
How Far Is Europe Swinging to the Right? - stared
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/22/world/europe/europe-right-wing-austria-hungary.html
======
ThomPete
The "moving to the right" analysis is wrong both in Europa and in the US where
claims of Fascism seems to be the primary analysis of Trump.

What we are seeing is an increasing number of people seeing no fundamental
benefit of globalization or technology who are simply using their democratic
voice to say "hey what about us?"

These are voters who have been completely ignored by the politicians both in
the US and in Europe who have been more busy with pushing technology,
globalization, outsourcing and insourcing cheap labour.

To confuse this with what we normally consider right-wing is not only getting
the analysis wrong but also show why Trump so repeatedly have been
underestimated.

In Europe the "right wing" parties have repeatedly been doing better than any
poll predicted I expect the same thing will happen in the US with Trump.

They are not racist or facists. They are just afraid of the change that is
hitting them and have no other way of expressing this fear. In Europe and in
the US.

~~~
m_fayer
Just as one example, the FPö, which just very narrowly lost the Austrian
elections, was literally founded by nazis. They explicitly promote an ethnic-
nationalist Austrian identity at the expense of any notion of cosmopolitanism
or post-nationalism. Their frequent talk of Heimat is not all that different
from the blut und boden of earlier times.

If this isn't right-wing identity politics, I don't know what is.

~~~
RGamma
So? Doesn't mean they plan a genocide or aggressive expansionist policies...
Japan has been doing something similar for years, only there it's apparently
not called "right-wing politics"

~~~
kristopolous
Lebensraum was about unifying a diaspora of German speaking people into one
collective country.

These people want racially based geopolitical partitioning. The ones with a
diaspora and victimhood narrative certainly advocate for an aggressive
"homeland of the x people" where racist law keeps it that way.

~~~
emp_zealoth
TOOT-TOOT! Fact-checking police: (...)Lebensraum was an ideological element of
Nazism, which advocated Germany's territorial expansion into Eastern
Europe(...) As the very name says - "living space"

~~~
kristopolous
You seem to be correct!

My mistake! I know what I described was a Nazi policy but after reading
wikipedia, Lebensraum wasn't the name of it.

Thank you for the education and correction

------
return0
How far do we have to go before abolishing the 'right/left' distinction? It's
very complicated nowadays. The US by european standards only has "conservative
right" and progressive right". The far right in europe is actually national
socialism. The far left (e.g. syriza in greece, maybe podemos in the future)
caves in to market forces because it needs the market more than they need
them. Centre-right germany is socialist according to americans. Communist
china is way more capitalist than socialist sweden.

Since most countries have become two-party systems, what does right/left
dictate? social progress vs traditionalism? centralization vs the opposite?
equal opportunity vs equal outcome? It sure as hell is not about the economic
policies anymore.

~~~
Aoyagi
I thought that left/right was originally and primarily about state involvement
or not, so I guess centralisation/individuality.

~~~
vidarh
Originally it was about who supported the monarchy in France, and who didn't
in the constitutional assembly and first legislative assemblies after the
French revolution.

The constitutional monarchists and aristocrats sat on the right. Those
opposing the monarchy sat on the left.

Through the 19th century, the groups classifying themselves as left grew to
encompass (going left to right) anarchists, left-libertarians (right-
libertarianism wasn't founded until about a century later), communists and
other revolutionary socialists, social democrats and classical liberals (in
modern day Europe classical liberals sometimes are considered centre-right).

On the right, the 19th century saw the collapse of support for absolutist
monarchies and feudal systems, followed by the start of a splits along
religious lines (many European countries have "Christan democrats" competing
against usually mostly Christian but not religiously aligned conservatives)
and between rural and urban forms of conservatism (e.g. special interest
parties targeting farmers or rural populations are common many places), and
eventually the rise of right-wing libertarianism and populism.

State involvement or not is a red herring - e.g. a lot of the splits on the
left have been about level of state involvement, ranging from wanting to
destroy the state completely to wanting a strong state. Similarly on the right
since the rise of right-wing libertarianism from the 50's-60's onwards.

Basically you can't make sense of this on a single axis.

------
mrweasel
"Far right" has become a synonym for racist/anti-immigration, but it's
important to note that many of these parties aren't actually right wing
parties in any other sense.

Parties like "Dansk Folkeparti" in Denmark is pretty much Social Democrats,
except they are harder on immigration. Leaving out the anti-immigration part,
I would say that most of these parties are still to the left of both the
Republican and Democratic party in the US.

~~~
toyg
The original Fascism (as well as National-Socialism aka Nazism) was quite hot
on certain forms of socialism -- Mussolini was originally a socialist. They
advanced welfare, were not shy about nationalising industries, and were in
fact quite good for large sectors of the population -- hence their popularity
in spite of violence and otherwise appalling beliefs.

The establishment in both Italy and Germany originally built alliances with
these movements only because they were seen as "better than the reds", because
of their nationalism and belief in strong hierarchies (whereas socialists and
communists were internationalist and against hierarchies back then). They
didn't necessarily like a lot of their social programs.

Leaving out the anti-Jewish thing, Hitler and Mussolini were very much on the
left of both the Republican and Democratic party in the US (today as well as
yesterday).

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Exactly. Nazi stands for "national socialism", exploiting our tendency towards
ingroup/outgroup thinking combined with financial advantages and a strong
feeling of belonging and purposes for the members of the ingroup, at the
expense of some minority.

Its historically interesting though that the capitalists were generally
supporters of the nazi party, even before the times of slave labour and war
time profits. I guess social darwinism was a good match for the capitalist
competition mindset.

~~~
pluma
Instead of elaborating why the tired "Nazi stands for 'national socialist'"
meme is irrelevant I'll just link to the early history of the DAP/NSDAP (the
Nazi Party) on Wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Origins_and_early_e...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Origins_and_early_existence:_1918.E2.80.931923)

To summarize: they were initially just called the "German Worker's Party" and
had a strong basis in the middle-class. They weren't interested in socialism
(i.e. social ownership of capital) but merely in profit sharing (i.e. paying
workers better). Their leaders were nationalist, anti-Semitic and racist
pretty much from day one -- which is also why they were categorically opposed
to communists and other (anti-national or non-nationalist) socialists.

The entire party can be explained as a radical reaction to the fallout from
WW1 in Germany: economy in ruins, political lack of power, basically Euro-
crisis Greece but significantly worse because everybody hated them and there
wasn't an international union trying to fix them.

The reason capitalists liked the NSDAP was that there literally wasn't much
capitalisting to do in Germany without first re-asserting Germany's political
(and military) power in Europe -- and that's one of the main things the NSDAP
tried to do. Though I'm sure Jewish or non-anti-Semitic (remember: before WW2
anti-Semitism was socially acceptable) capitalists weren't too thrilled about
the rampant anti-Semitism.

------
golemotron
With Trump and Sanders in the US, Brexit in Britain and the rise of what's
being called the "far right" in Europe, we're seeing a referendum on
globalism.

The pendulum swings back and forth and this move shouldn't be surprising to
anyone who reads history. People who believe in a Fukuyama-style 'end of
history' scenario are shocked that nationalism is bubbling up again, but it is
a natural correction. Local governance, culture and economy have a de facto
legitimacy among people that de jure unions never will.

The Left's challenge is to acknowledge this and help create a framework for a
peaceful world of disparate cultures and loose alliances.

~~~
adwf
I wouldn't say it's globalism per se. More that in a recession everyone looks
for someone to blame. It's far easier to blame "those dirty foreigners" than
it is to accept the vagaries of economics. Or that maybe the blame is almost
entirely on ourselves.

It's a kind of fundamental attribution error [1]. People are very quick to
blame others for their personal characteristics ie. lazy foreigners
(personal), no good scroungers of welfare (personal), instead of the
situational context of recession/war/etc. Whereas when it comes to talking
about themselves, they're hard working people who just can't get a break
(situational), the recession is at fault (situational), no education because
my teachers were bad and the school was crap (situational), the foreigners
took our jobs (situational)...

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error)

~~~
jules
How ironic. Have you considered that maybe people who vote for certain parties
may have good reasons for it? I don't like those parties either, but saying
people vote for them simply because people are stupid racists is ridiculous.
You're pathologizing people who have opinions that you don't like while most
likely not actually having spoken with them and talked about what they think
and why they think it. It's easier to blame "those dirty racists" than it is
to accept the vagaries of reality.

~~~
adwf
Not ironic at all, just coincidence. Of course there are situations out of our
control like recession and war. But blaming others doesn't actually fix
anything. All that anti-globalisation will do is massively raise prices on
everything.

In my grandfathers era, a working man would have two sets of clothes, one for
work and one for sunday best. Nowadays, even the poorest in a western society
have a plethora of clothing. That is down to cheap chinese labour.

You can't get round it; if you raise tariffs, you end up with expensive
chinese clothes. If you then build your own factories and bring it back
onshore, you end up with expensive western-made clothes. The people may have
good old-fashioned industrial jobs, but they can no longer afford to live. And
that's before you even get into retaliatory tarriffs, where our high-price
items suddenly lose half their export market. How much of Apple's revenue
growth over the last few years has been from iPhone sales in China?

~~~
jules
How did you jump from talking about racists to tariffs for China?

~~~
adwf
Because the original comment I responded to was about globalism. My response
assumed that talking about Trump and globalism was dog-whistling for the less
pleasant elements of society and so touched on both racism and real economic
issues.

~~~
jules
> My response assumed that talking about Trump and globalism was dog-whistling
> for the less pleasant elements of society

Yes, and my response was precisely about that assumption, which is really a
different issue than economic policies like tariffs for China. This doesn't
just apply to the reaction to Trump, but also to the reaction to the
(supposed) rise of the right in Europe, the main topic. The assumption that
these people are voting like that because they're stupid and racist is going
to kill the left.

~~~
adwf
Well, actually you were the one to call them "stupid racists", there was no
mention of it in my original comment. I was pointing out that people are quick
to blame the personal failings of others, "lazy welfare scroungers" rather
than debate the actual economic issues behind globalism.

~~~
jules
Come on, your whole comment was about people being stupid and racist. Here's
one line: "It's far easier to blame "those dirty foreigners" than it is to
accept the vagaries of economics.". The rest was very much in the same spirit.
Entertain the idea that if people vote in a way that you don't like, it might
not necessarily be for reasons that are irrational and bigoted. Rather than
analysing their supposed psychological pathologies to explain why they have a
different opinion than yourself, maybe just talk to them? I'd ask somebody who
says "those dirty foreigners" the same question: why not talk to them? Perhaps
they turn out to be decent people after all.

~~~
adwf
Nope, original comment was nothing to do with stupidity or racism, just human
nature that it's easier to lay the blame abroad rather than look inward.

I know and have debated many people on differing sides of the UK/EU referendum
here in England. None of them I consider to be stupid or racist. But they are
blaming Europe for all of Britain's woes instead of looking inward. The EU is
a net benefit, but just last week we've had otherwise intelligent people
scaremongering about Turkey joining the EU and hundreds of thousands of
Turkish people swarming the border. It's a crass and absurd lie, and it's
downright manipulative.

I never claimed any kind of "psychological pathology" either. That would imply
mental illness which is not correct at all. I mentioned a very common human
trait which we're almost all guilty of at some point or other.

You seem to enjoy putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said. I
think I'll end this here rather than waste my time attempting debate.

~~~
jules
I have not put any words in your mouth. Instead of considering that the
opposing side may have good reasons for their opinions, you analysed their
psychology as racist and stupid. I see this attitude a lot, but particularly
on the left, which I consider myself most aligned to. I'm afraid the left is
currently in the process of killing itself by not taking working class people
seriously. "Champagne left" has never been more salient. The solution to this
is _not_ even more demonizing of people who don't vote "correctly".

------
sveme
What seems to be happening in the background is an increasing divide between
rural and urban areas, where the rural areas vote for populist right-wing
politicians (Trump, FPÖ, AfD, Front National) while the urban areas vote for
left wing (in the European sense) or liberal (in the US sense) parties. Most
illustrative for this are the results of sunday's Austrian presidential
elections, where the voters had to choose between a right-wing, populist
candidate (in blue) and a left-wing, liberal candidate (in green):
[http://derstandard.at/2000037433421/Ab-1700-Hochrechnungen-u...](http://derstandard.at/2000037433421/Ab-1700-Hochrechnungen-
und-Gemeindeergebnisse)

Overlay it with a map of Austria and the rural areas voted very strongly for
the right-wing candidate while the larger cities (Vienna, Innsbruck, Graz,...)
voted for the green candidate. I'd really like to find the chance to overlay
the last elections results for UKIP, Sweden Democrats, Trump, AfD etc. with
population density maps.

~~~
golemotron
These demographics underline an interesting shift in Left and Right across the
west. The Left used to align itself with the working class, struggling against
capital. Now it aligns with the cosmopolitan and against the unsophisticated.

In the US there has been a flight toward cities, increasing the numbers of
people with a cosmopolitan perspective. These demographics are worth watching.

~~~
CarpetBench
> The Left used to align itself with the working class, struggling against
> capital. Now it aligns with the cosmopolitan and against the
> unsophisticated.

Huh? That's not really true. Part of the reason the GOP is having such a hard
time in the US right now is because minority populations are quickly starting
to rise in numbers and they don't vote Republican for any number of reasons.

These populations aren't what you'd consider traditionally "cosmopolitan" or
"sophisticated" by any means. I mean, a voting base of cosmopolitans wouldn't
really be enough to win an election anyway.

There's a reason the GOP is trying really, really hard to win over more
Hispanic voters lately.

If you're arguing that minority populations are voting for the Left in spite
of the Left being aligned with the elite, that's a fairly gross
mischaracterization.

~~~
golemotron
> Huh? That's not really true. Part of the reason the GOP is having such a
> hard time in the US right now is because minority populations are quickly
> starting to rise in numbers and they don't vote Republican for any number of
> reasons.

There's a shift underway. I think we'll see a repositioning of the GOP that
will lead it to a majority in less than 10 years if not sooner. Trump's
surprisingly high support from Latinos in the Primary is the first wave of
this.

~~~
CarpetBench
> There's a shift underway. I think we'll see a repositioning of the GOP that
> will lead it to a majority in less than 10 years if not sooner.

I'd argue mostly the opposite. There's a shift underway, but I don't think
it'll be to the GOP's benefit. Fiscal conservatives and social conservatives
are slowly starting to realize they're very different and becoming
irreconcilable platforms. You can see the fracturing already this election
cycle.

Repositioning, sure. Majority? I think that'll take quite some time while they
figure out what they want to be.

> Trump's surprisingly high support from Latinos in the Primary is the first
> wave of this.

Err maybe in comparison to Ted Cruz, but it's not really a contest for the
general even according to Fox News:

[http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/05/20/latinos...](http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/05/20/latinos-
favor-clinton-over-trump-by-3-point-margin-fox-news-latino-poll-finds/)

~~~
golemotron
Wait and watch. There will be a thing called the GOP but it will not look like
our current conception of the GOP. The conservative hand-wringing over Trump's
complete indifference to the traditional platform is the first step in
transformation.

We'll always have a two party system in the US. What the parties stand for
changes drastically over time.

The thing I think most people don't get is that politics is never resolved.
There will always be a fight. And in a two party system, no one party will
stay in power more than a couple of election cycles. There's a homeostatic
mechanism at play.

~~~
CarpetBench
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :).

~~~
golemotron
Or we could bet on whether either party ever again has five term Presidential
run. ;) It would be interesting either way.

------
manuelflara
Interesting to note that Spain, Portugal & Germany, countries with a long and
famous history of right-wing dictatorships, are some of the countries that
fare best. And Italy, also with a similar history, is seeing its right-wing
party support go lower on each election. Only Britain and Czech Republic fare
similarly well. Although me being Spanish I can say that while we may not have
any party in congress "openly extreme right" (nazi like etc), our Partido
Popular, one of our top 2 parties and currently in power, is definitely right
wing and a direct descendant of franquism (dictatorship), since many of the
top dogs in the party were ministers with Franco himself. In other words, here
in Spain the right wing successfully camouflaged itself as democrat as to
apparently mislead anyone that we don't have a problem here, when we actually
do. Maybe the situation in Italy and Portugal is the same, I don't know. I'm
also surprised to find out that while Golden Dawn's rise in Greece was all
over the media as "the new rise of nazism etc", other countries have MUCH
higher rates of right wing parties and nobody seems to care.

~~~
willvarfar
Austria had Hitler. Now they have a party that has - presumably deliberately -
making subtle links back to those days e.g.
[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36342362](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36342362)

~~~
stdclass
And thank god we dodged that bullet yesterday! It was a close call though -
50,3% to 49,7% (edited)

~~~
ck2
Two questions:

1\. what percentage of the population turns out to vote in Austria?

2\. what level of education is most common in Austria?

I have a hard time believing well educated people turn out in droves to vote
for the hard right - I mean sure, there is always a percentage and many
fiscally conservative people come from money so they tend to be educated, but
as I understand it, that's not what they were voting for in Austria, they were
basically voting for social conservatism which is anti-immigration, etc.

Then again that percentage is pretty much what the US faces in every Red vs
Blue presidential election in the past half-century.

~~~
stdclass
1\. There are 6.382.507 eligible voters, of which 4.643.154 have voted, thats
72,7%. [1]

2\. The ORF did a survey, where it turned out, that 76% of people who have an
education of a-level or higher voted for the left-wing candiate. Only 38% of
the people with education less than a-level voted for the left-wing candiate.
[2]

[1] [http://wahl16.bmi.gv.at/](http://wahl16.bmi.gv.at/)

[2]
[https://www.facebook.com/ZeitimBild/photos/a.381568636877.16...](https://www.facebook.com/ZeitimBild/photos/a.381568636877.161891.182146851877/10154093891311878/)

~~~
ck2
8 million population so 50% of all people in Austria vote

surprisingly almost the same as the last USA presidential election (numbers
are far lower for other kinds of votes)

~~~
Erwin
The voting percentages are always calculated based on eligible voters, not
total population. The 2012 presidential election had 54.9% of the American
votes turned up to reelect Obama:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections)

------
cperciva
With the exception of Hungary, the graphs don't look to me like a "swing to
the right" so much as a "swing to the margins"; the centrist parties are
losing votes to both "far right" and "other" parties.

~~~
Scarblac
And _in principle_ I'd say that's a good thing. If all we have is a bunch of
parties crowded around the center, there isn't anything left for voters to
choose.

I just wish they picked different margins to swing to...

~~~
cperciva
_If all we have is a bunch of parties crowded around the center, there isn 't
anything left for voters to choose._

Yes and no. The median voter theorem suggests that voters' choices were
accounted for as parties put their platforms together -- effectively, voters
chose, but not when they thought they were choosing.

 _I just wish they picked different margins to swing to..._

I think there's a problem caused by voters swinging to margins, no matter
which margins they swing to: It increases the gap between the voters and their
government (either because extremist voters don't like a moderate government,
or because one group of extremists hate a differently-extreme government),
which diminishes public confidence in the state. Much like a lack of
confidence in the justice system, a lack of confidence in the state tends to
have very negative consequences, as people "take matters into their own
hands".

~~~
vlehto
But there is always only so many topics any one party and median voter agrees
on. Many don't really adopt party identity and live by it. So having only few
big parties is likely to cause distrust to political parties in general,
because nobody accurately represents you. Which ought to translate to distrust
to goverment as the big players have the power.

~~~
cperciva
_nobody accurately represents you_

Does it help if you have someone who accurately represents you, but she is
marginalised within the legislature and has no chance of ever being part of
the government? If anything, I'd expect that to make you trust the government
even less.

------
kriro
Left/right is not the best distinction. I live in Germany and I'd characterize
the trend as a move towards more authoritarian ideals. Right now it is mostly
fueled by a right wing agenda (omg you should fear these evil immigrants) but
the left has the same ideal (fight evil capitalism/globalisation via more
state regulations). I think it is a very worrying trend because the hunger to
outsource more life to the state for more piece of mind is actually pretty
widespread I'd say. I feel like it is very easy to pass legislation that
infringes on personal freedom in a tradeoff for "let the state take care of
it" Just promising less change and more of the same or "back to the good old
days" is a simple but unfortunately well working political platform.

This is pretty alarming since I don't really see any counterarguments that ask
for less state. We have one party that should nominally do it (FDP) but their
agenda is not very liberal if you dig deeper (not very libertarian in the US
sense I suppose).

Edit: The other problem is disillusion about the elites not caring about the
people which often leads to protest voting for more radical parties. A party
that supports some sort of direct democracy and more personal freedom (and
also responsibility) is needed and probably has the potential to be somewhat
disruptive. I might just be naive but I feel like there's no good non radical
offer for people who feel like what they say doesn't matter at all for the
established parties.

------
scotty79
I wonder how they decided how to color each party. In Europe right-wing/left-
wing are not as sharp terms as in US where these labels have been curated and
polished for many decades.

~~~
lgieron
> I wonder how they decided how to color each party.

Exactly. It would make more sense if they used red for the left (due to their
Bolshevik legacy).

~~~
alkonaut
This is an American news outlet. In the US the republicans ("right") are
usually depicted in red, and democrats (slightly less "right") in blue.

If you want really weird, consider Denmark where there is a right wing party
called "Venstre" (meaning "the left") :)

~~~
vidarh
It's not that weird - it just reflects history. Norway as well as a centre-
right party called Venstre and a right wing/conservative party called Høyre
("right"). In our case it dates straight back to the fight over
parliamentarism in Norway, and the left/right naming took inspiration directly
from the origin of the left/right axis in the aftermath of the French
revolution (where those seated to the left were those against the monarchy and
those seated to the left were supporters of the monarchy), so the most
monarchy friendly party was "obviously" right wing.

The name first started looking weird when the Labour Party (then revolutionary
socialists, now social democrats) was formed well to their left, followed by
further splits up until todays situation where there are - depending on how
you place two of the more centrist parties - between four and six parties to
the left of Venstre in Norway, counting parties that have or have had a member
of parliament at some point. I don't know the history of the Danish party
names, but I'm expecting it is a similar history of very literally _being_ the
left when formed only to have the balance shift substantially to the left
since.

The US colour use is different in that it was simply a matter of _not_ taking
historic use of the colours into account and arbitrarily applying it in
election broadcasts, only to have it stick.

------
tbarbugli
By right the writer means extreme right wing. Lot of right parties (PdL in
Italy, VVD in NL, ...) are not listed in that category (and least not in the
fancy charts)

~~~
seszett
On the other hand, in the French chart "DivD" is listed as far right when it's
just a collection of non-affiliated right-wing candidates going from center-
right to far-right.

------
tbarbugli
not the best job in the history of data collection. Lot of percentages are
incorrect, categorization for many parties debatable (if not plain wrong)...

------
davidiach
The People's Party in Romania is a left-wing party, not a right-wing one.

------
Al-Khwarizmi
It's not a swing towards the right. It is a swing towards parties and
politicians that are anti-establishment and promise to actually listen to
citizens rather than to the elites.

While in the article's graphs they highlight the far right, in Spain, Portugal
and Greece it is the left that has multiplied their support in recent years.
In Italy it is M5S, which is hard to locate in a left-right spectrum. And in
the US, it is arguably both sides: Trump has surpassed all expectations from
the right, but Sanders has also done so from the left (Sanders would probably
be considered center or even center-right by European standards, but he's
clearly leftist for the US - and were not for the superdelegates of the
democratic party apparatus, he would have decent chances of winning too).

The establishment should really exercise self-criticism. I don't know how it
feels in the US, but in Europe the system feels really inflexible. The
establishment pushes their agenda (e.g. austerity) against the will of a
majority of citizens, large demonstrations are totally ignored, referendums
are made and the results ignored, mass media are becoming more and more
unreliable, etc.

A flexible beam will bend under pressure, an inflexible beam will not bend,
but will suddenly break when the pressure is enough. I hope the system
exercises some flexibility or we may be in for rough times...

------
neoeldex
Just checked the dutch data, it states that LPF won in 2002 by 17%. But that
happened in 2003.
[[https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_Pim_Fortuyn#Oppositiepar...](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_Pim_Fortuyn#Oppositiepartij)]

Just as the VVD, a right-wing liberal party is marked as center-left center-
right. But if those are marked as center. Same with left wing parties, which
show up as 'other'

~~~
zephyrfalcon
The VVD is traditionally right-wing, but I think the article uses "right-wing"
here to mean "extreme right" or perhaps "new right" or "non-traditional right"
or whatever you would call it. Not sure really...

------
fauigerzigerk
This article misses an important point. Many of the far right ideas and
tactics are very much part of the agenda pushed by mainstream parties all over
Europe and the US.

For instance, spreading lies about immigration is the preferred tool of Tory
brexiteers in the UK. The German CSU is not that different from the AfD
either.

And in many ways the GOP (even without Trump) is far more right wing than some
of the parties considered to be on the extreme right in Europe

------
norea-armozel
All these parties who seem to fear globalism don't get that the real power
isn't in their nation's capital but in the various financial districts across
the world. London, New York, Beijing, and so on run the world. To turn back
the clock in terms of the world economy to a world without free trade is
impossible. The iPhone has components made from raw materials from all over
the world. Sure it's assembled in China, but the ore comes from Africa. The
designs come from Cupertino. And the marketing is done everywhere. The fact
these parties are trying to push back is laughable to me. Short of a total
revolution and ceasing of assets, which would include manufacturing, there's
not going to be a reversal of globalism. It's full steam ahead regardless of
their helpless mewling.

------
jimmytidey
Yeah, it would have been interesting to see how many parties were on hard left
too - not that I'm equating the two things morally.

In the UK there is a lot of rhetoric that Europe is moving toward the far
right rapidly. But if you look at the big players, in Germany, Italy and Spain
the far right wing plays almost no role, in France it does but that has not
changed appreciably over time.

Meanwhile, in the UK I think story of UKIP is complicated because, while it is
clearly appealing to far right themes, essentially it's a single issue party
about EU membership.

What UKIP would do if the UK decides to remain (or leave?) the EU is quite
hard to foresee.

I'd suggest the picture is messy enough that you can read whatever your pet
theory is into it. If there is another deep recession then anything could
happen, but you can always say that.

~~~
7952
Frankly it may be better for UKIP if the UK stays in the EU. The Brexit people
are going to be angry, and will still want to vote for Euro sceptic parties.
You could also see the Conservatives adopt a more Euro sceptic posture in
trying to placate their more vocal Brexit supporters.

------
joantune
The rise of Trump was best summed by Vox's article and the radio talk shows
that magnify that fear (short version:
[http://www.vox.com/2016/5/20/11720276/donald-trump-
authorita...](http://www.vox.com/2016/5/20/11720276/donald-trump-
authoritarianism) Long version: [http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-
authoritarianism](http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-
authoritarianism))

The same is not happening as much in Europe, especially in countries where
such fear propaganda didn't set in (like here, in Portugal)

------
boertush
There's a big anti EU sentiment in Europe after years of financial
repercussions because of the financial crisis and the refugee crisis. And the
only parties who are even critical of the EU are on the far right and on the
far left.

------
agentgt
I have a two vague ideas of what left and right represent based on US current
news / politics and some very hazy memories of a more precise definition in
political science class.

Perhaps someone can allude to me what this article means by right and left
(not trying to be snide or anything). Is it compared to US or the more
traditional academic version (or maybe I'm mistaken that there is an academic
version)?

~~~
vixen99
Why don't commenters skip these much-abused emotive references to '(far)right'
\--> '(far)left' and state what they admire or object to, regarding a group
position?

For the man in the street, far-right fascism and far-left communism equate to
to more or less identical levels of coercion and control.

------
discordianfish
I'm a bit shocked how this issue is down played in the comments here. There
are good reasons for people to be frustrated and if looking at this as a
system, you can influence it in the right direction by listening to people and
prevent the social downwards spiral.

But there are banking bailout and massive cutbacks on social system which has
direct effect on the European people. Yet nothing happened. There were some
demonstrations and established parties might lost some votes but it's not
comparable to the move to right we see right now.

So is the refugee crisis more dangerous to the European people's safety and
prosperity? I highly doubt that. Yes, 1.2M is a big number. But that's like 1
refugee per >400 'natives'.

The reason why people are complaining and new right wing parties get
established is because they _are_ racist. And there are plenty of explanations
for that, yet this is sometime that needs to be taken very seriously. And the
worst thing we can do is just blaming politicians and ignoring how much
suffering the new right wing causes.

~~~
devnull791101
personal experience, a person my wife hardly knew begged us to let him come
stay in england for a short while so he could establish himself here. where he
was staying in rotterdam had been overrun with migrants, he was regularly
getting mugged in the street and people were banging on the doors in the
middle of the night aggressively demanding money. perhaps a distinction needs
to be made between ideological racism and generalisation learnt from
experience.

------
Aoyagi
To the right? All I see is it moving to the left while a few countries
detached from this.

------
parax
PP at Spain marked as Center-right? Hahahaha.

------
joantune
Hardly swinging to the right.

For that, we must import US's talk radio shows and let it brew for years.

Hope no right wing guy is seeing this.

------
Qantourisc
My main beef with this article is : You really cannot define the entire
political spectrum on 1 axis !

------
lambdadmitry
>Most people I know don't like the sanctions against Russia

>people's "No" vote is just ignored

>Maybe because the "extreme" left and right have much less affiliations and
friends in the EU

This points make me really sad. First, because right-wing parties are actively
propped up by Russian govt [1]; second, because Russia openly engaged in
propaganda and false flags campaign against Ukraine in EU [2]; third, because
I'm Russian, an external pressure on the regime is one of the few hopes for a
change, and it seems like Russian govt is strong at least in your network, so
the pressure will not become stronger. Additionally, quite a few nice people
will probably be infected by memes that poisoned Russian society for decades.

It's really sad.

[1]: [http://imrussia.org/en/analysis/world/2500-putinism-and-
the-...](http://imrussia.org/en/analysis/world/2500-putinism-and-the-european-
far-right)

[2]: [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-
europe/2016/04/03/azo...](https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-
europe/2016/04/03/azov-video/)

~~~
teekert
The way I see it, but please correct me if I'm wrong (don't hold back), Putin
(and Russian politics in general) is caught between the old and new
generations of Russia, during the Jeltsin era we saw that being an all out
liberal, democrat, power to the people person did not land you at the top of
the country at all. This is still true probably (because you need backing of
the old powers) so what is currently at the top in Russia is probably what
will keep Russia together. I think that with the younger generation growing
up, Russia will become more and more liberal, it will take time. Yes, many
things in Russia are as they were here in the 60's (gay rights etc) but here
we also had the time to mature (especially regarding personal freedom) without
much violence. Why does the west have to rush things, make a Woman with a
mustache win the EU song festival in the Ukraine, make the world press photo a
gay couple in Russia? Is such pressure really the best?

Why not be friendly with Russia, show them the benefits of our society without
enforcing our ethics? Why the war mongering? The EU also sneakily, under
suspect circumstances put a pro EU person in Power in the Ukraine. This makes
Russia afraid of the ever growing NATO. Are you part of a liberal minority? I
can see you want change as fast as possible but what is as fast as possible?

I apologize if I come across particularly ignorant, it's difficult to find the
truth between western news and RT. whenever I read RT I can certainly see and
understand the fear of the NATO.

I'm currently reading the new Tsar (about Putin) so far he seems to be loyal
to the wrong people sometimes but much less corrupt than he could have been
given the people around him (but I'm only half way.) Also he didn't attack
Turkey after they took down that fighter, even though Turkey is doing oil
business with IS.

I'm not pro-Russia or Pro-Putin, I think we are worse of if we don't try to be
friends. (I think the Russians love their children too ;) )

~~~
pathy
>Why not be friendly with Russia, show them the benefits of our society
without enforcing our ethics? Why the war mongering? The EU also sneakily,
under suspect circumstances put a pro EU person in Power in the Ukraine

Wait now... You are calling EU war mongering? Remind me again who invaded
Ukraine when the Ukrainian people wanted to turn towards the west. In direct
violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

Putin is no weakling being manipulated by the oligarchs. He may not show off
his wealth but make no mistake, he tightly controls the Russian state and
oligarchs - not the other way around.

~~~
teekert
The pro EU leadership was put in place under very suspect circumstances [0]
and can very well be seen as a big FU to Russia. It's all a power game,
Russian economy suffers, EU economy suffers, US military-industrial complex
and oil industry benefits.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFVNRZv2eM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFVNRZv2eM)

~~~
pathy
The Russian Economy suffers because they INVADED another country, and shot
down a civilian passenger jet among other things

The Maidan movement may be suspect but pale in the comparison to Russia's
actions.

~~~
teekert
I thought they just asked the people there whether they preferred to be part
of Russia or part of a more EU focused new Ukraine. Then the People voted.

And did they shoot down that jet? There really does not seems to be any motive
for them (the Russians) to do that. Maybe they fired on a fighter flying in
the radar shadow of the commercial jet? How ethical is that? There is still a
lot of vagueness around that incident and it not just from the Russians.

But ok, Putin may not be a nice man, I don't really know, somehow he is never
ever in the news here. Whenever I look up stuff on the internet he comes
across as quite intelligent, not like a tyrant. My point is, should we make
the EU's and Russia's economy suffer? I'm betting you don't know any people in
agriculture, the flower or the fruit business that lost their jobs because of
this stupid boycott. I'm betting it's much worse in Russia. And who are we
punishing? Putin? No, those nice people that live in Russia and work hard to
make a living.

How would you feel if you lost your job because suddenly the EU would stop
trade with the US because your president build a wall on the Mexican border
and kicked out friendly Muslim Families? It's all a game to these people.
Let's not humiliate ourselves by screaming in forums what they feed us in the
media.

When goods don't cross borders, armies will. Were just getting ready for
another senseless war because our leaders are dicks.

------
lisivka
> Most people I know don't like the sanctions against Russia because they
> impact our economy

I.e. they are collaborateurs. It seems that Russians use proper name "GAYrope"
for part of Europe at least.

Let me remember you that Russia shot civil plane MH17 from Amsterdam to "show
that Donbass territory is not controlled by Ukraine anymore".

~~~
dang
We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11760362](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11760362)
and marked it off-topic.

------
thomholwerda
The graph for Britain is clearly wrong. David Cameron is clearly far-right by
any European standard, so the country's swing to the right should be a lot
more pronounced.

~~~
cperciva
By the standards of some European countries, Obama is far-right, but Obama
becoming president was certainly not a sign of a shift to the right in
American politics.

What matters here is where parties and politicians lie compared to the
historical norms of their country, and Cameron is far closer to that then,
say, Thatcher.

~~~
realusername
How the parties are positioned depends indeed on the country. As an example,
on our case in France, there is the "Front de Gauche" which would probably be
considered communist in the US/UK whereas on our case, we have the actual
communists, in the traditional sense. Religion also plays close to no parts in
politics and conservative and republican means a very very different thing.
Most of the English news I see report quite wrongly on the subject.

