Tyler Cowen got me curious about something yesterday. Commenting on the Geert Wilders victory in the Netherlands, he says "much of the world is moving in a right-wing direction."
But is that true? Yes, we have the evidence of Italy and now the Netherlands this year. But we also have Poland, where the illiberal Law & Justice party was pummeled in October and will be replaced by a liberal coalition. We have Spain, where lefties remained in power in the October election. We have Slovakia, where social democratic parties dominated against the incumbent conservatives in September.
Last year, Jair Bolsonaro was turfed out in Brazil and replaced by a socialist. In France, Marine Le Pen improved her performance by a few points but was still handily defeated by the incumbent centrist. In Germany, Social Democrats beat the incumbent conservatives in 2021 and the hard-right AfD lost seats. In Britain, the Conservative Party is deeply unpopular and will almost certainly be crushed in the next election.
And of course, here in the US Donald Trump was tossed out in 2020 and Republicans did surprisingly badly in the 2022 midterms.
What I see here is a couple of things. First, immigration is a powerful force and has driven a rise in hard-right nationalism. This is one reason I think Democrats should take immigration restrictions more seriously. Second, the main thing going on is just good old thermostatic politics. Lefties won in Germany because a conservative coalition had governed for 15 years. Conservative are in trouble in the UK because they've been in office almost as long. Poland's authoritarians were kicked out after nearly a decade. Likewise, conservative victories in Italy and the Netherlands came after years of center-left and technocratic rule.
Still, this made me curious. Is Europe, if not the entire world, moving in a right-wing direction? That turned out to be surprisingly hard to answer. Here's the best I could come up with. First is a chart from V-Dem purporting to show the pattern of rhetoric from Europe's governing parties:
This has trended steadily upward for half a century. It fits the general notion of a right-wing shift, but not the specific notion of anything new happening recently.
Here is European public opinion:
This only goes through 2018, but nonetheless it shows a steady and large trend toward increasing liberalism on both social issues and immigration (!), and a smallish trend toward liberalism on economic issues since the mid-90s.
Neither of these directly addresses the actual policies of governing parties over time, or even whether conservative parties in general have been on the rise. But taken as a whole, I see little evidence for it. I think it's fair to say that hard-right nationalist parties have grown over the past couple of decades, but even that's been limited both in scope and size. It's there, but there seems to be something of a ceiling on its potential in most places.
When you say that Democrats should take immigration restrictions more seriously, what exactly do you mean? Which restrictions are they not taking seriously?
What are the current proposals that would make things better if only Democrats supported them?
What you seem to be saying is that Democrats should be demagogues on immigration as much as Republicans. But that will never work. Bigoted voters know the difference between the real bigots and the only saying it bigots. That's why they picked Trump over all those other demagogues on immigration in 2016.
+1. exactly what i was about to say.
Bigoted voters know the difference between the real bigots and the only saying it bigots. That's why they picked Trump over all those other demagogues on immigration in 2016.
Bigots are going to vote GOP no matter what. That's true. No sense in competing for there votes (the GOP could nominate Xi Jinping himself next year and he'd be guaranteed a floor of perhaps 47% of the two party vote).
But normies/persuadable voters are up for grabs, and it's not out of the question that the rhetorical style and policy priorities of at least some Democrats (say, the AOC wing) code as "soft on illegals" for many such voters. (I mean, there are political reasons why Joe Biden now appears interested in wall-building).
That right there is the problem. Unless Democrats engage in the same hysterical & hateful speech while making impossible & impractical policy proposals like walls, their "rhetorical style and policy priorities . . . code as 'soft on illegals' for many such voters."
It's like when saying Americans shouldn't torture became "objectively pro-terrorist" and Karl Rove said after 9/11 Democrats wanted to offer therapy and understanding to the attackers.
Our issues with immigration cannot be solved or made to work to Democrats' advantage by what Republicans do or say.
Unless Democrats engage in the same hysterical & hateful speech
That's utter nonsense. One need not engage in "hysterical and hateful speech" to evince a "pro immigration/pro enforcement" vibe. Bill Clinton was a master at this sort of thing. Many (though certainly not all) Democrats won't prioritize such messaging because (like many Republicans), being in safe general election districts, they're more interested in currying favor with activists than they are in helping their party win national elections.
This is also utter nonsense. We're never ever going to out bigot the GOP and my god we shouldn't, we need to keep reminding the persuadables that orderly immigration is a very, very good thing for the US but that the GOP is preventing any fix of the system. Decent folks who aren't part of the wacko 30 percent can be brought around.
Ramp up efforts to better secure the southern border without building large sections of new walls or fences. This means investing much more heavily in an electronic barrier (lately called a smart border). Development of the smart border has been slowly progressing for a couple decades, and Biden continues to invest in it. But no Democrats want to highlight this often. They should because otherwise Republicans, and Trump, seem to have the only plan in the public's mind.
Mainstream Democrats support improving security on the southern border, and I think most Democrats would be fine with a much-expanded smart border that works well.
However, many on the left seem to oppose any type of border security enhancement, whether physical walls/fences or a smart border. This leads to the impression they simply support “open borders”.
However, many on the left seem to oppose any type of border security enhancement
Agreed, although I think a key word here is "seem."
As far as I can tell, hardly any actual Democratic office-holders favor non-enforcement of our immigration laws (there may be good faith disagreements about enforcement tactics and penalties, sure).
But plenty of Democrats appear to be highly interested in being perceived as favoring non-enforcement, lest they run afoul of DEI activists.
Folks are against increased border security because it doesn't work. Far more effective is fixing the countries folks are fleeing from. It's really the Pottery Barn scenario, we broke a lot of countries in the Western Hemisphere so now we have to fix things. A good start would be to stop sending guns south of the border.
Excellent analysis!
E-Verify with real penalties. Hes said it before
George Takei tweets,
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1728145441873682888
Joe Biden on Thanksgiving morning,
https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1728030475187601836
And what did any Republican candidate whose name we could think of do yesterday morning?
Did Takei adjust for inflation? 😉
P.S. All Dems around my Thanksgiving table, yet the political argument was bemoaning the lack of an alternative to Biden.
I had the opposite experience though thank god no one got anywhere near politics except one guy who was muttering under his breath his maximal confidence about how Biden couldn't possibly be re-elected.
This guy could easily have been a Jan 6 rioter if he ever wanted to take time off his job of violently pounding on things or the rest of his time he spends frenetically riding his bicycle around
Far too many voters are morons and half wits, dolts, dunces, dullards and dumbbells. Their concerns are whatever their local news & social media feeds tell them their concerns are. Before the entire world of the political press made it the most important issue in American politics since slavery, who gave a shit about an email server?
A lot of voters simply don't follow politics much. They just aren't interested. So when voting they go on gut instincts based on impressions they pick up. They just don't bother to dig below surface impressions. Trump manages to sway millions of these people. Demagogues who are also narcissistic sociopaths are good at that.
Well heck, Americans are moving to the right. And it’s largely caused by… I have no idea. Immigration, criminals, uppity blacks, uppity gays, Covid restrictions, inflation, transgenderism, asshole leftists, asshole rightists, asshole centrists?
Politics is noisy and unpleasant all over. Riots in Ireland by rightists? Good grief. Everyone hates everyone else.
Are people happy that asylum seekers are lodged at hotels in parts of town where the vast majority of citizens cannot afford to live? No. Are they happy that the establishment media won't give them information about the stabbings of children? No.
I don't think that makes them "rightists." They aren't thrilled with the social agenda of the liberal elite (who despise them). Again, holding the positions that progressives had 10-15 years ago doesn't really make them "rightists." Has the electorate moved right or have liberal leaders moved left?
"Well heck, Americans are moving to the right. And it’s largely caused by…"
I think most people start to appreciate the features of authoritarianism when the world feels chaotic. When they feel like they're working hard and everyone else is loafing and mooching.
In certain places, crime is pervasive enough to make people want someone to roll in and kick some butts. There is a fine line between living your best life/doing your own thing and creating conditions that annoy the neighbors and make them want a little authoritarian juice to keep things in line. If doing our own thing is throwing trash out the windows of your car, there are plenty of people who would really like to go all authoritarian on you (myself being one of them).
The more people behave badly, and it does seem like that's getting worse, the more the general population starts to like the sound of someone who's going to clean things up. Early on, Trump was popular because he was going to drain the swamp. The swamp absolutely needs draining, but voters who found that idea appealing didn't realize Trump was a swamp creature and was only going to rubber stamp tax breaks for the swamp so they could be even swampier.
So, the swamp is still festering, nothing is being done, prices are still much higher than they were pre-covid, no one near a metro area can afford a house, and more people who used to be middle class are unable to afford their lifestyle.
For much of the middle and working classes, some authoritarianism seems like exactly the ticket, which is why you see that shift rightward. It's caused ultimately by the monied class sucking more of people's income and no one except Bernie Sanders is proposing to do anything about it. There's no Republican promising to put more dollars back in everyone's wallet by reigning in inflation and housing costs, they're promising to but some boots to asses. They're focused on taxes (not a problem for the average person) not prices. They've focused on spending (not a problem for the average person) not housing costs.
Kevin is missing the obvious in how powerful immigration is as a real issue for people....justified or not.
What Dems can do:
1. Replace Kamala Harris....FDR had the courage to replace Wallace with Truman...Biden must find a similar courage, (winning elections is what politics is about...and if Biden wants to have a chance of saving the United States, choosing a new VP Candidate is the first vital step)
2. As previously noted by me....everywhere, 25 wide-body mobile trailers stretched across the border....50 new immigration judges and staff all to augment the current system. 100 cases a day, 7days a week.
3. Repeatedly tag the Republicans for this problem, the want the workers for their client businesses....brace the US public on how inflationary this will be...more for food prices, more cost for everything. Say this loudly and often.
4. Install an effective with large penalties for illegal workers the already existing e-verify system. Loudly blame this failure on Republicans if only because this is true. E-Verify exists....make it work.
5. All the above is Easy-Peasy.....just do it.
Traveller
This seems a lot like trumps plan to deport them all. It’s fine with me really, it’s all kind of out of control. No one can stop it.
No, not exactly, I want to blame the employers and Republicans for the immigration problem...this may seem Trump.ian....but I think such a public display and clear argument will finally move Congress to a comprehensive bill that overhauls our entire Immigration system. (at worst, the public will at least know know is actually going on with the border).
Much needed for both the US and Immigrants themselves also.
5. Oh, and much development attention to Central American countries.
Traveller
Right? E-Verify is an easy solve. All the resistance will come from the GOP donor base and they were already playing for the other team. It would be worth the ticket to watch the Reps scream in frustration.
The average person paranoid about immigration doesn't know what E-Verify is.
And if they did they would think it only sounds like a gimmick to tell them they're wrong.
Trump fans don’t want e-verify. They want the certain people assaulted at the border as they try to come in. The Texas barbed wire in the Rio grande was probably a hit. It actually killed immigrants.
Of course they do, but we're not talking about trying to convince Trump fans, they're lost to the void of resentment. We're talking about keeping the middle intact and functional. For the middle and middle-right, E-Verify is a solid way to prove that the administration is serious about jobs and immigration that doesn't involve killing or humiliating people.
" We're talking about keeping the middle intact and functional.
+1 for that.
Not sure about E-verify, but certainly deserve thinking about.
Can the President do this without Congressional action?
You know, Ken, that is a very good question...are Immigration Judges life time appointments like regular Federal Judgeships? Are magistrates subject to Congressional approval?
In my State Civil System, we do have Judges Pro Tem for temporary functions....(Hahahahahaha....even I have been approached for this. Ha! I very clearly do not have the temperament! Seriously...).
Damned if I know.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Replace Kamala Harris
I'm sure that pissing off Black women will be a winning strategy for Biden.
That seems to assume that Black women are too irrational to vote according to attitudes to democracy, honesty, equality and the various other issues that distinguish between Trump and Biden.
It will piss off a lot of non-Black women too. We're not stupid. All the supposed "concern" about VP Harris is thinly disguised racism and sexism.
The vaguely left-adjacent Labor Party is in government in Australia and in every Australian state except Tasmania. Interestingly, this does not reflect strong public support for the party, but rather an increasing proportion of the electorate voting for minor parties or independents. Federally, for example, to get bills passed, Labor needs the support of either the Greens or a collection of independents.
The immigration problem is going to get even worse as shifts in weather patterns push people to different areas. At some point, the rich people are going to have to deal with the poor people migrating to better digs.
Making Russia Great Again,
Putin pardons two cannibals because they fought against Ukraine
https://news.yahoo.com/putin-pardons-2-cannibals-participating-121135029.html
Great tasting, that is!
This, and the fact that the Ukrainians have been able to hold territory on the east bank of the Dnipro, and the Russians haven’t been able to push them back, makes me think that Putin’s whole corrupt, vicious project might actually suffer a well-deserved collapse.
Saw a report today that the Kremlin is worried about the next election.
How bad could it be that the Putin administration is actually worried about the next election?
The drowning man's screams become shrillest sometime before he's exhausted and slowly sinks into the murky depths.
Over 250,000 people died in Europe in 2021 from air pollution, --mostly fine particulate matter produced by gasoline powered cars and coal burning power plants,
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-air-pollution-killed-hundreds-of-thousands-in-2021/a-67549612
yet that's a decrease of 41% from 2005.
And conservatives think that's better than if they hadn't died.
Do you accept that same logic when it comes to self-driving vehicles?...
I don't know, what do you mean?
KD: it shows a steady and large trend toward increasing liberalism on both social issues and immigration (!),
That's because immigrants (and their first-generation children) are part of the survey.
Who defines "illiberal" or "right wing"?
This is not just a minor issue.
Do you define the rhetoric around BLM as illiberal or not?
Do you define the 1967 March on the Pentagon as illiberal in the same way as the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol? (And note the language difference. We speak of the "March on the Pentagon", we don't speak of the "March on the Capitol"... Who decides that language?)
If you say that Bill Ayers spouting craziness is not the same thing as Trump spouting craziness (true!), where do you place Obama (or more precisely "the Elite's") relationship with Ayers?
How does one crazy Trump balance against the employment by Kathy Boudin, or Bill Ayers, or Bernadine Dohrn, or Howard Machtinger, or Ericka Huggins, or Susan Rosenberg, or Mark Rudd by various colleges?
My point is not to say that one thing equals another; whenever you try that (ESPECIALLY with people arguing in bad faith) you land up with an insistence that some difference between the two situations is all-important).
My point is that these graphs are not graphs of public sentiment so much as they are graphs of the opinions of the people who constructed them. And what reason is there to believe that they are trying especially hard to be "honest" (whatever that means) as opposed to trying to push a particular world-view.
Again, without having opinions either way, the people producing these graphs are, more or less, the same crowd that were shocked by Brexit, then by Trump, then by Geert Wilders. A record like this suggests that their ability to analyze the world is non-ideological ways is basically non-existent.
Forgot Argentina. And Finland. And Sweden.
And both Vox in Spain and AfD in Germany have increased their vote share. That Sanchez managed to coble together a government is a testament to his skill but it required amnesty for the catalan separatists which may be too much even for the Spanish center.
Just as a note on the data: I read an article in the Dutch press that suggested (I think "suggested" is the best that can be done given the data available so far) that a significant part of the vote for Wilders (PVV) came from those who were dissatisfied with the "liberal" (VVD), and felt that they could vote for the PVV without serious consequences, because the VVD leader had said that they would be willing to join a coalition with the PVV, which would enable the VVD to prevent extreme actions by the PVV.
It is worth noting that the previous cabinet was not popular, and all of the parties involved suffered significant losses in this election.
Is this true: "the VVD leader had said that they would be willing to join a coalition with the PVV"?
If so, then surely the current stance of the VVD, namely that they would "constructively support a center-right Cabinet with good policies, but wouldn’t join a government" is obstruction of the sort that we routinely rail against in Republicans.
But here it's considered principled opposition, not screwing over the country and breaking your promises...
Like I said in my early comment, all these claims about countries moving in a certain direction depend mainly on what you think you can achieve by making such a claim, not on a set of uncontested and universally agreed upon definitions.
It has been a back and forth.
During the campaign, Yeşilgöz first said that the VVD would be willing to join a coalition with the PVV, then later retracted and said the VVD would not, and most recently (I think) said that they would support a PVV government but not join it.