15
votes
New US ambassador to Germany under fire for rightwing support. Politicians accuse Richard Grenell of breaching protocol over interview with Breitbart
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- New US ambassador to Germany under fire for rightwing support
- Authors
- Philip Oltermann
- Published
- Jun 4 2018
- Word count
- 979 words
The only "groundswell" that exists is an immigration-based one.
The moment that immigration-based issue is appeased all momentum the extreme right has gained in Europe drops off the map. All motivation the base has disappears with it and they cease to be a voting block.
This is the fundamental issue of the far-right in Europe. It NEEDS immigration issues as a problem to motivate their audience. If they ever found themselves in a position to actually do something they wouldn't do anything because they would eliminate an issue that benefits them.
You see the same in voting blocks of the US when it comes to abortion. Single issue voters that vote Republican because "I can't support abortion" yet they never stop to ask themselves whether Republicans actually have ever done anything that they could do to support their anti-abortion platform. They hold all the power in all branches of government and they've done nothing, why? Because they need abortion as a motivator for part of their voters.
You will only actually see immigration change by the left giving compromise on them. The right will not change something that might reduce the number of people they have that go out and vote.
Immigration is a flashpoint, but the working class hasn't turned en masse to populist right parties over immigration alone. There has been not just a failure but a refusal by mainstream politics to address working class grievances, and especially the great historical left wing parties in Europe have been paying the price.
The French Parti Socialiste has been almost wiped out at the last elections. The German SPD had its worst result of the post-war era. The Italian center-left coalition finished third in March, behind both the center-right and the populist right Five Star Movement.
Only British Labour went against this trend, under the Corbyn leadership, ie with a leader who's been decidedly more hardline regarding working class issues than his milquetoast predecessors.
All the parties which, instead, lost out were involved in governments that pushed anti-worker legislation, sidelined issues with poverty (especially urban poverty), and generally embraced a classic right-wing mentality that "the market will fix all in due time".
This is what provided the upswell of support for the populist right, much more than immigration alone.
I can't agree that urban poverty has much to do with it. The growth in the right has predominantly been outside of densely populated areas, outside of cities.
It is everywhere that feel as though they're not as important as the cities that has negative feelings. And the issue all of those places cite is immigration, not urban poverty. They cite immigration and jobs.
You mention five-star and once again that's not a poverty movement, it's an immigration movement. They simply would not have the support they have if not for immigration being a vote motivator.
There ARE poverty issues that cause real unrest and unhappiness, you aren't wrong there. But those don't drive votes. Those issues existed before voting occurred, and when the immigration issue dies down they will still exist. People will still be unhappy, and they won't have their (real) problems solved by immigration policy anyway.
The real cause of this in my opinion goes back to the recession. It devastated commercial and industrial small to medium businesses outside of cities. There are towns that had nearly all shops close up. The standard of the towns dropped drastically as a result of all the loss of businesses. Things are a mess to this day, there are still rows and rows of closed and unused businesses. It all started with the recession. It lowered standards of living and lifestyles for people. This created the unhappiness that permeates throughout these movements, but this is not what they are voting for. They're voting for immigration. They think it's what caused their problem. They're wrong. They'll be disappointed later.
They will be lied to by the people that fail to make them happier and told that its someone else's fault though. Europe probably. This will raise issues.
No idea how to get through to them and solve the real problem though. I suspect you can't convince them that it's not actually the immigration that's a problem because if you could then they would be smart enough to know that in the first place.
As a working class person, my biggest gripes are the unstable and low paid jobs we are expected to be content with.
That mythical contentment is dangled in front us with the "if there were no outsiders here, you'd have better wages and job security. It's their fault you can't get a permanent contract because they work for less". It's bullshit, but it appeals to a very real sense of grievance and injustice, and is a seductive, simple message for angry and disillusioned people.
I think one way to dispel this misdirection is to know who is backing these populist movements financially, because someone somewhere finds it beneficial to push this message.
And what have the right done where they have power in Europe? They've happily worked to increase jobs... The low paying and low security king of jobs. Examples include gig jobs and zero hours contracts. Uber have been embraced, as have many gig based couriers. Zero hours contracts have been increased under endorsements and policies that encourage companies to run them through government subsidy.
The result? Improved employment figures but with dangerous, insecure, poor paying work that runs people ragged, raises stress levels and is not a sustainable longterm way of life.
But because it is an improvement in the top-level figures debating the issue is incredibly difficult. The kinds of people that don't already understand the issue are not the kinds of people you can easily make see the nuance and details. People that you can discuss such nuance with are already able to see the issue.
I don't know if the financial backers of the message matter that much. The lifestyles of the people are what matter.
The jobs being displaced by all these subsidies for zero hours and the companies being put out of business by gig jobs won't come back quickly at all either. They're not replaceable in any short-term measures. It would take 10-20 years to see results of investment in the other direction, but you won't get 20 years of a single government with a vision and drive to sustain that path.
Honestly it's a really intimidating issue overall. I think the only thing that you could do to try and maintain support for the long length of time needed would be to invoke extremely strong social safety nets to help out those stuck in all the bad jobs generated. That would then also be met by a "But scroungers and benefits moochers!" response from the tabloids, as usual but stronger.
And all the while we'll be getting hit by more and more waves of losses to automation, which will probably render any attempt to fix these jobs issues moot.
Look at the more granular data. The city centers, which are the wealthies parts of cities, tend to vote mainstream. But the dilapidated suburbs? they go populist right more often than not.
Uh yeah, what do you think is the main cause of urban poverty? unemployment and shitty, unstable, low-paid jobs with no prospects.
This is completely wrong, and as an Italian I think I'm fairly qualified to speak on it. M5S' main electoral promise focused on universal basic income. Immigration is the province of Lega.
Your analysis of urban poverty is exactly right, but then how do you turn it around and say "but that's not what they're angry about"? on what basis?
They are angry about being neglected. They're angry about someone like Renzi promising an 80€ bonus to middle-class workers while doing nothing for the unemployed. They're angry at a political class they perceive as detached elitist and self-referential, and they're voting for the "new" alternative that promises to be different. Renzi was initially balooned into power by the same anti-establishment sentiment, he presented himself as the "rottamatore", the scrapman who'd demolish "old politics". Immigration is just an issue of circumstance.
At the state level, they definitely have. However, they cannot outright ban abortion, so instead they have to make it harder to get one (see: Arkansas' new law that was recently upheld by SCOTUS which will result in the number of abortion clinics dropping from 3 to 1, in addition to many other regulations in other states designed to make it harder for abortion clinics to operate), make women feel guilty about it (some states require you get an ultrasound beforehand and talk to your primary doctor about it), restricting minors' access to abortions (usually by requiring parental consent, which goes back into making women feel guilty), and more. We only hear about the more extreme laws which are struck down by SCOTUS, or in the recent Arkansas case, upholding the 8th Circuit's decision. State Republicans also focus on defunding public schools (private school vouchers and charter schools, aka "school choice"), cutting social programs, and passing bad legislation (as a NC resident, some of the NCGOP's highlights include gerrymandering galore, passing budgets without any period for debate or comment, banning municipal broadband, and defeating climate change by passing laws stating that sea levels cannot rise).
At the federal level, abortion isn't really touched, which I guess is a good thing, given the current administration. Congressional Republicans are more focused on thinly-veiled racism ("immigration reform" which targets Mexicans while leaving the Canadian border wide-open), gun rights (thanks in part to the NRA's constant fear-mongering), reducing regulations (traditionally around coal, though Republicans have also focused on destroying/corrupting the FCC this term), and getting rid of social programs (usually under the guise of welfare "reform"). They used to also be about balanced budgets, but since they gained power they seem to have completely forgotten about that.
Wait, what? Am I understanding this correctly, they passed a law forbidding the sea to rise?
The NCGA passed a law in response to a report by the NC Coastal Resource Commission which stated the sea level would rise by 39" over a 100 year period which stated that no coastal policies could be based on modern scientific data, instead they have to be based on "historical data." The law was set for renewal in 2016, but I have been unable to find any articles about if its renewal succeeded or failed; regardless, this kind of wishful thinking is all too common with the NCGOP.
But why would they deny climate science? Because development on the NC coast might be stifled...
The worst part is that even if climate science was full of crap, their developments are still going to be threatened by the ocean slowly eroding the beaches. We had to move Cape Hatteras lighthouse back because it was on the verge of falling into the ocean, that should be a sign that the coasts will disappear, climate change or not.
Wow, that's just...wow.
The NCGOP is an absolute shitshow. I remember they introduced a bill that would require a signed parental consent form for medical professionals to discuss anything sex-related with a minor a few years ago. (I can't find the bill because all the Google results are about the law passed saying you can't withdraw consent during sex.)
In addition to preventing minors from getting STD/pregnancy testing without getting their parents involved, this would also make it illegal for doctors to perform their duties as mandated reporters of child abuse. Minors on birth control would have to get a new consent form signed every month when they got their prescription. A minor could petition to have the consent form requirement waved, but that blows any privacy they might have hoped for, and to a teenager, the court system is intimidating - you wouldn't know where to start. It died in committee thankfully, but the fact that was even introduced speaks miles about the intermingling of church and state.
Here in NC, we don't really have the alt-right so much as the religious right, where pastors will tell you who to vote for, and people pay close attention to "family values" issues (abortion, treatment of LGBT individuals, sex ed, etc).