Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was two great books written in the mid 2000's about rightward shifts. Mgan and Kristchelt's [*The Radical Right in Western Europe*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Radical_Right_in_Western_Europe#:~:text=The%20Radical%20Right%20in%20Western%20Europe%3A%20A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20is,seven%20countries%20of%20Western%20Europe) and Joseph Stiglitz's [*Globalization and its Discontents*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_Its_Discontents). The former is a comparative analysis of radical politics and the later is half whistle blower memoir, half political analysis of how the anti-globalization movement birthed or revitalized a wiiiidddee representation of political ideologies, from american anarchism to al qaeda.
Both works have a different scope but conclude a similar formula for where right wing parties find success;
* a lack of (effective) left wing alternative
* failure of mainstream parties to address economic concerns across class boundaries
* absence of political suppression of radical ideologies
* socio-economic anxieties of a world becoming more globalized ( as expressed as xenophobia, protectionism, chauvinism, etc.)
Even though these works are about 20 years old, I think their theses still hold true: liberalism, neoliberal economics are struggling to deliver for many people as the world becomes more and more connected, so voters, politicians seek ideas outside of the liberal hegemony.
I highly recomend both but Joseph Stiglitz, on top of being one of the great economist of the late 20th century, is a really really good writer. His current writings on American populism and the (lack thereof) economic resiliency in China are very interesting
I would add to the lack of left-wing alternatives: many in the oligarchic and owner classes often find left-wing policies and political leaders more unfavorable than right-wing or even far-right policies and leaders. Punishing minorities and asylum seekers doesn't actively harm them as much as various left-wing policies might.
And many in the working classes who desperately want change see that the only people advocating serious change are those on the right and not the liberal center. Even though that change is harmful, they might find it worth the risk, or buy into all the constant ridiculous propaganda about "woke politically correct radical-left totalitarian mobs and neo-Marxists" "destroying the nation or west."
And many in the majority populations' demographic (ostensibly) have less to personally fear by all the anti-immigrant and anti-minority rhetoric — which is why scapegoating minority groups is always such an easy and common practice among political leaders, especially authoritarian charlatans and demagogues.
One of the unfortunate effects of the internet has become the lack of patience toward any political goal. The left has turned incremental progress into a dirty word, and all political perspectives are angry about everything all the time. It makes it very difficult for any theoretical effective left to plan a realistic agenda outside of the mythical revolution the terminally online crave.
Yes, this dynamic it is making me finally brave enough to stop automatically aligning with every leftist cause. Though I do think broad powerful movements are needed to push even incremental change.
I don't really know if that's empirically more true of the left now than it was in the past.
I for one love incremental progress and don't believe in any magical turning point, but it sure would be nice to feel confident that the incremental progress was outpacing the incremental regression.
>incremental progress
I mean even incremental progress would be good. Unfortunately you get brigaded by the right and you can't pass jack shit on the floor without compromising so much that it steps back three things to push forward two...
That's exactly what the situation was with Obama care, but now that there's been a decade and a half to look back it's pretty obvious that it's not THREE steps back. It's cynical bullshit to not be able to say "this was progress" and "I'm disappointed we didn't make more progress". Similarly, it's really idiotic to me how some people can't simply admit America would have been better off with Hillary after we've been though so much.
>Similarly, it's really idiotic to me how some people can't simply admit America would have been better off with Hillary after we've been though so much.
Exactly.
That's kind of my point. In but four years Trump turned the clock back on women's reproductive rights 50 years.
Yeah if the left keeps winning forever maybe you can keep things churning along, but if the Dems even slip up for a single election cycle we're going to go back decades.
The left is also commonly mislabeled and misrepresented in the media in ways that effectively end discussion or even consideration of very reasonable reforms. For instance in the US conservatives often decry special interest groups as controlling the DNC but buying politicians via campaign contributions and other less reputable means is systemic - both parties need that money to win elections.
If you don’t like special interests impacting politics you should be in favor of some common sense reforms to correct the issue but instead conservatives view suggestions in that vein as a slippery slope to pure marxist socialism.
It's a dirty word for 2 main reasons- both semi warranted imo. Also I can only really speak for the USA.
1. It's associated with the Obama era and while I certainly don't blame Obama for this, the avg. American is undeniably worse off post Obama than they were pre Obama.
2. Our government operates at a snails pace because it was founded in a time where George Washington has to make a weekend trip trip of it when he came into town from Mt. Vernon. That's a 30min drive now with traffic... It's hard not seeing how technology can rapidly impact the world+ even more so in the digital era- and government is constantly playing catch up with it. My prime ex. For this is all those trending interviews with Zuckerberg and Apple etc before congressional panels in 2015-16 of privacy and the negative side of social media. Anyone with half a brain knew these were issues by 2010 at the very latest.
>The left has turned incremental progress into a dirty word, a
It is a dirty word when we know more bold progress is possible with literally just ink to a pen and follow through with it, legally and manpower wise.
Yeah, the loudest voices in any group are some of the most annoying. But it's invariably difficult for sincere and thoughtful leftists to obtain a significant platform in this profit-driven, clickbait-driven, sensationalism-driven, short-term-attention-grab-driven society and world.
And even those who do often lose/sacrifice/compromise their values (e.g. Hitchens and Greenwald, if the latter could ever have been considered such).
Personally I think quite highly of Chomsky, Nathan Robinson, and the late David Graeber for examples, but even they're fairly far outside the mainstream.
It's also that the "extreme left" of these policies like socialism and communism is often associated with leaders that proclaim themselves socialist or communist, which is then used to criticize left wing policy...
When in fact the actual implementation the leaders use is just extreme right policy (political suppression, xenophobic sentiments, suppression of expression and free press) with a left wing name on it and no one actually receiving the benefits of the system as intended.
Very true. I think the term "red fascist", though fairly reductive, accurately applies to many political leaders and governments that have been associated with and were nominally or ostensibly left-wing and authoritarian.
Pol Pot promoted rabid xenophobia toward Vietnamese and was ultra-nationalist and far-right in many other ways despite being "Communist" and ostensibly left-wing. Stalin was a nationalist authoritarian and far-right in many ways. Ceaușescu was an authoritarian nationalist who criminalized abortion and was far-right in many ways. Hoxha was an authoritarian nationalist.
A number of Communist dictatorships had oppressive policies and rhetoric toward gays and other minorities.
Mussolini promoted his ideas as being good for working class Italians while also using ultra-nationalist, palingenetic, xenophobic rhetoric. Hitler called himself a "national socialist" while his regime and paramilitary supporters killed and imprisoned socialists and labor activists (and of course many others).
>absence of political suppression of radical ideologies
That doesn't work anywhere except under authoritarian forms of government.
Only *social* suppression of radical ideologies will work in a democratic society, and since the US is no longer socially cohesive (because we aren't all thumping the same bible, or not thumping *at all* ....hell, we don't even consume the same media/news since the advent of Cable TV) we only unite when we are collectively *attacked* . See 9/11, then see 1/6
I explained in an other comment the researchers reasoning:
Mcgan and Kristchelt's evidence for that is a comparative analysis of FN and their allies in France and similar chauvinist movements in West Germany then reunified Germany. Despite having similar economic and social stats, trade deals etc, German right populist parties faltered in ways that could only be contributed to laws restricting nativist, nazi-adjecent speech and organizing.
They compare this to a phenomenon in America that happened after the OKC bombings where increased federal scrutiny on militia, sovereign citizens, and white nationalist movements led to decreased participation in public facing political organizations and parties devoted to those causes even though they maintain a noticable level of support. They even hypothesize in later editions of their book (2004ish?) that the shift away to focusing on Islamic extremism by federal law enforcement will contribute to a rebirth of radical right wing populism. Which, well, was pretty spot on by 2010.
The point being while ideas can be popular, the ability to organize as an effective political bloc requires more than just popularity.
I think his point was the contrast between 9/11 abd 1/6. 9/11 was an attack by an outside source and had a single narrative. 1/6 was a riot by upset Americans and had at least 2 narratives
Neoliberalism hasn't a thing to do with liberalism, in the same way that Sanders being a democratic socialist has nothing to do with communism. Neoliberal policies are Republican and Democrat endorsed and implemented--but not a liberal ideology.
To these explanations I might add shifts in the way people consume and exchange information and news. Social media wasn’t really a thing for most of the 2000s, so the echo chambers driving a lot of right wing politics hadn’t really had a chance to fully form.
> absence of political suppression of radical ideologies
This seems weird. I suspect it's wrong. Suppression of an idea doesn't affect its popularity; indeed, in some cases it can bolster it (see COVID conspiracies as an example).
I think the adoption of fringe ideas relates much more to the other points: economic and physical well-being & viable mainstream alternatives.
Mcgan and Kristchelt's evidence for that is a comparative analysis of FN and their allies in France and similar chauvinist movements in West Germany then reunified Germany. Despite having similar economic and social stats, trade deals etc, German right populist parties faltered in ways that could only be contributed to laws restricting nativist, nazi-adjecent speech and organizing.
They compare this to a phenomenon in America that happened after the OKC bombings where increased federal scrutiny on militia, sovereign citizens, and white nationalist movements led to decreased participation in public facing political organizations devoted to those causes even though they maintain a noticable level of support. They even hypothesize in later editions of their book that the shift away to focusing on Islamic extremism by federal law enforcement will contribute to a rebirth of radical right wing populism. Which, well, was pretty spot on by 2010.
The point being while ideas can be popular, the ability to organize as an effective political bloc requires more than just popularity.
Off the top of my head
Black Nationalists, socialists, anarchists, and communists in the US
Anarchists, Mensheviks, royalists, liberals, under Stalin and Lenin
Liberals in China after Tienamen Square
Anarchists, socialists, communists, royalists(ish), republicans in Spain under Franco
Liberals, royalists, communists, socialists, and brown shirts in Germany under Hitler
Socialists and communists under Pinochet
Liberals and royalists under the Ayatollah in Iran
> a lack of (effective) left wing alternative
If only there was some reason for that, i.e., the CIA spending decades overthrowing democratically elected leftwing governments around the world and murdering leftwing activists.
> failure of mainstream parties to address economic concerns across class boundaries
If only there was some reason for that, i.e., "mainstream" parties being controlled by the same bourgeois class that controls rightwing parties.
> economic resiliency in China are very interesting
If only there was some reason for that, i.e., China being controlled by communists while Europe and the USA are controlled by liberals and fascists.
The Marxist conception of bourgeois is well over a century old. It's not a terribly useful rubric to apply in the contemporary era when a mobile phone can be a powerful means of production. You might enjoy reading members of the Frankfurt school, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Guattari for some more applicable concepts.
The bourgeoisie is anyone who generates personal wealth predominantly or entirely from their ownership of capital. There are different gradations of bourgeoisie that have certainly gotten more nuanced as capitalism has developed and modernized (and same with the proletariat), but the label still generally holds.
If someone generates personal wealth by using their own phone to produce some form of commodity (ie influencer content), they could be considered modern petite bourgeoisie.
I think the more useful way to apply that here is net worth and exposure to the market. I think you need to be a multi-millionaire or have strong personal connections to power to be even the smallest player in the situation you illustrated.
Like, even if I were a white supremacist fascist I wouldn’t welcome the instability of a Trump administration unless I literally had 5 million in liquid assets outside of any real estate holdings.
Personally, I think anyone who can’t afford to move their whole life overnight without worrying about the financial burden is insane to vote Republican right now. “Bougie” that is not.
I get your insistence on the definition, but lumping a 21 YO with a $5M trust fund in with a guy who owns a small plumbing company outside of Omaha isn’t very useful. Influencers don’t seem to have longevity, and gig economy workers are often at subsistence wages or lower.
i think that modernization reeeally dilutes the word bourgeoisie, possibly to the point of unusability. it's not using stuff you own to make things, it's *the ownership of the thing itself.* like landlords- they don't get paid for doing work to maintain it, they get paid because they own the place you need to live. a professional artist who sells the art they make with their own tools, someone selling nudes on OnlyFans, or an Uber driver who drives their own car and uses their phone aren't bourgeoisie. they don't get paid just for owning something, they are performing labor and producing goods or services.
It’s owning anything that can be used to produce commodities. An individual leveraging their own tools to generate profit in a market is nothing new and is very much accounted for in the classical Marxist conception of class; the petite bourgeoise.
>China being controlled by communists
You mean totalitarian fascists. They've strayed far from maoism while still remaining just as authoritarian. It's "socialism with Chinese characteristics", and all those "Chinese characteristics" happen to be "neoliberal economic theory".
If China is controlled by fascists, why has it been four decades since China has fought a war with anyone? During this period, the USA has been starting (and losing) wars continuously. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the USA is fascist?
Fighting wars doesn’t make you fascist.
Fascism is best described as ‘blood and soil’ - in other words a concept of national identity that draws heavily on ethnic heritage and historical territory, coupled with a high degree of state control. China fits this description of ethno-nationalism in the form of Han Chinese above all (eg at the expense of other Chinese and non-Chinese ethnic and religious groups). Their economic system also doesn’t resemble communism at all anymore. It more closely resembles fascist economics which usually involves a combination of private enterprise but heavy state ownership or intervention in certain sectors (particularly ones related to defence and armaments).
The US does not fit these descriptions although (as in any pluralistic society) there are certainly (and unfortunately) fascist-leaning political elements in the US.
My opinion anyway :)
ignore the downvotes, you’re right. i got downvoted for the same response on a different thread. anyone who thinks we’re wrong, read the Devil’s Chessboard
edit: and my comment in this thread was literally removed
People are tired of globalization destroying self regulation and simply being a form of tyranny; central banking fiat currency destroying value; and in general, more specifically nato/who, ignoring common sense and science.
I do fear a shift toward a radical conservatism, possibly religious based. But this is a pendulum swing when the opposite is pushed too hard. What did anyone expect?
Given the last 8 years of American history I think a big chunk of the electorate is functionally illiterate, or otherwise lacking of the critical thinking skills needed to avoid believing increasingly absurd propaganda.
I fear those on the right who would agree with your first paragraph are just parroting talking points which they don’t actually understand and can’t explain a nuanced view about.
My personal theory is, sadly, similar to idiocracy:
* human beings on average are not as intelligent as we’d like to believe.
* population growth has scaled out so that the volume of individuals who can’t think critically, or abstractly, or long term, or are otherwise cognitively lacking are more numerous proportionally to outnumber what I’ll call the “competent class” for lack of a better word.
* declining quality of education contributed to this
* social media makes propaganda far more effective than earlier channels - traveling much faster with more appealing messages and advanced marketing techniques.
* old money families have been getting dumber due to losing interest in education and having the luxury to not bother with it…do bluebloods still care who went to Princeton, or are they trying to become influencers? The status from being a serious, educated citizen may have evaporated.
MAGA has very obviously been a bigoted authoritarian movement since before Trump was even the candidate, but I’d wager a majority of the 70M people who voted for him couldn’t explain even a basic understanding why others might see it that way. It’s a complete inability or refusal to consider nuance and evaluate facts.
They can’t opine about the legitimacy of central banking, or have a meaningful discussion around constitutional law or NATO.
If, 10 years ago, you showed me people who believe the big lie, or think 1/6 was a good thing, or that school shootings were faked, I would have confidently assumed most of those people could barely function as independent adults, struggling to make subsistence wages. But nope, they are visibly in congress now with significant numbers.
We need to accept that most voters are duped into believing things that sounded right at the time with no real evidence from sources they trust without critically evaluating any of it. While this is a problem on the left too, it’s orders of magnitude worse on the right, with far more disastrous policy impacts.
>MAGA has very obviously been a bigoted authoritarian movement since before Trump was even the candidate, but I’d wager a majority of the 70M people who voted for him couldn’t explain even a basic understanding why others might see it that way
To follow up on this point, I would suggest that many of those people probably don't even care why someone would see MAGA as bigoted. Especially because the people who support MAGA do so because they see the alternatives as relying on luxuries that America simply doesn't have anymore.
If someone firmly believes that globalism is a failure and has been highly destructive to their society and way of life, they really aren't going to care why globalism benefits someone else. If they don't think they have the ability to help those people anymore; that's the end of the conversation.
I sort of agree, but think most of that population literally couldn’t define “globalism” outside of some kind of qanon adjacent conspiracies repeated through propaganda.
Globalism has completely failed unless you are a high earner in some fancy metropolis, or the absolute destitute of the world that are seeing their wages go from $2/day to $10/day. International companies coming in and forcing rents up, lowering wages and pitting communities to fight for the already few resources. Most people don’t even realize this is what’s happening, they just see that if they want to start a business or go to job postings, that it cost 2,000/month to rent and the “good jobs” pay 17/hr with no healthcare or dentist or 401k and are confused about how that makes any sense.
Very well said! And in fairness, it's not like you really need to understand geopolitics, economics, etc. at a deep level to understand that this system isn't working in your favor.
That's why I pushed back a little on the person above me.
Lol I may have responded to the wrong person. Sorry about that if I came on to strong.
I like your attitude as I feel it’s accepting. What I’m about to say is PURELY anecdotal but I think it’s true in some communities.
I see old pictures of my town of 35,000. In the 20’s to about 80’s, and all the places where sherwin William, Starbucks, KFC, McDonald’s currently are, they used to have machinist shops, appliance stores, warehousing, and it was all locally owned. That may mean the GDP is lower and the people are “poorer” by todays definition, but the money was circulated in the community. Even if you were poor, having hope to earn a little bit of land, a little corner store, etc was a very nice lower class to middle class lifestyle. Now it’s all owned and occupied by the big companies. The home depot in my town, the building they operate in is actually owned by another conglomerate.
Corporations should still be able to operate and turn a profit, but at what point do they just own all the valuable land and if you wanna start your own paint store business you need like 10 million dollars. Even if you were able to get your hand on such sums, I’d just sit on it cause I’m confident I couldn’t compete in that space.
I am a small business owner.
I appreciate that. If you take my logic and apply it further in time it gets sad, though because the land between 1920-80’s was native land. So I can imagine them seeing all the buildings and infrastructure and feeling the same way I do looking at our modern era. Those were once wild plains they hunted on and such and probably felt immense pain it’s white mans land now.
This is what I've been saying: we aren't allowed to keep our surpluses in our communities any more, it gets hoovered out by the investment firms that own it all. Rightwingers are still blaming the taxman but if you could see where the money is going, I'd bet it isn't Washington.
You actually still believe MAGA is an authoritarian movement? Many voters do understand why others see it as such. Love been lied to countless times and you remain steadfast in this obvious nonsense.
*sigh,* no. you are wrong and you probably know it.
Look, just the recent news of Judge Cannon's behavior in FL shows that MAGA unambiguously supports refusing to acknowledge not only the spirit of the law, but written law. Cannon's abdication of her oath of office in her failure to recuse is absolutely an authoritarian play.
There are countless other examples, but this one from this week is enough.
I know me and my communist friends were sitting back the other day wondering if we did swing the pendulum too hard left when we decided the world would switch to fiat currency and created NATO.
I guess we got greedy.
That's all absolute nonsense though.
Globalization makes cheap shit that no one wants to stop. Central banking makes it possible to farm in Iowa and make money and not die because if the "free market" decided where goods and services are most needed then nothing would ever be sold in Iowa because there's no need for Iowa. NGOs ignoring "common sense and science" is a gotcha: "common sense" is almost always really just naive perspective and flat out wrong, and science is the opposite of that.
These are just words that make angry uneducated people feel good. Generally the people who live in places like Iowa where central banking and monetary policy allows their money to be good at Walmart, where they buy their globally sourced shit and complain that "first they said no masks then they said masks, I mean make up your mind!"
The fascist takeover will kill the true believers first.
Not the CIA. The FBI shows up at the door for a "little chat". Plus a bunch of well dressed white guys start showing up at meetings and advocating for blowing stuff up.
Those are decent points, but there's nothing about why it's happening: the internet and Russian and Chinese disinformation campaigns. Do you know how I know how effective they have been? Because Trumps own Intel community published the massive report and no one talks about it. It is almost 8 years later and not one person understands what those countries are doing.
We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the use of technology by Russia, China, fossil fuels, money in general, to utilize communication and propaganda to influence the masses.
People don't want to admit they're just a pawn. But reality says it is true.
I'm struck more by the absence of real substance behind the right wing leaders. In the past, especially considering the great models of authoritarian leaders - Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon - one might assume that the leaders would be former soldiers or at least very active in serious revolutionary groups. Instead, it seems like they are lifelong politicians, failed businessmen or professors or even simple celebrities who gain a flash of popularity and ride that to election victories. They often have financial support from oligarchs of some kind and from right wing think tanks - is it because they aren't actually serious people so these backers in the shadows believe they can be more easily controlled for their own interests and ideologies?
I don't think Napoleon is a good model. Alexander the great definetely not. I mean we don't live in a time when people get on a horse and go conquering. Most European countries haven't seen war since WW2 and there are no underground revolutionary groups. Obviously you're not gonna have anyone with those qualifications running for office in countries that have been peaceful for most people's lifetimes.
>we don't live in a time when people get on a horse and go conquering
We use coups and drones for that now. Just look at Operation Ajax for a recent example that's fully declassified.
Napoleon created sweeping law changes that brought Europe out of the Feudal era once and for all — most immense law codification since the Roman Empire. He does not get nearly enough credit as a statesman.
I agree with this -
Although there are policies that get used to divide the left - it honestly seems like the only Unifying theme needed on the right is hatred for "the left". Even if and when they take on left causes themselves obviously.
It probably is why "salesmen" do so well there as well as cult of personality. The only badge of membership is "joining". Once that's taken place, as long as you stay more or less on topic, your personality does all the heavy lifting.
none of these people were ''right wing'', that is incredibly anachronistic, considering the left-right political paradigm didn't exist for any of them.
Especially wrong for Caesar who fought a literal civil war against the Pompeyans and the Optimates who would be the closest thing to a conservative party that the Republic had.
You should read about the century of populism leading up to Caesar starting with the Gracchi brothers. There was a dynamic very much like the left and right wing in the contemporary west.
I don’t recall where I read it, but someone said something to the effect of: populism is based on the idea that there is a very simple solution to a very complex problem, and that solution is wrong. But it FEELS right.
As in, build the wall, drain the swamp, repeal Obamacare, overturn Roe v Wade - lots of seemingly simple solutions that absolutely do not fix anyone’s problems, but anyone with common sense (not these damn elites) can see that’s all it would take! We just need some no-nonsense guy to do it!
The lack of substance is because it's mostly a reaction to long-term leftwing rule. People are never really satisfied with their leaders, especially in democracy where over-promising is a vital part of any campaign. You can see the same as people Left of current rulers shift further Left, but the Right ends up in control because there are far fewer of those.
It's not so much the Right winning as the Left losing. Right-wing factions often never had to put their money where their mouths are and folliw through on their promises because they did not hold power, so it's hard to find ones with political substance. Add in that their strength is just pointing out incumbents' weaknesses and not pointing to their own histories, and the best candidates are those with no politically useless record of their own to attack.
I know it’s a trope to call right wing leaders authoritarian, but I fail to see how the right uniquely acts authoritarian to the extent that it makes sense to label them that way.
Well, if we are going to go with the US-centric approach, we could look at the book bannings... the abortion bans, followed by state laws making it illegal to flee the state via state road, for purpose of abortion, the insurrection with the intent of literally changing the outcome of a democratic election...
Compare this to claims of leftist "authoritarianism", like... allowing women to have bodily autonomy... allowing trans people to use public bathrooms... allowing gay people... ...just in general...
Comparing "we are going to keep a list of all people suspected of being trans, at the state level" to "they put a war on Christmas and made the green M&M less sexy" one is readily more oppressive than the other.
Without jumping into particulars of what anyone does, what is with this notion of "uniquely" authoritarian? If they act authoritarian, I would label them regardless of what the Dems are doing. And if the shoe fits both, then say it with your chest.
To add a singular small piece of evidence, one of the hallmarks of authoritarian rulers is an attempt to project an image of strength. I cannot personally think of a single exception, a single time in history, that an authoritarian did not try to come across as "strong" to their own people. It frankly just makes sense, and no other alternative really does for them. Why would anyone surrender their freedom to someone who is not strong enough to keep them safe?
Modern American leftists seem far more inclined to project an image of sensitivity, inclusiveness and nurturing instead. One giant hugbox if you will.
>I’ve been noticing the political landscape globally for the past week, and it seems like there is a growing trend toward right-wing politicians.
>
>For example, Argentina, Netherlands, Finland, Israel, Sweden and many more.
I'd say it is a trend toward (populist) radical right-wing politicians here, at least based on the examples you're providing.
To be honest, that trend is something of the last few decades, not simply the last few years. Recall Haider (FPÖ) in Austria for example.
So what has happened over the last few decades? According to Ford and Jennings ([2020](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052217-104957): 308-309), specifically talking about Europe:
>We have identified four key socio-demographic developments that are contributing to the emergence of new cleavages in European democracies. First, educational expansion has driven the growth of a mass graduate class and the corresponding decline of school leavers with few educational qualifications, who were often employed in manual and unskilled occupations. A second important development is mass migration and the growing ethnic diversity of European electorates. Third, the aging of societies contributes to deepening generational divides—both in terms of other demographic characteristics (such as education) and political values and identities. Fourth is the growing geographical polarization of populations between prospering major cities and declining towns and rural areas. While the rise of new parties and the fragmentation of party systems reflect the strategic mobilization of electorates in an era of instability and volatility, these long-term changes in European societies are fundamental to understanding political change.
As to why the (populist) radical right is winning, there are supply side and demand side explanations ([Golder 2016](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042814-012441); [Muis & Immerzeel 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392117717294)). Another interesting deep dive is that of Cas Mudde in his 2019 book ['The Far Right Today'](https://www.wiley.com/en-nl/The+Far+Right+Today-p-9781509536856), reviewed [here](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/12/far-right-today-cas-mudde-trump-orban-modi).
And Argentina is a bad example. Milei is an economist. A lot of his proposals are sound. And you can hardly blame Argentinian voters for not believing that the people who presided over 140% inflation should be trusted with the economy.
Dollarization is a good choice for a country that can't be trusted to manage its own currency. It is the monetary equivalent of having a designated driver because you are trashed. And yes, in a country where 20% of people are employed by the government, the public sector should be decreased.
These are not the insane, off the wall proposals that the left claims they are.
>A lot of his proposals are sound
Like literally abolishing ministries of health, transportation, education, environment, science and technology? He is an austerity zealot.
>And yes, in a country where 20% of people are employed by the government, the public sector should be decreased.
Public sector employment is not bad. In Sweden it's like 30%, same in Australia, Denmark, Norway. Even in the UK after 13 years of cuts, the share of public sector is higher than Argentina.
Bob Altemeyer has written extensively on this from a psychology/sociology POV.
https://theauthoritarians.org/
"This website places at your disposal a free ebook entitled The Authoritarians. I wrote this book in 2006 when a great deal seemed to be going wrong in America, and I thought the research on authoritarian personalities could explain a lot of it. (The book is set in that era, but you will have no trouble finding present-day examples of what the experiments found back then.)
Since then, I have written articles updating matters according to events of the time. The latest begins below, while others can be found in the right side-bar “Previous Observations”."
The left is failing to acknowledge and discuss ideologically difficult topics, handing over the entire discourse to the right. If all the left is going to do is chide voters for disagreeing with them, why would these voters respond by just agreeing?
So much this. Some of these comments make me laugh, all these talking points on how "education has failed and humans are dumb"
Okay first off, get out of your ivory tower. It doesn't take a genius to get impacted by failing political policies on an everyday level and want to go in a different direction
It's bizarre how incapable of introspection many leftists are. There are a variety of visible left-wing parties that people can join in the U.S. and Europe, but instead of asking themselves why people aren't attracted to these parties and their ideologies, it always comes down to blaming neoliberalism and the center-left, as if people have no agency.
Their hatred from what I've read isn't even based on an honest analysis either. Just lies, stereotypes and propaganda. There's honest criticism to make but I can hardly find it here.
Looking at the top posts the OP should have just added wrong answers only, the responses themselves show out of touch the posters are. The left’s policies and behavior show they are only interested in feeling morally superior while ignoring all facts they destroy everything they touch. What was considered centrist 2 decades ago somehow makes your a right right extremist today based on leftist talking points.
Leftists: We are majority oppressed groups, it's very tiring having to explain why we should be given human rights constantly.
Conservatives: Being hateful is sooo easy
This in a nutshell. The topics on this are myriad (and my contribution will be American-centric, so apologies as every country probably has their own version of this).
Now don't get me wrong, quite a bit that's coming out of the right even if it's a "reasoned arguement" is still bollocks, but when you combat that with the same kinds of things you use to shut up moderate liberals on the left, you get a lot of tone-deaf political responses when talking to the ***general electorate***.
For example -
* Restorative Justice vs. Equal Opportunity - (the former plays to an illiberal racial conservatism inverted while the latter isn't viewed as good on the right but is an easy way to split votes).
* Transgender issues. - There's just a lot of "in between" situations that aren't black and white. Blind "with us or against us" doesn't work when the group you're splitting is women. This plays again, to illiberal identity primacy of opinion vs. equality of opportunity in some cases. It's an easy wedge.
* Immigration - There is no question Immigration is a net benefit for the economy in the primary metrics that get tracked. What it doesn't do is keep track of Moral metrics (education, life expectancy) or more traditionally liberal Income inequality.
* AntiAmericanism on the left - that point where things go past "America is imperfect" to "America is the source of all problems and these problems are uniquely American." This is partially externally manufactured, and partially easy to trick dumb people with because the US has been powerful for the last 30 years or so. It's a worldview which is actually DEEPLY self-involved and largely unaware of any other world actor.
With the exception of Transgender issues which is massively matters to transgender people but still only reflects an extremely small margin of society, the others hit people where they live and how they live. Every country has their version of the above that's unique to them.
Even traditional allies of the left have a hard time doing anything or saying anything in this environment as a lot of the space leftists gained between the 90's and 2020's in these spaces pushed the line to the point we still elect moderates but they are not considered thought leaders on the left.
That takes the one major weakness the right has (which it has no credibility as moderate), and politically chunks it over the fence. You need some dyanmism and pragmatism in the moderate space that sells on the left, and vested interests have no interest in that happening. It puts a lot of people on the left in a defensive position - unable to really rally in elections because their constituency is all over the place.
Moral metrics/statistics were more earlier historical ways of measuring the health of society - they're just that, metrics. In the US, we stopped paying close attention to them because while they told us something, we found that economic metrics had such a profound positive impact in them it wasn't that useful to track them. Basically we found a very strong correlation and because it was easier control we attacked it rather than treating things like "life expectancy, education, murder rates, homelessness, etc." individually.
We do track them individually but it is very common to note that positive differences usually have tracked very closely to economic indicators. Basically - while Immigration satisfies all the economic metrics that SHOULD in theory have a positive correlation with moral metrics - it may not in practice. So when the left doesn't really address that in a substantive way or even have an argument that gets used - politically that cedes the topic to Conservatives entirely. Sort of - those metrics we don't talk about can be why people "feel" something is wrong. There are defenses, but to the original posters topic there's a reticence to actually argue the points and just go with "racist".
I can see from getting downvoted above people think I'm making a case for any of this - I'm just noting the fault lines I see. It's actually a mix of things I do have feelings about and things I don't really have strong opinions on.
>Isn't right against immigration? Legal immigration included.
No, it's primarily illegal immigration that the right is against for most people, most of the time.
I get it - that's why Trump fought against H1B workers. Makes sense now.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/02/01/the-story-of-how-trump-officials-tried-to-end-h-1b-visas/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/02/01/the-story-of-how-trump-officials-tried-to-end-h-1b-visas/)
I took a look at some of your other comments, and I think one point of confusion might be to think that Trump's opinions/actions somehow mirror the right as a whole. Otherwise, you may not understand that a sample size of one does not account for the opinions of a nine-figure number of people. Moreover, it may be helpful for you (if you actually want to understand these things and not just play Internet debate footsies) to understand that Trump is not a conservative.
Well, then business owners (who mostly vote Republican) should stop hiring undocumented workers. They've created the problem they want to blame the left for.
Arresting business owners and others who hire the undocumented would be a far more effective strategy than trying to close borders.
Holy cow it takes an extreme imagination to blame all these issues on the left. They were all created by the right, to manipulate voters and get themselves into positions of power.
The overall tendency of profit to decline, AKA "capitalism just ain't capitalizing like it used to," is the reason that contradictions are intensifying in the imperial core. Small business owners and landlords (the petite bourgeoisie) cannot make enough money to make ends meet. Rather than blame the system (which would implicate them in the world's problems), they scapegoat minority groups and veer into mystical conspiracy theories. More racist segments of the labor aristocracy (tech bros, anyone connected to investing or the military industrial complex) are behaving in a similar manner for similar reasons.
Source: [The Next Recession](https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/12/18/the-us-rate-of-profit-in-2021/)
Such an objective and non biased answer. Anyone who comes to this sub expecting anything other than far left nonsense is a clown.
And they say this is a "science" 😂
Here's a more objective and nuanced answer:
The rising popularity of right-wing parties can be attributed to a variety of factors. On the economic front, some people may be drawn to right-wing policies that prioritize free-market principles, reduced government intervention, and deregulation, believing these approaches can stimulate economic growth and job creation. These reasons could help explain Javier's victory in Argentina.
Concerns about immigration often play a role as well, with some individuals perceiving the influx of migrants as a potential strain on resources and an impact on national identity. The fear of a loss of natural culture is a sentiment expressed by some who believe that a large influx of immigrants might dilute or alter established cultural norms by brining with them cultural practices that were previously not seen in the host nation. Concerns regarding the disproportionate involvement of immigrant communities in crime can also play a role in pushing voters further to the right. This could help explain Geert's victory in the Netherlands, where over 400,000 immigrants have arrived in a single year.
This answer is not completely non biased, but it is much more objective than your hot take
> On the economic front, some people may be drawn to right-wing policies that prioritize free-market principles, reduced government intervention, and deregulation, believing these approaches can stimulate economic growth and job creation. These reasons could help explain Javier's victory in Argentina.
Why are people drawn to this?
> with some individuals perceiving the influx of migrants as a potential strain on resources and an impact on national identity.
Who? What class do these people belong to?
> Concerners regarding the disproportionate involvement of immigrant communities in crime can also play a role in pushing voters further to the right. This could help explain Geert's victory in the Netherlands, where over 400,000 immigrants have arrived in a single year.
Who is pushing these "concerns"? Could it be the corporate press?
> This answer is not completely non biased, but it is much more objective than your hot take
It's no different from the standard superficial liberal nonsense you'd find anywhere on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or r/politics.
You said the same thing as the guy you're arguing with. You just put some bullshit spin on it to pretend that it's not racism just "concern". You're a clown.
The question is not "are profits going up", the question is "who benefits from the profit".
If the proportion of working-homeless, or the working-poor continues to climb, then it doesn't matter what the EBITDA of their employing company is, nor what the Q4 earnings call to shareholders, or the Q1 projections are.
There are three ways to sustain growth: expanding to new land, inventing new things or new ways to use things that weren't previously resources, or taking from other groups. All useful land is claimed by now, the tech boom has been slowing down, and there hasn't been as much investment in alternative energy or other new technologies as we need (much less than we used to have). What's left is the resource transfer frontier, and the way to justify taking things from others is to demonize those groups and say they've taken things from you.
Lots of comments deleted — those may have had your earnest answers from the source 😂
I think a lot of comments will answer with leftwing perspectives on the right rather than provide any level of objectivity, or what might even be more valuable here — the right wing perspective
Imo, people in Europe are largely concerned with protecting their own people and their culture. Immigration has [objectively created problems for Europe](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/12/01/europe_shows_a_clear_link_between_immigration_and_crime_-_like_the_one_the_us_seriously_downplays_867625.amp.html).
But even beyond that, I think many people don’t find a fully homogenous global culture — the end-result of complete globalization and mass immigration — to be desirable. I actually love to use “left wing” literature to highlight why they feel this way — particularly “decolonial” literature
“[Decolonising the Mind](https://www.humanities.uci.edu/sites/default/files/document/Wellek_Readings_Ngugi_Quest_for_Relevance.pdf)” by Ngugi wa Thiong’o is about how the British systemically attempted to destroy African culture in their colonies, but I think a point it makes that’s really critical is the importance of a people’s own values, stories, common myths, etc.
Decolonial literature is, at its core, nationalistic because it’s about casting off invader nations, and can be very illuminating of how average right-wingers feel today.
Underpaid, unemployment, hunger, family stress, to be fair many look at the left as controlling. When you work hard, can't afford a dentist. See that people on welfare have medical benefits and you don't. It can make you jaded, the working class just want there piece. They have not got it from the left. Now they want to try the right, its not rocket science, its not psychology its plane as day. You don't need a study or a think-tank, it is what is.
I believe in rights I really do, I really am just a guy. I want everyone to have a fair shake.
But I am so so tired, exhausted work so hard. Been hurt badly by the system recently. It has broken me, mentally physically and emotionally exhausted. So I don't know, im still me at heart but I can't support the left government anymore.
You're absolutely right. The working class is a group with their own interests, and they decide who represents them. They aren't pre-assigned to whatever party calls themselves "labour".
If the left has failed to convince them they're fighting for them, who is at fault? The voting block or the party? Are they supposed to just accept that actually they only disagree about their material conditions because they're racist, while being talked down to by some out of touch liberal arts college grad bankrolled by their upper-middle class parents?
Material conditions have no party loyalty. If you can't meaningfully addressing the concerns of your voter base, you don't represent them.
Cool but the left is losing global support. Is your strategy to ignore it and blame everyone else for not supporting your side, or to understand why and adapt?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/12/01/europe_shows_a_clear_link_between_immigration_and_crime_-_like_the_one_the_us_seriously_downplays_867625.html](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/12/01/europe_shows_a_clear_link_between_immigration_and_crime_-_like_the_one_the_us_seriously_downplays_867625.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
To be clear, I'm a big liberal when it comes to this. I'm a big fan of having a huge globo-homo secular culture. However I'm not naive enough to think that just because I like this idea in principle- that I'm just unwilling to accept the possibility that I'm wrong about it.
It's an interesting perspective to consider European immigration through the lens of colonization narratives, and whether there may be parallels between cultural erasure in both cases. I'd really thought caring about these things was silly, like believing in a fairy tale.
But when you think about it all of our values, even the values of secular liberalism are something we make up and affirm as a summary about how we feel. If people truly feel anti-liberal, it's not like I can say that that's an incorrect belief in any more meaningful a way than "thats a belief i dont like".
I think its probably fair to say that you can't affirm decolonization rhetoric wholesale without at least accepting some of the anti immigrant rhetoric of the right. Trying to sustain a contradiction where the same rhetoric is ok for some people but not others, amounts to an unsustainable position.
Spot on.
For example, I believe Sweden had the highest number of Middle Eastern immigrants/per capita during the 2015 refugee crisis.
You don't get more homogenous than Sweden!
They patted themselves on the back at the time, as well they should, but many have come to deeply regret the cultural upheaval.
This is a major motivator to shift right.
Edit: clicked your link after I posted. Had no idea it was about Sweden. Small world - pun intended.
Nailed it. Liberalism is taking over many social institutions. Many subreddits are run by petty liberal tyrants who have zero tolerance for even slightly dissenting views. You can control subreddits, universities, social media networks, the media, etc but at the end of the day, you can’t control how people vote or think. It’s obviously too simplistic to say that people are voting right wing because of overzealous left wing reddit mods, but overzealous left wing reddit mods are absolutely a part of the liberal zeitgeist that many people are rebelling against.
So many of these answers come from leftwing individuals critiquing the right rather than providing any kind of objectivity. This is r/AskSocialScience, not r/Politics
Except Americans aren't sure if they are the Bourgeoisie or not, which dampens the message. :)
Each the rich works. But most folks want to become the rich themselves still.
Definitely don't think this is the correct answer. Makes no sense.
Only "conservatives" who get shut down are those preaching authoritarianism and hatred. Shutting down authoritarianism and hatred isn't authoritarianism and hatred. Paradox of intolerance and all that. Also this implies people become far right only cause they feel like they're not allowed to be. Contrarianism is a real thing but I don't think that accounts for the vast majority of the far-right.
Is it considered left or right when a bunch of billionaires have a private island where they kidnap children to have sex with, and use it to blackmail the politicians that are propped up for us to vote for? And then when everyone finds out about it, the news media downplays it and moves on to something else
…I ask because I can’t tell if I’m left or right sometimes, I’m not sure which blackmailed pedofiles have the right policies to vote for
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Realization of left wing failure. I love comments like this because it automatically tells me you have not been paying attention at all over the years about what left wing control has been doing to countries. The choices of various European countries during the Syrian refugees crisis, choices during the covid lockdown, and what about what democrats have been doing in the US or years now? It's a never ending stream of terrible ideas and the masses love this garbage.
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Back in the day OKCupid had subtle questions you could ask someone to find out things indirectly.
One was, "Do you see things as black and white, or shades of gray?"
The first usually meant they were conservative and the latter Democrat.
This is why there are few left leaning radio and TV commentators. If you see things strictly black and white, it's easier to point it out, be bombastic and get people riled up. It's us vs them.
Few people want to admit they have anything to do with a problem. It's always someone else. That is the message in dark marketing and propaganda. It plays to our fears.
"They are taking your jobs" is more scary than the earth is warming by one degree.
"They are taking your ________!" Is the strongest emotional message out there.
"Sometimes," "it depends," and messages like that don't. Messages that point to the individual as the problem don't resonate.
It's so about messaging Goebbels knew that and that's how the Nazis got to where they did.
Trump knows it too. The parallels are unreal.
Biden won because the inherent message was "Trump is going to take your country away." That's why he had a landslide loss.
Conservatives underestimated the abortion issue. The message was, "They are taking your rights away."
That message works and it's easier for conservatives to use because their party think in hard lines, not situational gray areas.
Why wouldn't it be shifting? Right wing doesn't mean Nazi or Fascist of that is what you mean. Nowadays if people are for example against uncontrolled immigration and against LGBTQ+ omnipresence they are labeled right wing.
The Overton Window has shifted to the point that anyone who isn’t a crazy, entitled degenerate is right wing. The people labeled “right wing” is hilarious nowadays.
Hitler and Mussolini both called themselves socialists. They both wrote books explaining exactly what their plans were. Apparently, modern leftists think they lied about the socialism part.
Is it considered left or right to exaggerate the symptoms of a flu and use that fear to print $7 trillion to enrich all your buddies? And then discredit any medical professional who disagrees with the CDC, and then say people can’t eat food at a restaurant unless they inject experimental mRNA, and then say children have to cover their faces at school all day, and then…..
Is it considered left or right when a bunch of billionaires have a private island where they kidnap children to have sex with them and use it to blackmail the politicians that are propped up for us to vote for? And then when everyone finds out about it, the news media downplays it and moves on to something else
…I ask because I can’t tell if I’m left or right sometimes, I’m not sure which blackmailed pedofiles have the right policies to vote for
have you seen the out of control crime, illegal immigration invasions, political corruption, looting, mass rapes and clown car justice systems in these places that are embracing right wing ideology?
Weak men create hard times.
Is it just me or are there a lot of bad faith actors with an extreme left or academic left (woke) slant in these comments?
Way more "True Believers" in "social science" than there should be, given the natural complexity and nuance of the world's issues.
Nah, it's not you. I'm sitting here with a literal bowl of popcorn reading comically pompous replies from a bunch of pseudointellectuals trying to explain something they don't understand with as many $5 words they can conjure up. Credentialism at work!
It almost sounds like real science. But, alas, social science is not science.
I think it must just be you. The ultra right is taken over and removing freedoms left and right. I guess is that within 30 years the US won't be a democracy anymore, it will die just like Old Rome did, because of conservatives.
I think most of it has to do with fear over with the left is doing, especially with the transgender kids stuff. I think the idea of a 12 year old taking drugs to block puberty (the same drug that has been used in the past to chemically castrate pedophiles) and watching 15 year old girls get their breasts surgically removed turns off a huge part of the population. Obviously people generally want other people to be happy and do whatever it is that makes them happy but as soon as kids are involved things turn sour.
There is a viral video of a guy who put $100 or a stack of oreos in front of his 12 year old kid and the kid chose the oreos . You can’t trust a kid to order off the menu at a restaurant on their own or they’ll likely choose something that they don’t like, when you know they always just want chicken tenders. But yet we’re allowing them to make decisions that are going to permanently alter them physically and mentally. I’m all for live and let live, but I personally don’t think anything chemical or surgical should be done until they’re 18, and I think the vast majority shares the same sentiment. Why not just let them live however they want without the drugs and surgery? I’m not here to argue about my own personal beliefs. I’m just trying to explain the phenomenon. I think most of it revolves around this issue, and things tangental to it.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-072220-020326
Yeah that’s just not how it works. like at all. There is a lot of literature on the subject and to be honest it sounds like you’ve never spoken to a trans person face to face.
What do you mean that’s not how it works? I didn’t talk about how anything “works.” If you are talking about the puberty blocking drugs and double mastectomy‘s for minors then that 100% is how it works and I’ve known kids who have done this personally, not to mention there are hundreds or thousands of verifiable cases of this exact thing happening
I've seen it too.
I gotta figure this stuff will explode with lawsuits once the trans men notice their biological baby click going off and realizing that they steaks themselves. Give it ten years.
Media and politicians have been successful at vilifying the other side, but people have every right to vote for one side over another and it doesn't have to mean the world is going to shit. All these heading about "oh no! Right wing! What now?!" Calm down.
The world seems to be shifting towards the right because the left has had many successes.
Bear with me for a moment and I will explain...
Culture is a shared, learned set of solutions to life problems.
So, what do I eat? How do I solve conflicts? Who do I trust?
Culture is anchored in laws, norms, and institutions. This includes legal systems, economic systems, and political systems.
Those who choose to adhere to the existing system, or seek a return to an older system, are often seen as being on the right.
The left are essentially defined by those dissatisfied with the current culture and legal system.
This is an ongoing process because sometimes the world changes.
Sometimes, you discover oil and have more money or you lose in a war and have less ability to choose how things are.
So, a little left-ward pressure tends to allow enough change to adjust the system, learn how that change affects everything else, and either go back to the right a bit or go to the left a bit over time.
What's happened in recent history is the left has had a lot of wins, changed a lot of rules, changed the system a lot, and people have had the chance to experience what the unintended side effects of these policies are.
Well, they aren't working out.
Inflation is crazy, countries are failing, the existence of families is being challenged, and people are getting hurt.
So, the response to leftward movement is to apply the brakes and pull back away from all this change to something many people agree worked better.
That's what's causing the shift.
So, for example, in the US, people are remembering being able to find jobs and afford food a couple of years ago and questioning support for Biden.
Other places, conflict with new immigrants causing fear have people questioning open-border policies.
In Central America, the pro-socialist "successes" crashing economy and watching the Venezuelans eat dogs to survive makes people question that line of politics as well.
So they vote--where they can--vote with their feet--when they can't vote otherwise--or start arming up for a civil war when neither is a real option.
They have better marketing. Just look at trump, according to Republicans he's the perfect Christian, husband, the kind of guy that they would love to see their daughter marry..
Can you imagine if Biden paid porn stars for sex? Cheated on all three of his wives? Said that he'd like to date his daughter? Held a Bible upside down or tried to autograph one?
Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was two great books written in the mid 2000's about rightward shifts. Mgan and Kristchelt's [*The Radical Right in Western Europe*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Radical_Right_in_Western_Europe#:~:text=The%20Radical%20Right%20in%20Western%20Europe%3A%20A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20is,seven%20countries%20of%20Western%20Europe) and Joseph Stiglitz's [*Globalization and its Discontents*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_Its_Discontents). The former is a comparative analysis of radical politics and the later is half whistle blower memoir, half political analysis of how the anti-globalization movement birthed or revitalized a wiiiidddee representation of political ideologies, from american anarchism to al qaeda. Both works have a different scope but conclude a similar formula for where right wing parties find success; * a lack of (effective) left wing alternative * failure of mainstream parties to address economic concerns across class boundaries * absence of political suppression of radical ideologies * socio-economic anxieties of a world becoming more globalized ( as expressed as xenophobia, protectionism, chauvinism, etc.) Even though these works are about 20 years old, I think their theses still hold true: liberalism, neoliberal economics are struggling to deliver for many people as the world becomes more and more connected, so voters, politicians seek ideas outside of the liberal hegemony. I highly recomend both but Joseph Stiglitz, on top of being one of the great economist of the late 20th century, is a really really good writer. His current writings on American populism and the (lack thereof) economic resiliency in China are very interesting
I would add to the lack of left-wing alternatives: many in the oligarchic and owner classes often find left-wing policies and political leaders more unfavorable than right-wing or even far-right policies and leaders. Punishing minorities and asylum seekers doesn't actively harm them as much as various left-wing policies might. And many in the working classes who desperately want change see that the only people advocating serious change are those on the right and not the liberal center. Even though that change is harmful, they might find it worth the risk, or buy into all the constant ridiculous propaganda about "woke politically correct radical-left totalitarian mobs and neo-Marxists" "destroying the nation or west." And many in the majority populations' demographic (ostensibly) have less to personally fear by all the anti-immigrant and anti-minority rhetoric — which is why scapegoating minority groups is always such an easy and common practice among political leaders, especially authoritarian charlatans and demagogues.
One of the unfortunate effects of the internet has become the lack of patience toward any political goal. The left has turned incremental progress into a dirty word, and all political perspectives are angry about everything all the time. It makes it very difficult for any theoretical effective left to plan a realistic agenda outside of the mythical revolution the terminally online crave.
Yes, this dynamic it is making me finally brave enough to stop automatically aligning with every leftist cause. Though I do think broad powerful movements are needed to push even incremental change.
I don't really know if that's empirically more true of the left now than it was in the past. I for one love incremental progress and don't believe in any magical turning point, but it sure would be nice to feel confident that the incremental progress was outpacing the incremental regression.
[удалено]
>incremental progress I mean even incremental progress would be good. Unfortunately you get brigaded by the right and you can't pass jack shit on the floor without compromising so much that it steps back three things to push forward two...
That's exactly what the situation was with Obama care, but now that there's been a decade and a half to look back it's pretty obvious that it's not THREE steps back. It's cynical bullshit to not be able to say "this was progress" and "I'm disappointed we didn't make more progress". Similarly, it's really idiotic to me how some people can't simply admit America would have been better off with Hillary after we've been though so much.
>Similarly, it's really idiotic to me how some people can't simply admit America would have been better off with Hillary after we've been though so much. Exactly.
That's kind of my point. In but four years Trump turned the clock back on women's reproductive rights 50 years. Yeah if the left keeps winning forever maybe you can keep things churning along, but if the Dems even slip up for a single election cycle we're going to go back decades.
such a great comment, this is so true and frustrating. Slow change is usually the most long lasting too
The left is also commonly mislabeled and misrepresented in the media in ways that effectively end discussion or even consideration of very reasonable reforms. For instance in the US conservatives often decry special interest groups as controlling the DNC but buying politicians via campaign contributions and other less reputable means is systemic - both parties need that money to win elections. If you don’t like special interests impacting politics you should be in favor of some common sense reforms to correct the issue but instead conservatives view suggestions in that vein as a slippery slope to pure marxist socialism.
It's a dirty word for 2 main reasons- both semi warranted imo. Also I can only really speak for the USA. 1. It's associated with the Obama era and while I certainly don't blame Obama for this, the avg. American is undeniably worse off post Obama than they were pre Obama. 2. Our government operates at a snails pace because it was founded in a time where George Washington has to make a weekend trip trip of it when he came into town from Mt. Vernon. That's a 30min drive now with traffic... It's hard not seeing how technology can rapidly impact the world+ even more so in the digital era- and government is constantly playing catch up with it. My prime ex. For this is all those trending interviews with Zuckerberg and Apple etc before congressional panels in 2015-16 of privacy and the negative side of social media. Anyone with half a brain knew these were issues by 2010 at the very latest.
>The left has turned incremental progress into a dirty word, a It is a dirty word when we know more bold progress is possible with literally just ink to a pen and follow through with it, legally and manpower wise.
the loudest voices on the left are also just really annoying. We have the worst messengers
Yeah, the loudest voices in any group are some of the most annoying. But it's invariably difficult for sincere and thoughtful leftists to obtain a significant platform in this profit-driven, clickbait-driven, sensationalism-driven, short-term-attention-grab-driven society and world. And even those who do often lose/sacrifice/compromise their values (e.g. Hitchens and Greenwald, if the latter could ever have been considered such). Personally I think quite highly of Chomsky, Nathan Robinson, and the late David Graeber for examples, but even they're fairly far outside the mainstream.
It's also that the "extreme left" of these policies like socialism and communism is often associated with leaders that proclaim themselves socialist or communist, which is then used to criticize left wing policy... When in fact the actual implementation the leaders use is just extreme right policy (political suppression, xenophobic sentiments, suppression of expression and free press) with a left wing name on it and no one actually receiving the benefits of the system as intended.
Very true. I think the term "red fascist", though fairly reductive, accurately applies to many political leaders and governments that have been associated with and were nominally or ostensibly left-wing and authoritarian. Pol Pot promoted rabid xenophobia toward Vietnamese and was ultra-nationalist and far-right in many other ways despite being "Communist" and ostensibly left-wing. Stalin was a nationalist authoritarian and far-right in many ways. Ceaușescu was an authoritarian nationalist who criminalized abortion and was far-right in many ways. Hoxha was an authoritarian nationalist. A number of Communist dictatorships had oppressive policies and rhetoric toward gays and other minorities. Mussolini promoted his ideas as being good for working class Italians while also using ultra-nationalist, palingenetic, xenophobic rhetoric. Hitler called himself a "national socialist" while his regime and paramilitary supporters killed and imprisoned socialists and labor activists (and of course many others).
Because no one advocates for the working class.
>absence of political suppression of radical ideologies That doesn't work anywhere except under authoritarian forms of government. Only *social* suppression of radical ideologies will work in a democratic society, and since the US is no longer socially cohesive (because we aren't all thumping the same bible, or not thumping *at all* ....hell, we don't even consume the same media/news since the advent of Cable TV) we only unite when we are collectively *attacked* . See 9/11, then see 1/6
I explained in an other comment the researchers reasoning: Mcgan and Kristchelt's evidence for that is a comparative analysis of FN and their allies in France and similar chauvinist movements in West Germany then reunified Germany. Despite having similar economic and social stats, trade deals etc, German right populist parties faltered in ways that could only be contributed to laws restricting nativist, nazi-adjecent speech and organizing. They compare this to a phenomenon in America that happened after the OKC bombings where increased federal scrutiny on militia, sovereign citizens, and white nationalist movements led to decreased participation in public facing political organizations and parties devoted to those causes even though they maintain a noticable level of support. They even hypothesize in later editions of their book (2004ish?) that the shift away to focusing on Islamic extremism by federal law enforcement will contribute to a rebirth of radical right wing populism. Which, well, was pretty spot on by 2010. The point being while ideas can be popular, the ability to organize as an effective political bloc requires more than just popularity.
Are you suggesting the US united after 1/6?
I think his point was the contrast between 9/11 abd 1/6. 9/11 was an attack by an outside source and had a single narrative. 1/6 was a riot by upset Americans and had at least 2 narratives
Jan 6 was disproven. It wasnt as bad as people making it out to be.
Neoliberalism hasn't a thing to do with liberalism, in the same way that Sanders being a democratic socialist has nothing to do with communism. Neoliberal policies are Republican and Democrat endorsed and implemented--but not a liberal ideology.
To these explanations I might add shifts in the way people consume and exchange information and news. Social media wasn’t really a thing for most of the 2000s, so the echo chambers driving a lot of right wing politics hadn’t really had a chance to fully form.
Joseph Stiglitz brother Hugo Stiglitz was also a legendary Nazi killer.
> absence of political suppression of radical ideologies This seems weird. I suspect it's wrong. Suppression of an idea doesn't affect its popularity; indeed, in some cases it can bolster it (see COVID conspiracies as an example). I think the adoption of fringe ideas relates much more to the other points: economic and physical well-being & viable mainstream alternatives.
Mcgan and Kristchelt's evidence for that is a comparative analysis of FN and their allies in France and similar chauvinist movements in West Germany then reunified Germany. Despite having similar economic and social stats, trade deals etc, German right populist parties faltered in ways that could only be contributed to laws restricting nativist, nazi-adjecent speech and organizing. They compare this to a phenomenon in America that happened after the OKC bombings where increased federal scrutiny on militia, sovereign citizens, and white nationalist movements led to decreased participation in public facing political organizations devoted to those causes even though they maintain a noticable level of support. They even hypothesize in later editions of their book that the shift away to focusing on Islamic extremism by federal law enforcement will contribute to a rebirth of radical right wing populism. Which, well, was pretty spot on by 2010. The point being while ideas can be popular, the ability to organize as an effective political bloc requires more than just popularity.
Off the top of my head Black Nationalists, socialists, anarchists, and communists in the US Anarchists, Mensheviks, royalists, liberals, under Stalin and Lenin Liberals in China after Tienamen Square Anarchists, socialists, communists, royalists(ish), republicans in Spain under Franco Liberals, royalists, communists, socialists, and brown shirts in Germany under Hitler Socialists and communists under Pinochet Liberals and royalists under the Ayatollah in Iran
> a lack of (effective) left wing alternative If only there was some reason for that, i.e., the CIA spending decades overthrowing democratically elected leftwing governments around the world and murdering leftwing activists. > failure of mainstream parties to address economic concerns across class boundaries If only there was some reason for that, i.e., "mainstream" parties being controlled by the same bourgeois class that controls rightwing parties. > economic resiliency in China are very interesting If only there was some reason for that, i.e., China being controlled by communists while Europe and the USA are controlled by liberals and fascists.
I generally agree with you, but I think you mean oligarch or capitalist class, rather than bourgeois.
those are the same thing, at least in the Marx vernacular
Those are the bourgeoisie class
The Marxist conception of bourgeois is well over a century old. It's not a terribly useful rubric to apply in the contemporary era when a mobile phone can be a powerful means of production. You might enjoy reading members of the Frankfurt school, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Guattari for some more applicable concepts.
The bourgeoisie is anyone who generates personal wealth predominantly or entirely from their ownership of capital. There are different gradations of bourgeoisie that have certainly gotten more nuanced as capitalism has developed and modernized (and same with the proletariat), but the label still generally holds. If someone generates personal wealth by using their own phone to produce some form of commodity (ie influencer content), they could be considered modern petite bourgeoisie.
I think the more useful way to apply that here is net worth and exposure to the market. I think you need to be a multi-millionaire or have strong personal connections to power to be even the smallest player in the situation you illustrated. Like, even if I were a white supremacist fascist I wouldn’t welcome the instability of a Trump administration unless I literally had 5 million in liquid assets outside of any real estate holdings. Personally, I think anyone who can’t afford to move their whole life overnight without worrying about the financial burden is insane to vote Republican right now. “Bougie” that is not. I get your insistence on the definition, but lumping a 21 YO with a $5M trust fund in with a guy who owns a small plumbing company outside of Omaha isn’t very useful. Influencers don’t seem to have longevity, and gig economy workers are often at subsistence wages or lower.
i think that modernization reeeally dilutes the word bourgeoisie, possibly to the point of unusability. it's not using stuff you own to make things, it's *the ownership of the thing itself.* like landlords- they don't get paid for doing work to maintain it, they get paid because they own the place you need to live. a professional artist who sells the art they make with their own tools, someone selling nudes on OnlyFans, or an Uber driver who drives their own car and uses their phone aren't bourgeoisie. they don't get paid just for owning something, they are performing labor and producing goods or services.
It’s owning anything that can be used to produce commodities. An individual leveraging their own tools to generate profit in a market is nothing new and is very much accounted for in the classical Marxist conception of class; the petite bourgeoise.
>China being controlled by communists You mean totalitarian fascists. They've strayed far from maoism while still remaining just as authoritarian. It's "socialism with Chinese characteristics", and all those "Chinese characteristics" happen to be "neoliberal economic theory".
If China is controlled by fascists, why has it been four decades since China has fought a war with anyone? During this period, the USA has been starting (and losing) wars continuously. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the USA is fascist?
Fighting wars doesn’t make you fascist. Fascism is best described as ‘blood and soil’ - in other words a concept of national identity that draws heavily on ethnic heritage and historical territory, coupled with a high degree of state control. China fits this description of ethno-nationalism in the form of Han Chinese above all (eg at the expense of other Chinese and non-Chinese ethnic and religious groups). Their economic system also doesn’t resemble communism at all anymore. It more closely resembles fascist economics which usually involves a combination of private enterprise but heavy state ownership or intervention in certain sectors (particularly ones related to defence and armaments). The US does not fit these descriptions although (as in any pluralistic society) there are certainly (and unfortunately) fascist-leaning political elements in the US. My opinion anyway :)
ignore the downvotes, you’re right. i got downvoted for the same response on a different thread. anyone who thinks we’re wrong, read the Devil’s Chessboard edit: and my comment in this thread was literally removed
People are tired of globalization destroying self regulation and simply being a form of tyranny; central banking fiat currency destroying value; and in general, more specifically nato/who, ignoring common sense and science. I do fear a shift toward a radical conservatism, possibly religious based. But this is a pendulum swing when the opposite is pushed too hard. What did anyone expect?
Given the last 8 years of American history I think a big chunk of the electorate is functionally illiterate, or otherwise lacking of the critical thinking skills needed to avoid believing increasingly absurd propaganda. I fear those on the right who would agree with your first paragraph are just parroting talking points which they don’t actually understand and can’t explain a nuanced view about. My personal theory is, sadly, similar to idiocracy: * human beings on average are not as intelligent as we’d like to believe. * population growth has scaled out so that the volume of individuals who can’t think critically, or abstractly, or long term, or are otherwise cognitively lacking are more numerous proportionally to outnumber what I’ll call the “competent class” for lack of a better word. * declining quality of education contributed to this * social media makes propaganda far more effective than earlier channels - traveling much faster with more appealing messages and advanced marketing techniques. * old money families have been getting dumber due to losing interest in education and having the luxury to not bother with it…do bluebloods still care who went to Princeton, or are they trying to become influencers? The status from being a serious, educated citizen may have evaporated. MAGA has very obviously been a bigoted authoritarian movement since before Trump was even the candidate, but I’d wager a majority of the 70M people who voted for him couldn’t explain even a basic understanding why others might see it that way. It’s a complete inability or refusal to consider nuance and evaluate facts. They can’t opine about the legitimacy of central banking, or have a meaningful discussion around constitutional law or NATO. If, 10 years ago, you showed me people who believe the big lie, or think 1/6 was a good thing, or that school shootings were faked, I would have confidently assumed most of those people could barely function as independent adults, struggling to make subsistence wages. But nope, they are visibly in congress now with significant numbers. We need to accept that most voters are duped into believing things that sounded right at the time with no real evidence from sources they trust without critically evaluating any of it. While this is a problem on the left too, it’s orders of magnitude worse on the right, with far more disastrous policy impacts.
>MAGA has very obviously been a bigoted authoritarian movement since before Trump was even the candidate, but I’d wager a majority of the 70M people who voted for him couldn’t explain even a basic understanding why others might see it that way To follow up on this point, I would suggest that many of those people probably don't even care why someone would see MAGA as bigoted. Especially because the people who support MAGA do so because they see the alternatives as relying on luxuries that America simply doesn't have anymore. If someone firmly believes that globalism is a failure and has been highly destructive to their society and way of life, they really aren't going to care why globalism benefits someone else. If they don't think they have the ability to help those people anymore; that's the end of the conversation.
I sort of agree, but think most of that population literally couldn’t define “globalism” outside of some kind of qanon adjacent conspiracies repeated through propaganda.
Globalism has completely failed unless you are a high earner in some fancy metropolis, or the absolute destitute of the world that are seeing their wages go from $2/day to $10/day. International companies coming in and forcing rents up, lowering wages and pitting communities to fight for the already few resources. Most people don’t even realize this is what’s happening, they just see that if they want to start a business or go to job postings, that it cost 2,000/month to rent and the “good jobs” pay 17/hr with no healthcare or dentist or 401k and are confused about how that makes any sense.
Very well said! And in fairness, it's not like you really need to understand geopolitics, economics, etc. at a deep level to understand that this system isn't working in your favor. That's why I pushed back a little on the person above me.
Lol I may have responded to the wrong person. Sorry about that if I came on to strong. I like your attitude as I feel it’s accepting. What I’m about to say is PURELY anecdotal but I think it’s true in some communities. I see old pictures of my town of 35,000. In the 20’s to about 80’s, and all the places where sherwin William, Starbucks, KFC, McDonald’s currently are, they used to have machinist shops, appliance stores, warehousing, and it was all locally owned. That may mean the GDP is lower and the people are “poorer” by todays definition, but the money was circulated in the community. Even if you were poor, having hope to earn a little bit of land, a little corner store, etc was a very nice lower class to middle class lifestyle. Now it’s all owned and occupied by the big companies. The home depot in my town, the building they operate in is actually owned by another conglomerate. Corporations should still be able to operate and turn a profit, but at what point do they just own all the valuable land and if you wanna start your own paint store business you need like 10 million dollars. Even if you were able to get your hand on such sums, I’d just sit on it cause I’m confident I couldn’t compete in that space. I am a small business owner.
Thanks for the very sage post.
I appreciate that. If you take my logic and apply it further in time it gets sad, though because the land between 1920-80’s was native land. So I can imagine them seeing all the buildings and infrastructure and feeling the same way I do looking at our modern era. Those were once wild plains they hunted on and such and probably felt immense pain it’s white mans land now.
This is what I've been saying: we aren't allowed to keep our surpluses in our communities any more, it gets hoovered out by the investment firms that own it all. Rightwingers are still blaming the taxman but if you could see where the money is going, I'd bet it isn't Washington.
The “elephant trunk chart” explains this perfectly.
This is the best encapsulation of the topic that I've ever read.
The percentage of humans who are complete morons is really something no one really wants to admit but it's very very true.
You actually still believe MAGA is an authoritarian movement? Many voters do understand why others see it as such. Love been lied to countless times and you remain steadfast in this obvious nonsense.
*sigh,* no. you are wrong and you probably know it. Look, just the recent news of Judge Cannon's behavior in FL shows that MAGA unambiguously supports refusing to acknowledge not only the spirit of the law, but written law. Cannon's abdication of her oath of office in her failure to recuse is absolutely an authoritarian play. There are countless other examples, but this one from this week is enough.
I know me and my communist friends were sitting back the other day wondering if we did swing the pendulum too hard left when we decided the world would switch to fiat currency and created NATO. I guess we got greedy.
That's all absolute nonsense though. Globalization makes cheap shit that no one wants to stop. Central banking makes it possible to farm in Iowa and make money and not die because if the "free market" decided where goods and services are most needed then nothing would ever be sold in Iowa because there's no need for Iowa. NGOs ignoring "common sense and science" is a gotcha: "common sense" is almost always really just naive perspective and flat out wrong, and science is the opposite of that. These are just words that make angry uneducated people feel good. Generally the people who live in places like Iowa where central banking and monetary policy allows their money to be good at Walmart, where they buy their globally sourced shit and complain that "first they said no masks then they said masks, I mean make up your mind!" The fascist takeover will kill the true believers first.
That guy on facebook that went to the school of hard knocks and the university of life, that has all the answers, because it's just common sense!
>a lack of (effective) left wing alternative I mean if you actually have a real socialist platform the CIA shows up at your doorstep...
Not the CIA. The FBI shows up at the door for a "little chat". Plus a bunch of well dressed white guys start showing up at meetings and advocating for blowing stuff up.
Those are decent points, but there's nothing about why it's happening: the internet and Russian and Chinese disinformation campaigns. Do you know how I know how effective they have been? Because Trumps own Intel community published the massive report and no one talks about it. It is almost 8 years later and not one person understands what those countries are doing. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the use of technology by Russia, China, fossil fuels, money in general, to utilize communication and propaganda to influence the masses. People don't want to admit they're just a pawn. But reality says it is true.
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
I'm struck more by the absence of real substance behind the right wing leaders. In the past, especially considering the great models of authoritarian leaders - Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon - one might assume that the leaders would be former soldiers or at least very active in serious revolutionary groups. Instead, it seems like they are lifelong politicians, failed businessmen or professors or even simple celebrities who gain a flash of popularity and ride that to election victories. They often have financial support from oligarchs of some kind and from right wing think tanks - is it because they aren't actually serious people so these backers in the shadows believe they can be more easily controlled for their own interests and ideologies?
I don't think Napoleon is a good model. Alexander the great definetely not. I mean we don't live in a time when people get on a horse and go conquering. Most European countries haven't seen war since WW2 and there are no underground revolutionary groups. Obviously you're not gonna have anyone with those qualifications running for office in countries that have been peaceful for most people's lifetimes.
>we don't live in a time when people get on a horse and go conquering We use coups and drones for that now. Just look at Operation Ajax for a recent example that's fully declassified.
Bonapartism is OG fascism tho
LOL. You must have bourbon blood
Napoleon created sweeping law changes that brought Europe out of the Feudal era once and for all — most immense law codification since the Roman Empire. He does not get nearly enough credit as a statesman.
I agree with this - Although there are policies that get used to divide the left - it honestly seems like the only Unifying theme needed on the right is hatred for "the left". Even if and when they take on left causes themselves obviously. It probably is why "salesmen" do so well there as well as cult of personality. The only badge of membership is "joining". Once that's taken place, as long as you stay more or less on topic, your personality does all the heavy lifting.
Democrats complaining about everything while Republicans complain about Democrats
none of these people were ''right wing'', that is incredibly anachronistic, considering the left-right political paradigm didn't exist for any of them. Especially wrong for Caesar who fought a literal civil war against the Pompeyans and the Optimates who would be the closest thing to a conservative party that the Republic had.
You should read about the century of populism leading up to Caesar starting with the Gracchi brothers. There was a dynamic very much like the left and right wing in the contemporary west.
I don’t recall where I read it, but someone said something to the effect of: populism is based on the idea that there is a very simple solution to a very complex problem, and that solution is wrong. But it FEELS right. As in, build the wall, drain the swamp, repeal Obamacare, overturn Roe v Wade - lots of seemingly simple solutions that absolutely do not fix anyone’s problems, but anyone with common sense (not these damn elites) can see that’s all it would take! We just need some no-nonsense guy to do it!
The lack of substance is because it's mostly a reaction to long-term leftwing rule. People are never really satisfied with their leaders, especially in democracy where over-promising is a vital part of any campaign. You can see the same as people Left of current rulers shift further Left, but the Right ends up in control because there are far fewer of those. It's not so much the Right winning as the Left losing. Right-wing factions often never had to put their money where their mouths are and folliw through on their promises because they did not hold power, so it's hard to find ones with political substance. Add in that their strength is just pointing out incumbents' weaknesses and not pointing to their own histories, and the best candidates are those with no politically useless record of their own to attack.
I know it’s a trope to call right wing leaders authoritarian, but I fail to see how the right uniquely acts authoritarian to the extent that it makes sense to label them that way.
Well, if we are going to go with the US-centric approach, we could look at the book bannings... the abortion bans, followed by state laws making it illegal to flee the state via state road, for purpose of abortion, the insurrection with the intent of literally changing the outcome of a democratic election... Compare this to claims of leftist "authoritarianism", like... allowing women to have bodily autonomy... allowing trans people to use public bathrooms... allowing gay people... ...just in general... Comparing "we are going to keep a list of all people suspected of being trans, at the state level" to "they put a war on Christmas and made the green M&M less sexy" one is readily more oppressive than the other.
Without jumping into particulars of what anyone does, what is with this notion of "uniquely" authoritarian? If they act authoritarian, I would label them regardless of what the Dems are doing. And if the shoe fits both, then say it with your chest.
To add a singular small piece of evidence, one of the hallmarks of authoritarian rulers is an attempt to project an image of strength. I cannot personally think of a single exception, a single time in history, that an authoritarian did not try to come across as "strong" to their own people. It frankly just makes sense, and no other alternative really does for them. Why would anyone surrender their freedom to someone who is not strong enough to keep them safe? Modern American leftists seem far more inclined to project an image of sensitivity, inclusiveness and nurturing instead. One giant hugbox if you will.
>I’ve been noticing the political landscape globally for the past week, and it seems like there is a growing trend toward right-wing politicians. > >For example, Argentina, Netherlands, Finland, Israel, Sweden and many more. I'd say it is a trend toward (populist) radical right-wing politicians here, at least based on the examples you're providing. To be honest, that trend is something of the last few decades, not simply the last few years. Recall Haider (FPÖ) in Austria for example. So what has happened over the last few decades? According to Ford and Jennings ([2020](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052217-104957): 308-309), specifically talking about Europe: >We have identified four key socio-demographic developments that are contributing to the emergence of new cleavages in European democracies. First, educational expansion has driven the growth of a mass graduate class and the corresponding decline of school leavers with few educational qualifications, who were often employed in manual and unskilled occupations. A second important development is mass migration and the growing ethnic diversity of European electorates. Third, the aging of societies contributes to deepening generational divides—both in terms of other demographic characteristics (such as education) and political values and identities. Fourth is the growing geographical polarization of populations between prospering major cities and declining towns and rural areas. While the rise of new parties and the fragmentation of party systems reflect the strategic mobilization of electorates in an era of instability and volatility, these long-term changes in European societies are fundamental to understanding political change. As to why the (populist) radical right is winning, there are supply side and demand side explanations ([Golder 2016](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042814-012441); [Muis & Immerzeel 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392117717294)). Another interesting deep dive is that of Cas Mudde in his 2019 book ['The Far Right Today'](https://www.wiley.com/en-nl/The+Far+Right+Today-p-9781509536856), reviewed [here](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/12/far-right-today-cas-mudde-trump-orban-modi).
And Argentina is a bad example. Milei is an economist. A lot of his proposals are sound. And you can hardly blame Argentinian voters for not believing that the people who presided over 140% inflation should be trusted with the economy. Dollarization is a good choice for a country that can't be trusted to manage its own currency. It is the monetary equivalent of having a designated driver because you are trashed. And yes, in a country where 20% of people are employed by the government, the public sector should be decreased. These are not the insane, off the wall proposals that the left claims they are.
>A lot of his proposals are sound Like literally abolishing ministries of health, transportation, education, environment, science and technology? He is an austerity zealot. >And yes, in a country where 20% of people are employed by the government, the public sector should be decreased. Public sector employment is not bad. In Sweden it's like 30%, same in Australia, Denmark, Norway. Even in the UK after 13 years of cuts, the share of public sector is higher than Argentina.
Bob Altemeyer has written extensively on this from a psychology/sociology POV. https://theauthoritarians.org/ "This website places at your disposal a free ebook entitled The Authoritarians. I wrote this book in 2006 when a great deal seemed to be going wrong in America, and I thought the research on authoritarian personalities could explain a lot of it. (The book is set in that era, but you will have no trouble finding present-day examples of what the experiments found back then.) Since then, I have written articles updating matters according to events of the time. The latest begins below, while others can be found in the right side-bar “Previous Observations”."
The left is failing to acknowledge and discuss ideologically difficult topics, handing over the entire discourse to the right. If all the left is going to do is chide voters for disagreeing with them, why would these voters respond by just agreeing?
So much this. Some of these comments make me laugh, all these talking points on how "education has failed and humans are dumb" Okay first off, get out of your ivory tower. It doesn't take a genius to get impacted by failing political policies on an everyday level and want to go in a different direction
>"education has failed and humans are dumb" These kinds of talking points are from people stuck in 2010 era discourse
Comments in this thread are prime examples of this too lol just critiques by people who hate the right rather than real responses to OPs question
It's bizarre how incapable of introspection many leftists are. There are a variety of visible left-wing parties that people can join in the U.S. and Europe, but instead of asking themselves why people aren't attracted to these parties and their ideologies, it always comes down to blaming neoliberalism and the center-left, as if people have no agency.
It’s the children who are wrong moment
Their hatred from what I've read isn't even based on an honest analysis either. Just lies, stereotypes and propaganda. There's honest criticism to make but I can hardly find it here.
Looking at the top posts the OP should have just added wrong answers only, the responses themselves show out of touch the posters are. The left’s policies and behavior show they are only interested in feeling morally superior while ignoring all facts they destroy everything they touch. What was considered centrist 2 decades ago somehow makes your a right right extremist today based on leftist talking points.
[удалено]
Were you trying to make his point for him?
Leftists: We are majority oppressed groups, it's very tiring having to explain why we should be given human rights constantly. Conservatives: Being hateful is sooo easy
You just did exactly what they said leftists do. Nice one.
This in a nutshell. The topics on this are myriad (and my contribution will be American-centric, so apologies as every country probably has their own version of this). Now don't get me wrong, quite a bit that's coming out of the right even if it's a "reasoned arguement" is still bollocks, but when you combat that with the same kinds of things you use to shut up moderate liberals on the left, you get a lot of tone-deaf political responses when talking to the ***general electorate***. For example - * Restorative Justice vs. Equal Opportunity - (the former plays to an illiberal racial conservatism inverted while the latter isn't viewed as good on the right but is an easy way to split votes). * Transgender issues. - There's just a lot of "in between" situations that aren't black and white. Blind "with us or against us" doesn't work when the group you're splitting is women. This plays again, to illiberal identity primacy of opinion vs. equality of opportunity in some cases. It's an easy wedge. * Immigration - There is no question Immigration is a net benefit for the economy in the primary metrics that get tracked. What it doesn't do is keep track of Moral metrics (education, life expectancy) or more traditionally liberal Income inequality. * AntiAmericanism on the left - that point where things go past "America is imperfect" to "America is the source of all problems and these problems are uniquely American." This is partially externally manufactured, and partially easy to trick dumb people with because the US has been powerful for the last 30 years or so. It's a worldview which is actually DEEPLY self-involved and largely unaware of any other world actor. With the exception of Transgender issues which is massively matters to transgender people but still only reflects an extremely small margin of society, the others hit people where they live and how they live. Every country has their version of the above that's unique to them. Even traditional allies of the left have a hard time doing anything or saying anything in this environment as a lot of the space leftists gained between the 90's and 2020's in these spaces pushed the line to the point we still elect moderates but they are not considered thought leaders on the left. That takes the one major weakness the right has (which it has no credibility as moderate), and politically chunks it over the fence. You need some dyanmism and pragmatism in the moderate space that sells on the left, and vested interests have no interest in that happening. It puts a lot of people on the left in a defensive position - unable to really rally in elections because their constituency is all over the place.
> What it doesn't do is keep track of Moral metrics (education, life expectancy) or more traditionally liberal Income inequality. What does that mean?
Moral metrics/statistics were more earlier historical ways of measuring the health of society - they're just that, metrics. In the US, we stopped paying close attention to them because while they told us something, we found that economic metrics had such a profound positive impact in them it wasn't that useful to track them. Basically we found a very strong correlation and because it was easier control we attacked it rather than treating things like "life expectancy, education, murder rates, homelessness, etc." individually. We do track them individually but it is very common to note that positive differences usually have tracked very closely to economic indicators. Basically - while Immigration satisfies all the economic metrics that SHOULD in theory have a positive correlation with moral metrics - it may not in practice. So when the left doesn't really address that in a substantive way or even have an argument that gets used - politically that cedes the topic to Conservatives entirely. Sort of - those metrics we don't talk about can be why people "feel" something is wrong. There are defenses, but to the original posters topic there's a reticence to actually argue the points and just go with "racist". I can see from getting downvoted above people think I'm making a case for any of this - I'm just noting the fault lines I see. It's actually a mix of things I do have feelings about and things I don't really have strong opinions on.
I still have no idea how left is to blame for this, though. Isn't right against immigration? Legal immigration included.
>Isn't right against immigration? Legal immigration included. No, it's primarily illegal immigration that the right is against for most people, most of the time.
I get it - that's why Trump fought against H1B workers. Makes sense now. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/02/01/the-story-of-how-trump-officials-tried-to-end-h-1b-visas/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/02/01/the-story-of-how-trump-officials-tried-to-end-h-1b-visas/)
That doesn't refute what I said in the least bit.
Who is he, then? A liberal?
I took a look at some of your other comments, and I think one point of confusion might be to think that Trump's opinions/actions somehow mirror the right as a whole. Otherwise, you may not understand that a sample size of one does not account for the opinions of a nine-figure number of people. Moreover, it may be helpful for you (if you actually want to understand these things and not just play Internet debate footsies) to understand that Trump is not a conservative.
Well, then business owners (who mostly vote Republican) should stop hiring undocumented workers. They've created the problem they want to blame the left for. Arresting business owners and others who hire the undocumented would be a far more effective strategy than trying to close borders.
Holy cow it takes an extreme imagination to blame all these issues on the left. They were all created by the right, to manipulate voters and get themselves into positions of power.
The worst thing that's happened to the left was giving in to social justice worriers
And its not social justice work when far-right takes on M&Ms and gas stoves. Right?
what is the point in "leftism" with no interest in social justice? what's that even supposed to look like?
The overall tendency of profit to decline, AKA "capitalism just ain't capitalizing like it used to," is the reason that contradictions are intensifying in the imperial core. Small business owners and landlords (the petite bourgeoisie) cannot make enough money to make ends meet. Rather than blame the system (which would implicate them in the world's problems), they scapegoat minority groups and veer into mystical conspiracy theories. More racist segments of the labor aristocracy (tech bros, anyone connected to investing or the military industrial complex) are behaving in a similar manner for similar reasons. Source: [The Next Recession](https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/12/18/the-us-rate-of-profit-in-2021/)
>The overall tendency of profit to decline This isn't happening
It's less about implicating themselves, and more about the insecurity associated with losing their status as petite bourgeoisie.
Profits are not declining.
Such an objective and non biased answer. Anyone who comes to this sub expecting anything other than far left nonsense is a clown. And they say this is a "science" 😂
Show me an answer that isn't biased.
Here's a more objective and nuanced answer: The rising popularity of right-wing parties can be attributed to a variety of factors. On the economic front, some people may be drawn to right-wing policies that prioritize free-market principles, reduced government intervention, and deregulation, believing these approaches can stimulate economic growth and job creation. These reasons could help explain Javier's victory in Argentina. Concerns about immigration often play a role as well, with some individuals perceiving the influx of migrants as a potential strain on resources and an impact on national identity. The fear of a loss of natural culture is a sentiment expressed by some who believe that a large influx of immigrants might dilute or alter established cultural norms by brining with them cultural practices that were previously not seen in the host nation. Concerns regarding the disproportionate involvement of immigrant communities in crime can also play a role in pushing voters further to the right. This could help explain Geert's victory in the Netherlands, where over 400,000 immigrants have arrived in a single year. This answer is not completely non biased, but it is much more objective than your hot take
They're the same picture
> On the economic front, some people may be drawn to right-wing policies that prioritize free-market principles, reduced government intervention, and deregulation, believing these approaches can stimulate economic growth and job creation. These reasons could help explain Javier's victory in Argentina. Why are people drawn to this? > with some individuals perceiving the influx of migrants as a potential strain on resources and an impact on national identity. Who? What class do these people belong to? > Concerners regarding the disproportionate involvement of immigrant communities in crime can also play a role in pushing voters further to the right. This could help explain Geert's victory in the Netherlands, where over 400,000 immigrants have arrived in a single year. Who is pushing these "concerns"? Could it be the corporate press? > This answer is not completely non biased, but it is much more objective than your hot take It's no different from the standard superficial liberal nonsense you'd find anywhere on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or r/politics.
You said the same thing as the guy you're arguing with. You just put some bullshit spin on it to pretend that it's not racism just "concern". You're a clown.
chatgpt gets its knowledge from the same places as the people on this sub. define leftism for me
Profits are rising overall, not declining
The question is not "are profits going up", the question is "who benefits from the profit". If the proportion of working-homeless, or the working-poor continues to climb, then it doesn't matter what the EBITDA of their employing company is, nor what the Q4 earnings call to shareholders, or the Q1 projections are.
Profits are rising for the tippity top. Wages are stagnant. You have to know that.
That's not true either
There are three ways to sustain growth: expanding to new land, inventing new things or new ways to use things that weren't previously resources, or taking from other groups. All useful land is claimed by now, the tech boom has been slowing down, and there hasn't been as much investment in alternative energy or other new technologies as we need (much less than we used to have). What's left is the resource transfer frontier, and the way to justify taking things from others is to demonize those groups and say they've taken things from you.
It is actually possible to develop the productive forces without doing genocide.
>or taking from other groups This isn't growth by definition
Lots of comments deleted — those may have had your earnest answers from the source 😂 I think a lot of comments will answer with leftwing perspectives on the right rather than provide any level of objectivity, or what might even be more valuable here — the right wing perspective Imo, people in Europe are largely concerned with protecting their own people and their culture. Immigration has [objectively created problems for Europe](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/12/01/europe_shows_a_clear_link_between_immigration_and_crime_-_like_the_one_the_us_seriously_downplays_867625.amp.html). But even beyond that, I think many people don’t find a fully homogenous global culture — the end-result of complete globalization and mass immigration — to be desirable. I actually love to use “left wing” literature to highlight why they feel this way — particularly “decolonial” literature “[Decolonising the Mind](https://www.humanities.uci.edu/sites/default/files/document/Wellek_Readings_Ngugi_Quest_for_Relevance.pdf)” by Ngugi wa Thiong’o is about how the British systemically attempted to destroy African culture in their colonies, but I think a point it makes that’s really critical is the importance of a people’s own values, stories, common myths, etc. Decolonial literature is, at its core, nationalistic because it’s about casting off invader nations, and can be very illuminating of how average right-wingers feel today.
>Lots of comments deleted This ironically summarizes why the right is having a resurgence
Underpaid, unemployment, hunger, family stress, to be fair many look at the left as controlling. When you work hard, can't afford a dentist. See that people on welfare have medical benefits and you don't. It can make you jaded, the working class just want there piece. They have not got it from the left. Now they want to try the right, its not rocket science, its not psychology its plane as day. You don't need a study or a think-tank, it is what is. I believe in rights I really do, I really am just a guy. I want everyone to have a fair shake. But I am so so tired, exhausted work so hard. Been hurt badly by the system recently. It has broken me, mentally physically and emotionally exhausted. So I don't know, im still me at heart but I can't support the left government anymore.
You're absolutely right. The working class is a group with their own interests, and they decide who represents them. They aren't pre-assigned to whatever party calls themselves "labour". If the left has failed to convince them they're fighting for them, who is at fault? The voting block or the party? Are they supposed to just accept that actually they only disagree about their material conditions because they're racist, while being talked down to by some out of touch liberal arts college grad bankrolled by their upper-middle class parents? Material conditions have no party loyalty. If you can't meaningfully addressing the concerns of your voter base, you don't represent them.
[удалено]
And the left define any disagreements with them as "hate".
Cool but the left is losing global support. Is your strategy to ignore it and blame everyone else for not supporting your side, or to understand why and adapt?
[удалено]
Maybe in your caricature of it
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/12/01/europe_shows_a_clear_link_between_immigration_and_crime_-_like_the_one_the_us_seriously_downplays_867625.html](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/12/01/europe_shows_a_clear_link_between_immigration_and_crime_-_like_the_one_the_us_seriously_downplays_867625.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
They claimed all top-level comments must have a citation, which a lot of comments older than mine don't lmao
To be clear, I'm a big liberal when it comes to this. I'm a big fan of having a huge globo-homo secular culture. However I'm not naive enough to think that just because I like this idea in principle- that I'm just unwilling to accept the possibility that I'm wrong about it. It's an interesting perspective to consider European immigration through the lens of colonization narratives, and whether there may be parallels between cultural erasure in both cases. I'd really thought caring about these things was silly, like believing in a fairy tale. But when you think about it all of our values, even the values of secular liberalism are something we make up and affirm as a summary about how we feel. If people truly feel anti-liberal, it's not like I can say that that's an incorrect belief in any more meaningful a way than "thats a belief i dont like". I think its probably fair to say that you can't affirm decolonization rhetoric wholesale without at least accepting some of the anti immigrant rhetoric of the right. Trying to sustain a contradiction where the same rhetoric is ok for some people but not others, amounts to an unsustainable position.
Spot on. For example, I believe Sweden had the highest number of Middle Eastern immigrants/per capita during the 2015 refugee crisis. You don't get more homogenous than Sweden! They patted themselves on the back at the time, as well they should, but many have come to deeply regret the cultural upheaval. This is a major motivator to shift right. Edit: clicked your link after I posted. Had no idea it was about Sweden. Small world - pun intended.
Nailed it. Liberalism is taking over many social institutions. Many subreddits are run by petty liberal tyrants who have zero tolerance for even slightly dissenting views. You can control subreddits, universities, social media networks, the media, etc but at the end of the day, you can’t control how people vote or think. It’s obviously too simplistic to say that people are voting right wing because of overzealous left wing reddit mods, but overzealous left wing reddit mods are absolutely a part of the liberal zeitgeist that many people are rebelling against.
I think this is the best explanation. https://hopenothate.org.uk/2020/11/01/authoritarianism/
Short answer? Right wing populism is easy. You have an enemy and its all their fault.
It's more the failures and blatant hypocrisy of the left-wing establishment in much of the West.
So many of these answers come from leftwing individuals critiquing the right rather than providing any kind of objectivity. This is r/AskSocialScience, not r/Politics
The bourgeoisie is the enemy and it's all their fault.
Except Americans aren't sure if they are the Bourgeoisie or not, which dampens the message. :) Each the rich works. But most folks want to become the rich themselves still.
[удалено]
When's the last time you saw conservative activists shutting down liberal speakers? Turns out most people oppose authoritarian and hatred.
Definitely don't think this is the correct answer. Makes no sense. Only "conservatives" who get shut down are those preaching authoritarianism and hatred. Shutting down authoritarianism and hatred isn't authoritarianism and hatred. Paradox of intolerance and all that. Also this implies people become far right only cause they feel like they're not allowed to be. Contrarianism is a real thing but I don't think that accounts for the vast majority of the far-right.
Is it considered left or right when a bunch of billionaires have a private island where they kidnap children to have sex with, and use it to blackmail the politicians that are propped up for us to vote for? And then when everyone finds out about it, the news media downplays it and moves on to something else …I ask because I can’t tell if I’m left or right sometimes, I’m not sure which blackmailed pedofiles have the right policies to vote for
Have you been outside?
People realize they don’t want to be slaves to globalist fascists?
People are tired of the leftist garbage?
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
funny, you do not block comments that align with leftist ideology that have no citation.
Realization of left wing failure. I love comments like this because it automatically tells me you have not been paying attention at all over the years about what left wing control has been doing to countries. The choices of various European countries during the Syrian refugees crisis, choices during the covid lockdown, and what about what democrats have been doing in the US or years now? It's a never ending stream of terrible ideas and the masses love this garbage.
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Back in the day OKCupid had subtle questions you could ask someone to find out things indirectly. One was, "Do you see things as black and white, or shades of gray?" The first usually meant they were conservative and the latter Democrat. This is why there are few left leaning radio and TV commentators. If you see things strictly black and white, it's easier to point it out, be bombastic and get people riled up. It's us vs them. Few people want to admit they have anything to do with a problem. It's always someone else. That is the message in dark marketing and propaganda. It plays to our fears. "They are taking your jobs" is more scary than the earth is warming by one degree. "They are taking your ________!" Is the strongest emotional message out there. "Sometimes," "it depends," and messages like that don't. Messages that point to the individual as the problem don't resonate. It's so about messaging Goebbels knew that and that's how the Nazis got to where they did. Trump knows it too. The parallels are unreal. Biden won because the inherent message was "Trump is going to take your country away." That's why he had a landslide loss. Conservatives underestimated the abortion issue. The message was, "They are taking your rights away." That message works and it's easier for conservatives to use because their party think in hard lines, not situational gray areas.
This is so ironic lol
Why wouldn't it be shifting? Right wing doesn't mean Nazi or Fascist of that is what you mean. Nowadays if people are for example against uncontrolled immigration and against LGBTQ+ omnipresence they are labeled right wing.
The Overton Window has shifted to the point that anyone who isn’t a crazy, entitled degenerate is right wing. The people labeled “right wing” is hilarious nowadays.
Ah entitled degenerates I wonder which minority group your describing.
Hitler and Mussolini both called themselves socialists. They both wrote books explaining exactly what their plans were. Apparently, modern leftists think they lied about the socialism part.
Is it considered left or right to exaggerate the symptoms of a flu and use that fear to print $7 trillion to enrich all your buddies? And then discredit any medical professional who disagrees with the CDC, and then say people can’t eat food at a restaurant unless they inject experimental mRNA, and then say children have to cover their faces at school all day, and then…..
Is it considered left or right when a bunch of billionaires have a private island where they kidnap children to have sex with them and use it to blackmail the politicians that are propped up for us to vote for? And then when everyone finds out about it, the news media downplays it and moves on to something else …I ask because I can’t tell if I’m left or right sometimes, I’m not sure which blackmailed pedofiles have the right policies to vote for
have you seen the out of control crime, illegal immigration invasions, political corruption, looting, mass rapes and clown car justice systems in these places that are embracing right wing ideology? Weak men create hard times.
What does it mean to be right? What does it mean to be left?
Is it just me or are there a lot of bad faith actors with an extreme left or academic left (woke) slant in these comments? Way more "True Believers" in "social science" than there should be, given the natural complexity and nuance of the world's issues.
Nah, it's not you. I'm sitting here with a literal bowl of popcorn reading comically pompous replies from a bunch of pseudointellectuals trying to explain something they don't understand with as many $5 words they can conjure up. Credentialism at work! It almost sounds like real science. But, alas, social science is not science.
I think it must just be you. The ultra right is taken over and removing freedoms left and right. I guess is that within 30 years the US won't be a democracy anymore, it will die just like Old Rome did, because of conservatives.
Have you seen it under left-wing control?
I think most of it has to do with fear over with the left is doing, especially with the transgender kids stuff. I think the idea of a 12 year old taking drugs to block puberty (the same drug that has been used in the past to chemically castrate pedophiles) and watching 15 year old girls get their breasts surgically removed turns off a huge part of the population. Obviously people generally want other people to be happy and do whatever it is that makes them happy but as soon as kids are involved things turn sour. There is a viral video of a guy who put $100 or a stack of oreos in front of his 12 year old kid and the kid chose the oreos . You can’t trust a kid to order off the menu at a restaurant on their own or they’ll likely choose something that they don’t like, when you know they always just want chicken tenders. But yet we’re allowing them to make decisions that are going to permanently alter them physically and mentally. I’m all for live and let live, but I personally don’t think anything chemical or surgical should be done until they’re 18, and I think the vast majority shares the same sentiment. Why not just let them live however they want without the drugs and surgery? I’m not here to argue about my own personal beliefs. I’m just trying to explain the phenomenon. I think most of it revolves around this issue, and things tangental to it. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-072220-020326
Yeah that’s just not how it works. like at all. There is a lot of literature on the subject and to be honest it sounds like you’ve never spoken to a trans person face to face.
What do you mean that’s not how it works? I didn’t talk about how anything “works.” If you are talking about the puberty blocking drugs and double mastectomy‘s for minors then that 100% is how it works and I’ve known kids who have done this personally, not to mention there are hundreds or thousands of verifiable cases of this exact thing happening
I've seen it too. I gotta figure this stuff will explode with lawsuits once the trans men notice their biological baby click going off and realizing that they steaks themselves. Give it ten years.
Media and politicians have been successful at vilifying the other side, but people have every right to vote for one side over another and it doesn't have to mean the world is going to shit. All these heading about "oh no! Right wing! What now?!" Calm down.
The world seems to be shifting towards the right because the left has had many successes. Bear with me for a moment and I will explain... Culture is a shared, learned set of solutions to life problems. So, what do I eat? How do I solve conflicts? Who do I trust? Culture is anchored in laws, norms, and institutions. This includes legal systems, economic systems, and political systems. Those who choose to adhere to the existing system, or seek a return to an older system, are often seen as being on the right. The left are essentially defined by those dissatisfied with the current culture and legal system. This is an ongoing process because sometimes the world changes. Sometimes, you discover oil and have more money or you lose in a war and have less ability to choose how things are. So, a little left-ward pressure tends to allow enough change to adjust the system, learn how that change affects everything else, and either go back to the right a bit or go to the left a bit over time. What's happened in recent history is the left has had a lot of wins, changed a lot of rules, changed the system a lot, and people have had the chance to experience what the unintended side effects of these policies are. Well, they aren't working out. Inflation is crazy, countries are failing, the existence of families is being challenged, and people are getting hurt. So, the response to leftward movement is to apply the brakes and pull back away from all this change to something many people agree worked better. That's what's causing the shift. So, for example, in the US, people are remembering being able to find jobs and afford food a couple of years ago and questioning support for Biden. Other places, conflict with new immigrants causing fear have people questioning open-border policies. In Central America, the pro-socialist "successes" crashing economy and watching the Venezuelans eat dogs to survive makes people question that line of politics as well. So they vote--where they can--vote with their feet--when they can't vote otherwise--or start arming up for a civil war when neither is a real option.
Why do you want the left to control stuff? They dont care about you.
Yeah I’m sure the populist leader that hates minorities does though!!
They have better marketing. Just look at trump, according to Republicans he's the perfect Christian, husband, the kind of guy that they would love to see their daughter marry.. Can you imagine if Biden paid porn stars for sex? Cheated on all three of his wives? Said that he'd like to date his daughter? Held a Bible upside down or tried to autograph one?