It's commonplace these days to note with alarm the growing influence of extremist right wing parties in Europe. I think this is generally overblown, but it's worth noting that, to the extent it's true, it's largely because these parties have made themselves over as less extreme. In France, for example, Marine Le Pen took over the fascist National Front and promptly kicked out her racist father; rebadged the party as National Rally; put a lid on overt antisemitism; and reversed course on leaving NATO, leaving the EU, and repealing same-sex marriage.
So the party is now more normie friendly. But in the runup to national elections that start tomorrow the Washington Post asks if the makeover is more than paper thin:
Innuendo, conspiracies and vitriol from National Rally candidates and supporters are amplifying doubts about how much a movement originally rooted in antisemitism and racism has truly evolved.
One candidate competing in the first round of the legislative assembly elections on Sunday suggested that a rival party was financed by Jews. Another claimed that some civilizations remain “below bestiality in the chain of evolution.” Yet another blamed a bedbug infestation in France on “the massive arrival from all the countries of Africa.” One more regularly pays tribute to the man who led the Nazi collaborators in World War II-era Vichy France.
....Like Trumpism, LePénisme remains a safe harbor for anti-vaccine advocates, climate-change skeptics and Putin admirers. And as seen through social media posts and telling asides — as well as through homophobic attacks and racist tirades allegedly committed by Le Pen supporters — National Rally still provides a welcome home for vitriolic thought.
In other words, like Trumpism, a lot of support for National Rally is still motivated by racism. Also like Trumpism, this mostly takes the form of tolerating racism rather than overtly appealing to it. With a wink and a nudge, Le Pen lets her fans know that she's on their side—even as they understand that she can't say so in public.
The only question is how many people actively like this? And how many more are either fooled by the makeover or just don't care that much about a bit of casual racism? We'll find out in the first round of voting tomorrow and the final round a week after that.
Come on, Kevin. How many people said "Donald Trump finally says what we've all been thinking?"
The foolishness is in thinking that racism and sexism went away simply because some people were afraid to say it out loud.
at some point the alito court will decide that state sanctioned murder will be the right wing's only recourse
and they will pop the champagne, more in sadness than in anger of course
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing."
Or that the rest of the party do nothing.
Problem is, as though it weren't obvious from the behavior of our own quasi-Fascist, THEY LIE ALL THE TIME. They lie about what they think, about what they'll do, and about what they believe, as well as about everything their opponents have done, pretty much all science or any other reasonably objective discipline, and ... nearly everything else. THEY. ARE. LIARS. And their supporters are perfectly fine with this, because it promotes their power, and anything is justifiable toward that end.
Anyone who believes anything right-wingers -- including American Republicans -- say, or aver they do NOT say, about anything, is a fool. And likewise anyone who thinks they won't lurch HARD right -- including but not limited to deportations, imprisonment, confiscation, anything they please, toward ANY "out-group," racial, sexual, religious, or anything else -- if they gain power is likewise a fool.
My sister lives in France and I would say she is a Liberal(Canada)or Democrat(USA) and she and her husband are rather concerned about the election. This is just round one of 2 and they vote on Sunday so everyone can get out to vote.
"The only question is how many people actively like this? And how many more are either fooled by the makeover or just don't care that much about a bit of casual racism?"
Unless the polls are 4-5 sigmas off, the answer is many. A lot. And it's about a lot more than racism, revanchist nostalgia, or even being characterologically reactionary. First world lives, lifestyles, and identities are facing enormous change; it's no surprise that humans are circling the wagons. Not to mention the effects of Russian and Murdochean propaganda. And democracy is hard work. Being basically "good" is hard work. First world lifestyles, on the other hand, are pretty cushy, addictive even, and not too tricky to instrumentalize in pursuit of power. Privilege, after all, is the ultimate corrupter.
In their minds, it's not racist. They're populist-nativists.
That thing you're worried about (fascists running France)? It's not a big deal to me, Kevin Drum.
A very similar situation has been brewing in Canada, where the Trudeau Liberals look like they're headed for epic and possibly deluge-scale defeat whenever the next election comes. Like the UK, but with the parties reversed.
Canadian Conservatives have been flailing for a decade now to find a coherent national stance. The new party leader, Pierre Poilievre, has been in parliament for a long time now and he's been a very effective opposition figure. In that time, though, he's also been hanging around with, and publicly cozying up to, right-wing fringe elements like the "Freedom Convoy" and people tied to western separatism-- despite what his name might lead you to think, he's from Alberta, which has a long history and strong currents of anti-federalism. (One very vivid instance of these moves is a weirdly Hayek-infused conversation he had on a podcast with Jordan Peterson, an eerie experience to watch, I can tell you).
The question is whether this shows sympathies, or just receptiveness. He's been careful so far not to be too overtly concerned with the really divisive questions like regionalism, or about ethnic issues, which could be indirectly raised by talking about housing costs as a proxy for immigration, but those costs are widely problematic in themselves so it isn't always clear when talk about it involves immigration or ethnic issues.
He's a very smart pol and obviously knows people worry about him that way, but he also seems to enjoy teasing about it, and there's always a chance he may be doing it mainly to lock up the prairie vote. OTOH, he could be masquerading as someone more moderate to hang on to the Ontario Tory base and maybe pick up some seats in Quebec and further east.
Which way this breaks is anybody's guess-- whether he'll be "responsible" in power or will govern in line with the trumpist, separatist, and other fringe elements in Canada that he flirts with, and encourage them. Or if he ends up using the latter as a cover for some serious economic restructuring of the country, which strikes me as something he could have in mind. He'll likely have a huge majority so whichever way he wants to go, the runway will be clear.
My wife and I just returned from voting in east-central France, and turnout was strong. I take this as a sign of support for the presidential center, or at least to vote against the right even though locally the voting in the recent European elections mirrored national results. The right will most certainly advance to the second round but I should think with less than half the vote. As for the second round I doubt many who didn't vote for the right in the first round will vote for them in the second, so we may squeak by. Maybe Macron will have to co-habite with the left but that will still be way better than having the right in power.
As to whether the right here is still extreme or not, I'd have to agree with the sentiment that they seem to have mellowed over the last few years, since Marine LePen was so soundly defeated by Macron in the debate and elections of 2017. That said, not only do I not trust Marine LePen as far as I could throw her given what I have observed over some 25 years of living here, but in my view they have no plausible or practical solutions to offer. It's all theater, and how anyone can take them seriously is beyond me.
Hey look! One of several countries where the hard right has emerged as a reaction to substantial demographic shifts in the population. Of course, until wide spread racism is eliminated, that will be a constant in politics.
I'm glad that the United States didn't embark on a policy of rapid and large demographic change over the last 50 years. Because that would lead to the rise of a person like Donald Trump. Good thing we avoided that outcome.
Marine le Pen successfully got the people who say it out loud in her party to stop doing so. So much so that to many it appears like the "gosh, there are sure a lot of people pushing at the doors of Europe" party. I always said she was much smarter than her dad. But the scarecrows are still there and still running the party.
Marine le Pen is less disgusting than her father, that's for sure. I am not a French citizen. Anyway, I would never vote for them but in terms of domestic policies their stance is bad but apocalyptic. I am more worried about international relations because they are like a fifth column for Putin. Marine le Pen secretly took money from Russia during the last campaign, she may be already in Putin's pocket. Useful idiots.