the leaders featured here are anti-semitic at all. Unfortunately, anti-semites exist in present-day Europe, but they are not right leaning, they are mostly members of the left or are being sponsored by the left.
5
Revised post:
It is interesting how having a common enemy can unite a group: radical nationalists united against a tolerant global order; progressives {a better term than "liberals"} united against radical nationalist bigotry and militancy.
At the same time having an enemy changes each group. Radical nationalists change by trying to play down their difference from each other, leaving a generalized anger and nostalgia for a fantasized "pure" past, while progressives are forced to become more angry, religious and nationalist, -- "we (Christians) have killed more (Islamic) terrorists than you, we too like to use market forces (Obamacare)."
I am afraid that the interesting and potentially benign parts of both ideologies -- the nationalists' sense of nationhood (family, community, common pasts), and the progressives' vision of a peaceful, diverse, and just future, drop out leaving both with anger, locked in a macho contest between the nationalists' protectionism and belief in their unique fate as a chosen people (carried out by an unregulated market and helped by a messiah leading them to a pure world purged of diversity) vs. the progressives' desire to find a formula to solve everyone's unique problems at the same time.
What is needed is a reaffirmation of tolerant progressive ideas, an awareness of our unavoidable heritage as nation-states, and resistance to a zero-sum attitude of us vs. them. Progressive need to resist becoming like their opponents.
It is interesting how having a common enemy can unite a group: radical nationalists united against a tolerant global order; progressives {a better term than "liberals"} united against radical nationalist bigotry and militancy.
At the same time having an enemy changes each group. Radical nationalists change by trying to play down their difference from each other, leaving a generalized anger and nostalgia for a fantasized "pure" past, while progressives are forced to become more angry, religious and nationalist, -- "we (Christians) have killed more (Islamic) terrorists than you, we too like to use market forces (Obamacare)."
I am afraid that the interesting and potentially benign parts of both ideologies -- the nationalists' sense of nationhood (family, community, common pasts), and the progressives' vision of a peaceful, diverse, and just future, drop out leaving both with anger, locked in a macho contest between the nationalists' protectionism and belief in their unique fate as a chosen people (carried out by an unregulated market and helped by a messiah leading them to a pure world purged of diversity) vs. the progressives' desire to find a formula to solve everyone's unique problems at the same time.
What is needed is a reaffirmation of tolerant progressive ideas, an awareness of our unavoidable heritage as nation-states, and resistance to a zero-sum attitude of us vs. them. Progressive need to resist becoming like their opponents.
1
Let us hypothesize that the "nationalist" (I'll use their term) parties each achieve their goal - a nation that only allows people of their race/ethnicity. What would be the result?
They would be blissfully happy. For all of five minutes.
Then the "nationalists" would begin in-fighting about who was white enough, truly white, truly of French/English/German descent. What would they do then? Create another, smaller country? Only for the purest of the pure? Or start purging, exterminating and pogroming? (The second is more likely.)
Diversity and heterogenous societies did not become popular because some caricature of a politically-correct librarian forced them on us globally. They exist because every society that tried to be homogenous to one race or people destroyed itself. And that will continue no matter how hard their followers shout and how winningly their leaders smile on camera.
They would be blissfully happy. For all of five minutes.
Then the "nationalists" would begin in-fighting about who was white enough, truly white, truly of French/English/German descent. What would they do then? Create another, smaller country? Only for the purest of the pure? Or start purging, exterminating and pogroming? (The second is more likely.)
Diversity and heterogenous societies did not become popular because some caricature of a politically-correct librarian forced them on us globally. They exist because every society that tried to be homogenous to one race or people destroyed itself. And that will continue no matter how hard their followers shout and how winningly their leaders smile on camera.
3
The best way to stop the radical right is for the radical left to stop getting such clout on the left. This is true in Europe and America. The left has demanded citizens put others before themselves even when this means putting their safety in danger. The people we are supposed to be advocating for often show an open contempt and sometimes even hatred for us.
The left in America, or more correctly the far left, which pushed Hillary into trotting around with Mike Brown's mother, which demanded we applaud those two black racists who assaulted Bernie Sanders during a social security talk in Seattle, who demand we pretend Islam is peaceful and that people in our countries illegally are being victimized by an unfair system that demands they follow the same laws as everyone else.
The best way to stop the far right is to stop the far left. If this had been done in America Trump would not have become president. The left, and the media, including this paper, need to curtail their own fanaticism. Unfortunately I fear Trump's election will only ramp it up.
The left in America, or more correctly the far left, which pushed Hillary into trotting around with Mike Brown's mother, which demanded we applaud those two black racists who assaulted Bernie Sanders during a social security talk in Seattle, who demand we pretend Islam is peaceful and that people in our countries illegally are being victimized by an unfair system that demands they follow the same laws as everyone else.
The best way to stop the far right is to stop the far left. If this had been done in America Trump would not have become president. The left, and the media, including this paper, need to curtail their own fanaticism. Unfortunately I fear Trump's election will only ramp it up.
13
I am not sure I agree. In the United States, the single most important variable to determine whether a person voted for Trump was whether that person has voted for the Republican candidate in previous elections. There was nothing really unusual about how the electorate voted in 2016. There was a relatively small group of voters in PA, WI, and MI who had voted for Obama, but then switched to Trump. The evidence is abundant that they did so because they hoped Trump would bring manufacturing jobs to the USA. In essence, Trump co-opted a position that has been a position of the left inthe past and sometimes the right (Pat Buchanan). In Europe, the right is gaining grown based on the public's frustration against Brussels. David Cameron is a Tory. Angela Merkel is CDU. They are not left and yet they are targets because they are seen to be too beholden to the institutions of the EU and the European Human Rights Convention.
2
There is a great deal of truth in this comment by 'Hayden C,' but like the article itself, it shows shortsighteness in its use of the labels "left" and "right." Much of contemporary European anti-establishment and anti-immigrant populism is not "far right" in any sense except its open dislike of Islamic culture. On economic issues and other social issues, they are all over the place and rarely recognizable as "rightist." The New York Times over the last few weeks has been far too crude and uncritical in its use of these familiar labels. Understanding the risks of the present moment is impossible without more flexible thinking.
4
Liberal democracies are far better than the far-right rigid ideology promoting exclusion, if not division, of an ever widening and rich diversity of people seeking inclusion in society's fabric. But for them to prosper, and benefit everybody, they must make sure to listen and attend the needs of the least among them, integrate those still at the margins, those feeling disenfranchised or excluded from the fruits of advancing science and technology. Protracted nationalism, and a populist wave of misfits trying to destroy a stabilizing European Union, need not apply. Luckily, the far-right alliance is fake, with incompatible aims separating them.
2
This movement has been called "Right" but my impression is that it is working class movement asserting itself within a regional/cultural context. It defines itself by local conditions. It is not reactionary but is an expression of working class aspirations with local features. The so called "Left" has ignored these workers, indeed their liberal multicultural policies have harmed workers and their communities. All in the name of multiculturalism: A large number of immigrants, especially illegal immigrants have been introduced by dictates of political authorities far away. They are supported by welfare benefits that local workers create. These are not workers hence the entire project has not worked. Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, Farage and others have simply pointed out the obvious: That these problems must be solved locally rather than by elites far away, sometimes in other countries entirely.
5
Yesterday the Italian Constitutional Court eliminated the second-round run-off between the top two parties in the next election, instead upholding proportional representation, but also boosted to a 55% parliamentary majority any party winning at least 40 percent of the vote. It’s unlikely (but so was Brexit, and Trump) for any party to reach this threshold. If early elections are called, and a coalition government must be formed, the questions that comes to mind are: With which parties could Renzi’s PD party (polling around 30%) successfully form a coalition? Alternatively, could the Five Star Movement (also polling near 30%) form a coalition including the Legal Nord or Forza Italy (each polling about 13%), in either case easily surpassing the 40% threshold?
In the latter case, the Euro, the Italian banking system, and more broadly the EU, would face significant instability. Add this to the list of potential destabilizing 2017 events.
In the latter case, the Euro, the Italian banking system, and more broadly the EU, would face significant instability. Add this to the list of potential destabilizing 2017 events.
One suggestion about the author’s welcome coverage of the dangerous slide to the right of the international political spectrum, that bears directly on the problem. We agree on the need to exploit the inherent divisions attendant rightist politics, along with critical import of defending democratic institutions. Missing, however, from the author’s suggestions – and from our current political stage – is an affirmative program that not merely defends, but advances democracy into the economic realm. As “rust belt” voters have made clear around the world, playing defense will not suffice for purposes of rescuing economically displaced millions from rightist demagogy. Further, merely playing defense by exploiting rightist divisions, does nothing to block the invariable trend towards world war born of such divisions. If Democracy is understood as a process, rather than mere static achievements, then the continuing need to expand and enhance it is clear. The contradiction between formal political democracy, and substantive economic autocracy, must be boldly addressed to save us from the Right and war.
They are wrong if they think Trump is one of them.
It is a common mistake. Establishment Republicans and those who oppose them are often making the same mistake.
Trump is unique. He is reality TV in politics, pure ego. He is not a right wing system, nor a left wing, nor any other considered consistent system. He's just Trump.
Le Pen will get nothing from him.
Britain's PM May might get something from him, if she shows the sophistication that is not uncommon among the best British leaders. If so, it will not be by recognizing in him a fellow-anything, but by managing him for what he is.
It is a common mistake. Establishment Republicans and those who oppose them are often making the same mistake.
Trump is unique. He is reality TV in politics, pure ego. He is not a right wing system, nor a left wing, nor any other considered consistent system. He's just Trump.
Le Pen will get nothing from him.
Britain's PM May might get something from him, if she shows the sophistication that is not uncommon among the best British leaders. If so, it will not be by recognizing in him a fellow-anything, but by managing him for what he is.
27
First of all, Marine Le Pen is not extreme right. It seems nobody reads her program. She wants to preserve French way of life. She is for borders, for re negotiating with Europe, and if that doesn't succeed, have a referendum to cut ties from Brussels. She is for control of immigration.
If that's extreme, count me in. All the disinformation from the media. The same media that cries foul but yet perpetuates untruths if not outright lies when it comes to describing worries of citizens in Europe who are inundated by mostly economic migrants.
Holland saw murders and violence from Muslim migrants, and again, they suffered an invasion of them, and you want to call someone who wants to preserve the culture an extremist? Go ahead.
If that's extreme, count me in. All the disinformation from the media. The same media that cries foul but yet perpetuates untruths if not outright lies when it comes to describing worries of citizens in Europe who are inundated by mostly economic migrants.
Holland saw murders and violence from Muslim migrants, and again, they suffered an invasion of them, and you want to call someone who wants to preserve the culture an extremist? Go ahead.
8
Another element I love to read, both in comments and from readers, is that anyone who does not want to share all benefits they get, i.e. welfare, healthcare, all allocations with all the foreigners invading them is tantamount to racism and xenophobia. Where does it end? When you tell people who have paid income taxes and all form of taxes, that the piggy bank is empty. Sorry, but we will have to cut all benefits and social programs.
5
At this point Trump is the puppet of a radical Christian Supremacist cabal, led by such low lights as Mike Pence, General Flynn, and the DeVos/Prince clan. I can't see that changing any time soon.
But I don't know that, apart from their opposition to Islam, that cabal has much in common with the European nationalist right.
But I don't know that, apart from their opposition to Islam, that cabal has much in common with the European nationalist right.
I smell the stink of Steve Bannon, fox so-called news and hate-fear-anger LIES propaganda.
Do not be fooled, Good People of Europe. The Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/ Radical Religion Boys Party is a tiny minority of people in the world. They have spines of paper - money. Average people have spines of steel and outnumber the Robber Barons by 99%.
No contest. Do not let them win. Vote like your lives depend on it. They do, as do the lives of all future generations.
Do not be fooled, Good People of Europe. The Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/ Radical Religion Boys Party is a tiny minority of people in the world. They have spines of paper - money. Average people have spines of steel and outnumber the Robber Barons by 99%.
No contest. Do not let them win. Vote like your lives depend on it. They do, as do the lives of all future generations.
24
As long as the refugee problem and the Islamic terrorism exist in Europe, the right wing populism will remain and unstoppable force and will only grow. I will not be surprised if Marine Le Pen of France or Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom take over their countries in the coming election just like Donald Trump did it in USA. That will be unfortunate , the root cause is the refugee problem , the rise in crime rates and terrorism in European cities not handled properly by the present governments.
11
If we the USA had not destroyed whole nations to get access to their oil (Libya) or to serve OUR geo political ends (Syria, Iraq, Yemen) etc etc then the refugees would NOT be pouring into Europe 'causing problems' (95+% do NOT!). Your response is to double down on blaming the humanitarians like Merkel and Sweden for following international moral standards put in there by the West after WW II after millions of Jews died because of restrictions on refugees.
Crime is far higher in the USA than in Europe but always the colored are scapegoated, In Australia, the US and Europe. the lessons of two world wars are forgotten as the last survivors die off. We had former UK PM David Cameron stating he WISHED more Africans drowned to death in the Mediterranean Sea and to increase the deaths the UK withdrew money from the rescue of the drowning 'to send a message you are not wanted here'.
The Pope was so disgusted by this he openly condemned the statement. Australia mistreats its refugees like slaves and their inhumanity is a vote getter. We have Donald Trump here doing the same and never forget MOST white women even abandoned Hillary for Trump. We whites really are so very racist. In my military academy in 1970's England African students (mostly Nigerians) were sent to the 'wog room' a tiny attic in my class room for wrong answers while most of the teachers sported 'Support South Africa' and Mr Smiths 'Rhodesia' at the time.
We have not evolved one bit. Obama or not. Disgusted!
Crime is far higher in the USA than in Europe but always the colored are scapegoated, In Australia, the US and Europe. the lessons of two world wars are forgotten as the last survivors die off. We had former UK PM David Cameron stating he WISHED more Africans drowned to death in the Mediterranean Sea and to increase the deaths the UK withdrew money from the rescue of the drowning 'to send a message you are not wanted here'.
The Pope was so disgusted by this he openly condemned the statement. Australia mistreats its refugees like slaves and their inhumanity is a vote getter. We have Donald Trump here doing the same and never forget MOST white women even abandoned Hillary for Trump. We whites really are so very racist. In my military academy in 1970's England African students (mostly Nigerians) were sent to the 'wog room' a tiny attic in my class room for wrong answers while most of the teachers sported 'Support South Africa' and Mr Smiths 'Rhodesia' at the time.
We have not evolved one bit. Obama or not. Disgusted!
1
Coup D’état American-Style: If Only It Were a Fable – Alan Singer’s Latest Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/coup-detat-american-style_b_14...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/coup-detat-american-style_b_14...
3
This piece is dishonest--starting with its headline. I just find it galling, that the word "radical" is used to describe people who are on the far right--but Socialists, Communists, and other ultra-left wingers would never be called "radical". It' possibly because Liberals believe that socialism is now mainstream.
16
Oh, where have you been all this time when the right in this country tries to brow beat liberals, progressives, and assorted lefties?
Your president used the term 'radical' constantly to describe Bernie Sanders especially, but also to characterize liberal notions, especially those of a humane government, or governing for the good of all the people.
Of course, as with almost everything else, your president doesn't understand what liberal values or humane government might mean. The GOP may understand but doesn't want anything to do with it. For a lawmaking body charged with governing for the good of their constituents, that's radical.
Your president used the term 'radical' constantly to describe Bernie Sanders especially, but also to characterize liberal notions, especially those of a humane government, or governing for the good of all the people.
Of course, as with almost everything else, your president doesn't understand what liberal values or humane government might mean. The GOP may understand but doesn't want anything to do with it. For a lawmaking body charged with governing for the good of their constituents, that's radical.
2
You have a point. I'm left-leaning myself but there is definitely such a thing as a radical left. We made the mistake of letting them control our messaging, alienating potential allies among moderates. I suspect the backlash against strident leftist rhetoric is one of the factors that put Trump in the White House, and much as I dislike it, I can kind of understand why.
1
You're correct, Jesse. Social Security, Medicare, public schools, etc. are broadly accepted and even beloved by the public and can therefore be called "mainstream." The far right is simply the modern-day manifestation of Nazism, and most of us do indeed consider it radical, recalling the devastating world war that was required to overcome it the last time it rose up. Islamists can also be radical but I personally have greater fear of Trump and his minions.
7
Both in the US and outside, it seems, Liberals are only a reactionary bunch :) not able to really go on the offensive in defense of their policies.
11
It is neighborhood by neighborhood, country by country, that we can stop the far right. Don't panic but don't be complacent of whatever international progress they make
47
I think it has to do with the pendulum theory of history. The pendulum drew too far to the left and now common sense dictates it move too far right.
It should right itself in 24.3 years according to Hoyle.
It should right itself in 24.3 years according to Hoyle.
6
All these politicians are cowards and want to crawl back into their national snail houses. They won't recognize that their survival depends on the stronghold of a United Europe.
The worse fact is that they are hammering their crude and unintelligent ideas into the heads of uneducated voters fearing for their daily bread.
Education is the only solution to this cracking problem. But who will manage this?
The worse fact is that they are hammering their crude and unintelligent ideas into the heads of uneducated voters fearing for their daily bread.
Education is the only solution to this cracking problem. But who will manage this?
51
If it weren't for the fact that Germany is seen as a bully within Europe, one
with an agenda of it's own, things within the EU would work better and be
more acceptable to many Euro sceptics.
Education is important, but whose education? It is not as if the structure of
the EU with it's different institutions is radical. On the contrary and as
American intellectuals often point out it's run in such an archaic fashion as
to make anyone with any intelligence fear for the future. I cannot see much
good having come out of the EU so far.
So let's not put our hopes for a peaceful and functioning Europe in the hands of the men and much fewer women within the EU stronghold.
with an agenda of it's own, things within the EU would work better and be
more acceptable to many Euro sceptics.
Education is important, but whose education? It is not as if the structure of
the EU with it's different institutions is radical. On the contrary and as
American intellectuals often point out it's run in such an archaic fashion as
to make anyone with any intelligence fear for the future. I cannot see much
good having come out of the EU so far.
So let's not put our hopes for a peaceful and functioning Europe in the hands of the men and much fewer women within the EU stronghold.
1
Grüsse dich, Peter. The AfD is not hammering any ideas into my head. I am extremely well-educated and don't fear for my daily bread. The people hammering crude, unintelligent ideas into German's heads are the CDU. Remember willkommen kultur? All of those Afghans, Pakis, Afris who said they were Syrian to get a free ticket into the German welfare system? That was a pack of lies also, wasn't it? And the "wir schaffen das" lie? Pandering to all of these illegal migrants costs Germany 2 billion a month, I understand, when you count housing, food, education, payments of 340 EURs a month that is paying for nice cell phones and expensive sport shoes for these parasites. That is the reality, Peter. I have gotten my education from the AfD and by living in Rheinland Pfalz. The CDU is not interested in educating anyone--only lies and coverup.
2
When you say education I think you mean indoctrination. I went to Catholic School and feel the new left is more dogmatic than any of the religious authorities I encountered they expected you to question what they told you. They questioned it themselves but the left will never hear a differing opinion and rarely think further than their initial idea.
2
I would caution the progressive citizens of Europe to not be as complacent as the progressives of the UK and the United States. Remember that Brexit passed by 4 percentage points and Trump won by approximately 200,000 strategically distributed votes in swing states largely because Democrats failed to show up (because every poll had Clinton winning many Dems who were not especially enthusiastic about Clinton figured they could sit this vote out since she was such a sure thing). Please don't assume that it can't happen where you live. Assume the worst will happen and think of your vote as the only thing that can prevent disaster.
97
For central Europe--the worst has already happened. Some tone-deaf, arrogant, liberal elite allowed 1.8 million illegal migrants to walk into the country and gave them unlimited access to welfare, without asking the people of the country, without asking the other countries in the EU, and without thinking that this crush of freeloaders would completely overwhelm the police, the schools, the social systems. And then we were told that anyone who objected was xenophobic, populist, possible nazi. We have already seen disaster, need to see some way to prevent it from metastasising. Trump has the right idea-as do some people in Sweden. Absolutely NO immigration allowed for a year--until this gets sorted out in Germany. There are approximately 800000 unidentified people in Germany now...they either lied about their identity, threw away their passports, or used a false name--this Tunisian murderer in Berlin registered under 6 different names in Germany. The system to track these illegal migrants was overwhelmed and is totally broken. We have already seen disaster. A vote for Merkel is not going to make anything better. That is the reality.
1
You are absolutely spot on but the world will not end if a flake like Wilders or Le Pen win an election. Their countries' political systems will not end. They will still be democracies and I suspect they will become irrelevant as none of them seems to have any real politics to enact, like Trump they are reactionary. I tend to think of them like a cold, something to be endured for a relatively short time before we move on with our lives. There is no revolution in the cards just a temporary step backwards in progress towards a better world.
1
Oh yes. There were so many left-leaning voters who treated voting (or not voting) like it was no more than value signaling, all based on the assumption that Clinton would win. Even after the cautionary tale of the Brexit vote! It was such a complacent, spoiled attitude, and now we're all going to pay for it.
A great analysis of the divisions within the radical right. But I see two main challenges in what you are proposing to counter them: (1) as you suggest, most far-right parties have made a 'social market economy' one of their fundamentals. Welfare chauvinism is a powerful tool in pitting the worthy native citizen against foreigners How the left fights this is an ongoing dilemma when advocating a 'tolerant multiethnic society' doesn't seem to be getting any political traction (and quite the contrary); (2) pointing out inconsistencies in their logic might work with educated voters. But these parties don't have any problem selling fundamentally inconsistent ideas to their base - in fact, it's a promising strategy: you can have tax cuts and massive infrastructure spending!
25
Interesting article.
It is interesting how having a common enemy can be used to unite a group: radical nationalists against a tolerant global order; progressives against radical nationalist bigotry and militancy.
[Using the term 'liberal' here leads to confusion -- many contemporary "liberals" reject 19th century notions of market and selfish individualism].
At the same time having a common enemy changes those groups. Radical nationalists try to play down their difference from each other, leaving a generalized anger and nostalgia for a fantasized "pure" past (Trump fits in here), while progressives are forced to become more angry, religious and nationalist, -- "we (Christians) have killed more (unstated -- Islamic) terrorists than you, we too like to use market forces (Obamacare)."
I am afraid that the interesting and potentially benign parts of their ideologies -- the sense of nationhood (family, community, common pasts), emphasizing the nation part of their nation-states, and the vision of a peaceful and just ["justice" of course being defined differently in the end] future, both drop out leaving the anger and the macho contest with belief in protectionism and a unique fate for their chosen people (through an unregulated market millennialism dependent on each one's own messiah leading to a pure world purged of diversity).
What is needed is a reaffirmation of tolerant progressive ideas and resisting the zero-sum attitude of us and them.
It is interesting how having a common enemy can be used to unite a group: radical nationalists against a tolerant global order; progressives against radical nationalist bigotry and militancy.
[Using the term 'liberal' here leads to confusion -- many contemporary "liberals" reject 19th century notions of market and selfish individualism].
At the same time having a common enemy changes those groups. Radical nationalists try to play down their difference from each other, leaving a generalized anger and nostalgia for a fantasized "pure" past (Trump fits in here), while progressives are forced to become more angry, religious and nationalist, -- "we (Christians) have killed more (unstated -- Islamic) terrorists than you, we too like to use market forces (Obamacare)."
I am afraid that the interesting and potentially benign parts of their ideologies -- the sense of nationhood (family, community, common pasts), emphasizing the nation part of their nation-states, and the vision of a peaceful and just ["justice" of course being defined differently in the end] future, both drop out leaving the anger and the macho contest with belief in protectionism and a unique fate for their chosen people (through an unregulated market millennialism dependent on each one's own messiah leading to a pure world purged of diversity).
What is needed is a reaffirmation of tolerant progressive ideas and resisting the zero-sum attitude of us and them.
12
Hahahaha. As if the various left-of-center parties in Europe can agree on anything but lunchtime and culturally correct clothing. The soon-to-be majority parties on Europe's long suffering right do not require symmetry in all maters; they need only adhere to the concept of the nation-state, making its own laws, treaties and policies without interference from those who "know better". Those who did not know better than to rend their societies with their academic insanities to the degree they are now held in as much esteem as that medieval religion of hate. This is the crop from the seeds the elite have planted. It has taken decades to flower, and it will produce decades of harvest.
6
Reading you rant on about 'culturally correct clothing' (whatever that is) and 'the long suffering right' (yes, those rich right-leaning voters have suffered enough!): what the left has always emphasized is that interference into the nation state, as you put it, has been to the advantage of global capitalism. The left has tried to find ways to protect the nation-state against its worst effects, while the right has argued for more unfettered markets. Once you get to make your 'own laws, treaties and policies without interference,' what do you want to those laws to do? Do you want them to open your country to more global competition? Do you want them to protect against it? If so, how? That's the problem with the radical right - besides ranting against elites and foreigners and 'taking back control,' once you have control, what are you going to do with it?
2
It would be very helpful for the left to give up the Euro at this moment, letting the individual countries mint their own money. Keep the Euro as a reserve currency, perhaps stronger countries will keep it as their default currency. But giving weaker economies the ability to mint and inflate as needed will let them prosper again which will do a lot to quell the far right's antagonism. Let computers do the math when converting from one currency to another through the Euro by making most purchases transactions mediated by plastic cards. The root causes that populism addresses are many but this is a big one that can do much to turn down the animosity.
5
On the surface it may seem that the the liberal parties, be they left, centre or right of centre, are more united than the new radical right parties in Europe. But when looking carefully at present day governments in many of the countries it's obvious that these conventional parties have great difficulty in agreeing on just about anything. Unlike in the US most countries have a plethora of parties that form different styles of coalitions, most very ineffectual. The democratic process is often hindered by the new and larger ultra right parties. All have won representation in the elected assemblies and are efficient in immobilizing any useful work.
In this perspective it's important to look at the Trump win and the effect it can have on Europe. Over night things can change. The US went from the cultured civilized DP with Obama at its helm as the governing force, to the discredited and bigoted RP with Trump as leader in one election. Today, a
few days after inauguration we see the devastation of this outcome. The
RP stands for polices that are in many cases far more right wing than anything coming out of Europe but there is a history in Europe that sits deep
with many. Trump's win will work as a uniting force for them and there is all
the reasons to fear the future. Another reason is the new movements of people that challenges all co operation between European nations.
In this perspective it's important to look at the Trump win and the effect it can have on Europe. Over night things can change. The US went from the cultured civilized DP with Obama at its helm as the governing force, to the discredited and bigoted RP with Trump as leader in one election. Today, a
few days after inauguration we see the devastation of this outcome. The
RP stands for polices that are in many cases far more right wing than anything coming out of Europe but there is a history in Europe that sits deep
with many. Trump's win will work as a uniting force for them and there is all
the reasons to fear the future. Another reason is the new movements of people that challenges all co operation between European nations.
9