The slow revolt of Western electorates

[Jo498]

I think they might try to stick to the rhetoric as far as possible but silently change the policy. This happened already when they struck the deal with Turkey (which is getting difficult now, of course) and similar things will be done in the future to be able to speak of "welcome culture" but try to close the routes and also be more severe against anyone who might have a terrorist background or commits petty crimes.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Cubarey said:

That Fillon will likely be the Center-Right candidate complicates the matter as his views are decidedly to the right of even the last couple of Center-Right candidates and  much of the left might not be able to bring themselves to vote for him and thus not vote in the second round of the Presidential election which  makes a Le Pen victory conceivable. 

It's even worse than that. Fillon's classic program of economic neoliberalism is based on a longer workweek without any salary increase *!*, a suppression of the taxes on the richest (the "Fortune tax"), less civil servants, a privatisation of the -efficient- public health care system, and austerity for everyone (I'm not making this up, this is actually his program). Because the Socialist Party is so unpopular right now after Hollande betrayed many of his promises (like regulating finance and heavily taxing the 1%), there's a genuine risk that many voters who traditionally lean to the left will vote for Le Pen.

The main problem imho is that the center-left abandoned its effort at actively helping the lower and middle-classes while embracing liberal economics (and the European project). They were unable to propose any new ideas and seemed content to defend a moderate form of status quo. Now voters who have seen their personal situation steadily worsen through the economic crisis and unemployment are looking for radical alternatives. And after the terrorist attacks last year, they are going for the xenophobic anti-European far-right rather than the socialist far-left.
In all honesty, it's hard to blame the voters, because the Socialist Party committed political suicide by betraying its name and ideals. I can't help but wonder if this is what it felt to British voters when Tony Blair got rid of clause IV and embraced market economics.
Except they really did it at the worst possible moment, when Europe and immigration have become terribly unpopular, thus fueling the rise of the far-right. From what we know, Hollande was long convinced that his voters would stick with him for lack of alternatives ; instead, he had to face the fact of his unpopularity and resigned. The deeper message, for better or for worse, is that voters do not stick with politicians and parties who betray what they are supposed to stand for.

[Werthead]

France's big problem is that it was trying to be ultra-laidback and worker-friendly, but it's gone too far and ended up being unproductive to the detriment of its economy. Britain has tilted too far in the opposite direction of taking away worker rights but where France is right now is pretty ludicrous.

The problem is that in order to make France competitive on the international scene again, it'll need to shatter the power of the unions in a very, very ugly and probably long confrontation. Margaret Thatcher's name has been bandied around a lot (even by French journalists and commentators) in the UK news coverage of the situation.

The danger is that French workers will realise that and will listen to Le Pen's spiel that it's not their uncompetitiveness to blame but immigrants.

[Iskaral Pust]

France, Italy, Spain, et al are all long over-due the "labor reforms" to improve competitiveness and reduce very high unemployment.  But the flip side of that coin is that the labor reforms reduce protections for low-skilled workers and contribute to the same global problem that low-skilled workers in the first world are now competing with low skilled workers in the third world -- as posted earlier, competition in tradeable labor (industry) results in wage depression even in untradeable labor of similar skill levels.

The bottom line is that you can either have big protectionist systems that are fiscally unsustainable and result in high unemployment and favor middle-aged low-skill workers over young people (France, Italy, Spain), or you can have open market labor systems that are politically unsustainable and favor the educated but ride roughshod over the middle-aged low-skill workers (US, UK), or you can aim for some point in between with the necessary trade-offs.  Germany looks like it has a pretty good balance on these points but it was also helped by a currency union that supported its export industries for a long time, and the saving culture of its people have avoided the fiscal problems that might otherwise occur.  But not everyone can be Germany.  Mercantilism is a zero-sum game.

Western electorates are ultimately fighting against the rise of machines and the rise of the third world.  Right now they're just shouting at the tide.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

France's big problem is that it was trying to be ultra-laidback and worker-friendly, but it's gone too far and ended up being unproductive to the detriment of its economy. Britain has tilted too far in the opposite direction of taking away worker rights but where France is right now is pretty ludicrous.

The problem is that in order to make France competitive on the international scene again, it'll need to shatter the power of the unions in a very, very ugly and probably long confrontation. Margaret Thatcher's name has been bandied around a lot (even by French journalists and commentators) in the UK news coverage of the situation.

The danger is that French workers will realise that and will listen to Le Pen's spiel that it's not their uncompetitiveness to blame but immigrants.

Ok, I'll try really hard not to be offensive, but where do you get all this bullshit from?
Foreign investments in France are steady and have been for many years, the French government's borrowing costs in the financial markets are very low, and French workers are very productive (more than British or German ones if you believe last year's news).
There's now a pretty solid consensus that the 35-hour workweek had pretty much no negative effect on the economy (a loss of about 3% of productivity for only some specific companies, since not all were affected anyway) and created over 300,000 jobs (around half of the 700,000 promised, but still not 0).
As far as I know, the idea that France's worker-friendly labor market regulations are somehow hurting its economy has yet to be proven. That's what the OECD or the European Commission are saying, but many economists are arguing that's bullshit and the problem lies instead with the austerity programs imposed by the successive governments (in part because of the EU) that have stiffled growth. But anyway you don't need to be an economist to wonder whether taking away workers' rights will be enough to attract more investment than there already is... Or to compete globally with Chinese and Indians workers...
At the most, it seems reforming the labour market and shattering the power of the unions might slightly reduce unemployment... Except Thatcher showed that it could also do the exact opposite! Unemployment doubled under Thatcher before settling at around +25%. And of course, inequalities and poverty rose considerably thanks to Thatcher... In France, take away job security (as the right wants to do) and you may very well end up with less consumption and thus... Even less growth. You'd probably make things worse very quickly.

See, this is exacly why people in France are turning to the Euroskeptic far-right. For the last ten years at least they've been told that they had to give up their welfare in exchange for economic growth and jobs. Now they're not buying it anymore.
 

[Sullen]

8 hours ago, Cubarey said:

Le Pen is the leader of the Far Right National Front. Fillon is likely to be the candidate of the Center-Right. The French Presidential election will likely be between these two as the Center-Left headed by the Socialists are predicted to fall to a bad third place in the First round of the Presidential election (if no-one gets 50% of the vote then there is a runoff with the top two candidates facing off). Le Pen has a good chance to finish first in the first round and would normally lose in the seocond round as a large percentage of the Left would be expected to vote for anyone but Le Pen. That Fallon will likely be the Center-Right candidate complicates the matter as his views are decidedly to the right of even the last couple of Center-Right candidates and  much of the left might not be able to bring themselves to vote for him and thus not vote in the second round of the Presidential election which  makes a Le Pen vicotry concievable. 

The Socialists will likely fall in fifth place, not in third place, actually.

Mélenchon and the Parti de Gauche holds pretty solidly to his 13% or so of support, and Macron regularly polls at 15 points or ahead. The Socialist Party is effectively dead, and at this point only a merger could save it, but if I'm not mistaken both En Marche and the Parti de Gauche are opposed to it.

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Western electorates are ultimately fighting against the rise of machines and the rise of the third world.  Right now they're just shouting at the tide.

I wouldn't call it shouting at the tide. The rise of the machines is inevitable, but the machines are ultimately our servants. There is no reason their rise can't benefit everyone; it's only the current resource allocation framework that makes them problematic. The various anti-establishment movements are the initial attempts at something new, something that will be viable in the era of automation. Most of them will fail, but that's OK as long as at least one of the rest can evolve into what is necessary.

[Iskaral Pust]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I wouldn't call it shouting at the tide. The rise of the machines is inevitable, but the machines are ultimately our servants. There is no reason their rise can't benefit everyone; it's only the current resource allocation framework that makes them problematic. The various anti-establishment movements are the initial attempts at something new, something that will be viable in the era of automation. Most of them will fail, but that's OK as long as at least one of the rest can evolve into what is necessary.

That's why I say "right now" they're shouting at the tide.  Nativism, anti-elitism, nostalgia for a golden age, etc won't fix the problem.  It's time for them to accept that change happens and start looking for a societal solution.  The current neoliberal globalization clearly didn't offer enough to transition those most affected, so a better policy is needed but Trumpism is not it.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Iskaral Pust said:

That's why I say "right now" they're shouting at the tide.  Nativism, anti-elitism, nostalgia for a golden age, etc won't fix the problem.  It's time for them to accept that change happens and start looking for a societal solution.  The current neoliberal globalization clearly didn't offer enough to transition those most affected, so a better policy is needed but Trumpism is not it.

I agree with you that they won't fix the problem, but I think they're necessary steps towards a solution. Neither the right-wing nor the left-wing (e.g. M5S in Italy) movements are likely to solve anything in their current form, but they're still forcing many people to reconsider the status quo. Prior to 2016, the plan for Western nations could be summarized as "full-steam ahead with neoliberalism." There were a few people with friends at the top (e.g. Larry Summers) arguing that there may be a problem, but for the most part, the attitude was more trade deals, more austerity, more immigration, etc. The fact that several large and allegedly prosperous countries are reaching into the recycling bin of history for solutions makes the drawbacks of globalization more difficult to downplay or ignore.

[Iskaral Pust]

I agree with that Altherion.  

Larry Summers, despite being widely maligned for his ousting at Harvard and his role in a Clinton administration that egged-on a dotcom bubble, generally has a very clear view of econo-political topics. 

[OldGimletEye]

Okay, I've been refraining from commenting on this thread, because some of it involves comments about politics in Europe and quite frankly I'm just not as knowledgeable on European politics and policy issues as I am in my homeland the United States.

So, if I say something dumb, somebody please stop me and correct me.

But a few thoughts:

1. I think the rise of right wing ultra nationalist parties here in the US and Europe is pretty scary. I'm sure I'm not the only one to think this, but I can't help but think this resembles the 1930s just a little bit. For whatever reason, right wing nationalist parties seem to do well during economic crisis-es.

2. I think overall there are real benefits to immigration and free trade. But there are losers. And center left parties are going to have figure out how to deal with those issues. Most free trade models I know of do say that certain types of jobs will be lost and there will be at least "short term", and I use that term a bit loosely, re-distributive effects. In countries like the US and Europe that means those industries that use a lot of "low skilled" labor will lose jobs.

3. I don't know the situation in Europe that well, but in my opinion the issue in the US has been a long and painful labor market adjustment. Not all the jobs in the US are due to free trade of course. Some of it has been because of technology. But, whatever the source, getting labor markets to adjust for the "jobs of tommorrow" has to become a priority.

4. Austerity policies have been an effing disaster. It's too bad people took Alesina's paper and used to justify "expansionary austerity". It certainly has not been helpful.

5. In my very humble opinion, the Euro has proven to be a disaster. I do not think a single currency in Europe is workable until there is full political integration in Europe. I"m fairly pro-free trade and pro-immigration, but I think the Euro might have been a bridge too far.

[Iskaral Pust]

I'd agree with all of that.  And it's pretty much in tune with the entire thread so far. 

Questions yet to be answered on #1 are whether Trump and his ilk are truly fascist and would people even allow them to be?  He might be Mussolini or just Berlusconi, certainly no more sinister or competent than either.  I'd like to think that most of Trump's base would blanch at any real fascism developing, but for a pessimist I'm surprisingly optimistic about human nature sometimes. 

[Cubarey]

53 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I'd agree with all of that.  And it's pretty much in tune with the entire thread so far. 

Questions yet to be answered on #1 are whether Trump and his ilk are truly fascist and would people even allow them to be?  He might be Mussolini or just Berlusconi, certainly no more sinister or competent than either.  I'd like to think that most of Trump's base would blanch at any real fascism developing, but for a pessimist I'm surprisingly optimistic about human nature sometimes. 

Well we can hope he turns out to be as competent as Franco. 

 

Actually I think that Trump is a right wing populist leader. His being a billionare is as relevant as Castro being the son of one one of the most succesful Plantation owners in pre-revolutionary Cuba or his marriage into the Diaz-Balart family which was both at he top of the social elites and part of the Batista Government. 

 

The same can not be said of Le Pen and the Far Right Parties in Germany, Austria, Hungary and even Poland there bonifideness as neo-fascists is quite settled.

 

I also do not see why anyone would be surprised that large parts of the working class would turn to the Far Right when they feel betrayed by the Left that has adopted globalism. This is especially true since there have always been serious kickback in many European nations to the European Unity movement. It must be rembered that the French and others rejected the Maastrict Treaty and were overriden by the Elites in the Ruling Establsihment. 

 

Also it's not surprising that the working class is not willing to sacrifice itself and their children on the hope that a future economic rising tide   will lift all boats a generation in the future. It's quite easy for those who benefit from globalsim to make platitudes about a rosy future. It's a bit much to ask the working class to martyr itself for the sake of an uncertain future.

[Altherion]

I don't think Trump or Le Pen are anywhere near being genuine fascists, although Trump can certainly has quite a few similarities with Berlusconi. Likewise, the current era is not really similar to the 1930s; at most, it is history repeating itself as a farce. The 1930s had a variety of economic/political systems which differed quite radically: the New Deal in the US and similar mixed economies in much of the modern West, fascism in Italy, Germany and several other European countries (plus the somewhat, but not entirely, similar statism in Japan), and finally communism in the USSR and various anti-colonial revolutionary movements (which also had mixes of others).

Today, the world is much more homogeneous. There is still some variation (e.g. China's brand of capitalism is quite different from the US), but it is nowhere near what it was before. Also, militarism is restricted to peripheral conflicts -- MAD renders direct war between serious powers a nonstarter.

[Happy Ent]

I’ve made several attempts at learning about Le Pen. My French is simply insufficient to pick up nuance, so I’m reduced to reading translated material or subtitled speeches of MLP.

Assume for a minute that I am eager to be convinced that MLP can be correctly characterised as right-wing. Please help me see that.

To fix terminology, note that I consider the following issues left-wing: classically liberal civic rights (free speech, free elections, privacy). Liberal social policies (secularism, lax attitude towards social norms about sexuality, drugs). Redistributive economic policy. Protectionism (including economic protectionism and worker’s rights – this entails strongly regulated immigration.)

If somebody can explain to me why MLP is right (say, to the right of Fillon, or even Merkel), please do so. A link suffices. I do read some French, but not enough to make it through a whole article (individual quotes are fine, but in general I do not trust quotes taken out of context, and which were not uttered to be a concise summary of the author’s intentions).

[Jo498]

Because internationalism has been one of the most important aspects of the "old" leftism, no explicitly nationalist party can be leftist in the full sense.

People have either forgotten about this internationalism (because it was usually more of an ideal than practical policy, especially during the cold war) or they just love to taint what remains of the Left with the childish pointer that the Nazis were National *Socialists*. It is not by happenstance that internationalism was so important. One factor was the rabid nationalism in the late 19th/early 20th century, the leftist movements rejected. The other one that is still important is obviously that  "exporting jobs" is a powerful tool against the working class of a nation so at least the ambition has to be internationalist to prevent this. In a nutshell: because capitalism is internationalist, the worker's movement had to be as well.

My French is probably even worse, so I do not understand long original statements sufficiently well, if at all. But according to your criteria, it might well be that Marine LePen is less to the right than Fillon. Except that she seems to be against free trade, at least thinking about leaving the European union, obviously against immigration (and easy citizenship). So she definitely has a stronger isolationist and protectionist strain than e.g. Merkel.

Overall, I think this shows that the old classification of "left" and "right" is today often misleading and one might not be able to avoid somewhat more elaborate characterisations. (OTOH, the Austrian FPÖ is clearly on the far right as this term used to be understood, keeping in mind that it was never very precise in the first place.)

[Werthead]

18 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Foreign investments in France are steady and have been for many years...
 

I agree that reducing workers rights and benefits does not necessarily help the situation, we've seen that from the dire health of the British employment market (where "unemployment is low" hides the fact that vast numbers of people are under-employed, undepaid and in precarious situations). But I don't think anyone is going to argue that France has a competitiveness problem, not when major international banks, major financial services and the OECD are all saying the same things. Negotiating that issue without causing massive further problems and risking the economy (as you say Thatcher did) is France's biggest challenge going forwards.

Quote

Overall, I think this shows that the old classification of "left" and "right" is today often misleading and one might not be able to avoid somewhat more elaborate characterisations.

Situations where people desparate for good pay, reliable jobs, better workers' rights and the return of industry are turning to protectionism, authoritarianism and people and parties opposed to unions, welfare and redistribution shows that something has definitely gone wrong in the traditional left/right view of politics.

[Happy Ent]

3 hours ago, Jo498 said:

Because internationalism has been one of the most important aspects of the "old" leftism, no explicitly nationalist party can be leftist in the full sense.

OK, good answer. So “extreme right” in the sense of “rejection of internationalism”? Fair enough. The desire of the left for an government that is international but not necessarily democratic is one of the constants of political life, but not one that I (as a leftist) am particularly proud of.

(The rhetoric from the anti-EU parties seems to be grounded in democratic arguments of a constitutional nature, though. Arguments that I find perfectly valid. They seem to be a confirmation of the nation state as a political entity that is compatible with democracy; this argument – if presented honestly – is again very difficult to map to the left–right axis.)

[Rippounet]

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

I don't think Trump or Le Pen are anywhere near being genuine fascists, although Trump can certainly has quite a few similarities with Berlusconi. Likewise, the current era is not really similar to the 1930s; at most, it is history repeating itself as a farce. The 1930s had a variety of economic/political systems which differed quite radically:

10 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Assume for a minute that I am eager to be convinced that MLP can be correctly characterised as right-wing.

Ok, as far as Le Pen goes, I found this article from last year:
http://www.marianne.net/elie-pense/pourquoi-front-national-reste-parti-extreme-droite-310115.html
It's biased (Marianne is left-wing), but it does remind everyone that the National Front wants to change the powers of the French Parliament, repeal laws against hate speech, limit the powers of the "conseil constitutionnel" (whose role is not unlike the US Supreme Court), or reconsider France's application of the European Convention on Human Rights. It's totally possible that Le Pen has already changed her positions on some of these issues, but this is just political communication. The National Front has always campaigned to change the rules of the political system in France and take some distance with human rights. Does anyone seriously believe that they won't do it if they gain power?

As for the question of fascism... Focusing on what is different today only obscures the troubling similarities. Though I believe there are far more reasons to see Le Pen as a fascist than Trump. The Le Pens always had dealings with unsavory characters throughout Europe, including neo-nazi and openly racist groups.

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

 I don't think anyone is going to argue that France has a competitiveness problem, not when major international banks, major financial services and the OECD are all saying the same things.

Yes and no.
The first question would be to know how deep is this competitiveness problem exactly. Like having precise numbers and analyses rather than assumptions and impressions. I've read before that businesses are reluctant to settle in France because of the overcomplicated and rigid labour market. What I doubt is whether these businesses would seriously consider settling in France even without the current labour regulations. And, counter-intuitively, I've also read that some actually do enjoy the perks of having the welfare-state provide a wealth of advantages to the employees... You might object that businesses don't like the high corporate tax of around 33%? But that rate only applies to companies which declare a significant profit (above 380,000€ or so) and is thus easily avoided ; others have a corporate tax rate of only 15%. Consider that the US has a corporate tax rate above 35% and the UK around 20% and you understand why the issue of competitiveness is hardly as simple as you (well, the OECD and banks) make it out to be.
So yes, banks and finance don't like regulations. Big surprise. But the OECD, after years of calling for neoliberal reforms, has recently changed its tune (see for example: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/18/oecd-calls-for-less-austerity-and-more-public-investment). And France has recently reformed its labour market (which is why Hollande is on the way out, since this is considered a betrayal of socialism).
But again, the problem is whether the cure is appropriate to the disease. The disease here is unemployment. Will making firing people easier solve this problem? This makes no sense to me. I would expect the very opposite.
And then we have the ideological dimension, which is actually what we're talking about. Is competitiveness really more important than workers' rights? There are those who think that the issue of competitiveness only comes up because of the EU and free trade in the first place... Which is why populism and nationalism are on the rise.
 

[Happy Ent]

59 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

[…] the National Front wants to change the powers of the French Parliament, repeal laws against hate speech, limit the powers of the "conseil constitutionnel" (whose role is not unlike the US Supreme Court), or reconsider France's application of the European Convention on Human Rights.
 

Thanks for the link. But this points to one of the disconnects, one of the places where the left/right divide makes no sense. To me a repeal of laws against hate speech is a step towards freedom. Hate speech laws are authoritarian, totalitarian, fascist. Any movement that repeals hate speech laws has my immediate support as a leftist.

If the principled support of the foundations of liberal democracy (equality before the law and freedom of speech) have become positions that are associated with the extreme right, then I will proudly don that mantle. I’m just surprised at the shift. (Except that authoritarianism has always been a problem of the left, to our eternal shame.)