X Close

The populist Right are fake revolutionaries Vox is part of the EU establishment

Hear my Vox. Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty


July 24, 2023   6 mins

Predictions that the pandemic would spell the end of populism and thrust voters back into the political mainstream have turned out to be little more than wishful thinking. In the US, polls show Trump creeping up on Biden. In Europe, meanwhile, a new Right-populist wave is sweeping the continent.

In yesterday’s election, which confirmed Vox as the country’s third-largest party, Spain came close to joining Hungary, Poland, Italy, Finland and Austria and electing a Right-populist party to government. In Germany, meanwhile, the AfD has just elected its first mayor and district administrator, after surging into second place in the polls; in the Netherlands, the newly formed Farmer-Citizen Movement won its first provincial elections in March; in Austria, the Freedom Party is leading the polls; and in France, polls suggest that Le Pen would now win a run-off with Macron.

This shift to the Right will no doubt affect the make-up of the next European Parliament, due to be elected next June. And Right-wingers across Europe are feeling giddy. At a recent rally in support of Vox, Giorgia Meloni couldn’t contain her glee, claiming that “the hour of the patriots has arrived”, announcing  “a change in the politics of Europe”.

It seems inevitable that Right-populism will play an increasingly influential role in the coming years. But exactly what kind of “change” should we expect from these “patriots”? From a cultural standpoint, such parties could not be further from the liberal-progressive mainstream: they share an attachment to Europe’s traditions and religious heritage, a dislike for eurocrats and an opposition to all things woke — immigration, gender ideology, green fanaticism. So we can definitely expect a pushback on these fronts, within individual countries as well as at the European level: more relaxed climate policies, more restrictive immigration policies and less talk about gender.

On other, arguably more important issues, however, these so-called populist parties are peculiarly aligned with the mainstream. In terms of economic policy, for example, almost all of them are wedded to the neoliberal orthodoxy embedded in the EU: with few exceptions, their economic agendas revolve around pro-austerity, pro-deregulation, anti-worker and anti-welfare policies.

Consider the new Finnish government’s economic programme, which includes wide-ranging welfare cuts, rules to make it easier for companies to lay off employees, limitations to the right of collective bargaining, and fines for workers on strikes. Similarly, Vox’s economic programme is rooted in what Miquel Vila has called “a special kind of Spanish neoliberalism [which favours] economic deregulation while supporting a conglomerate of big corporations dependent on government contracts”. The same (with slight variations) goes for several Right-populist parties — from Austria’s Freedom Party to the AfD to Meloni’s Brothers of Italy.

There are exceptions, of course. Le Pen, for instance, believes in a moderate redistributive programme of Keynesian orientation based on state interventionism, social protection and the defence of public services; in the past she has castigated the “neoliberal” logic of many of Macron’s proposals. Even Viktor Orbán’s economic policies — which have included capping the prices of basic goods in response to galloping inflation — have defied the orthodoxy in certain respects.

Yet overall, there is little reason to believe that this Right-populist wave will result in any major economic policy shift. And this is highly problematic, given most of the support for these parties doesn’t come from voters who are tired of wokeness — though that certainly plays a role — but from those who are anxious about their socioeconomic situation and lack of economic security. At a time when millions of Europeans are struggling with inflation and falling real wages, any party that wants to survive the next electoral cycle will also need to provide answers to the majority of voters who expect a material benefit from their vote. In this sense, the fact that most of these parties are wedded to the economic orthodoxy doesn’t bode well for their future — or that of the millions of Europeans struggling to get by.

That said, even those parties who would choose to defy the economic status quo have to contend with the very limited autonomy that countries have today, especially in the eurozone. This relates to an even more striking aspect of contemporary Right-populism: as much as they love to rail against the “Brussels bureaucrats” and the “globalist elites”, they have virtually all ditched any mention of leaving the EU and/or the euro from their programmes (to the extent that they ever made that claim). Nowadays, Right-populists are all euro-reformists who speak of “changing the EU” from within. This represents a significant change compared with the first European populist wave of the mid-2010s, when many of the then-leading populist parties — the National Front, the AfD, the Northern League, the Five Star Movement, even Brothers of Italy — openly called for their respective countries’ exit from the EU or euro.

This development was effectively formalised in July 2021, when all the major Right-populist parties from across Europe signed a document whereby they agreed to work within the framework of the EU. This inevitably entailed a shift in focus from socioeconomic issues — over which member states have little control over — to more cultural ones: by retreating from the battle for national sovereignty, they had little choice but to couch their challenges to the status quo, and to the EU itself, in strictly cultural and identitarian terms. Hence the document called for the need for European nations to “be based on tradition, respect for the culture and history of European states, respect for Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage and the common values that unite our nations”. The point is not whether one agrees with this or not, but rather the way in which the EU has succeeded in shifting opposition from the socioeconomic terrain to the identitarian one — in other words, to the culture wars.

This emphasis was brought about by several factors, but a crucial one was the EU’s crushing response to the first populist government which attempted to challenge its rule: the League-Five Star government that emerged from the 2018 Italian elections. At the time, the EU resorted to a wide array of tools — including financial and political pressure — to prevent the government from deviating from the economic status quo, eventually causing the coalition to collapse in just over a year. The experience showed that the margins for an individual country to challenge the EU’s economic framework are close to zero — at least within the context of the euro.

From “nationalist” and “patriotic” parties allegedly devoted to taking back control from Brussels, one might have expected an increased awareness of the need to break away from the EU — something that Brexit had shown to be feasible. Instead, they reached the opposite conclusion: that the EU is so powerful that there is no alternative but to accept its existence. The tragic consequences of this are exemplified by the Meloni government: a nominally “sovereigntist” government which has no choice but to go along with the policies dictated by the European Union (and Nato), while engaging in empty culture-wars rhetoric. She symbolises the inevitable fate of Right-populism within the framework of the euro: that of becoming an anti-woke version of the economic mainstream.

Such hopes of changing the EU “from within” through the European elections are equally delusional. They might make sense if the EU were a fully-fledged federal state with a truly sovereign parliament. But it is not. In fact, the European Parliament has relatively limited powers: unlike national parliaments, it doesn’t even have the power to initiate legislation. This is a power reserved almost entirely for the EU’s “executive” arm, the European Commission, which is unelected and promises “neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other institution, body, office or entity”. And even though the European Parliament has the power to approve or reject (or propose amendments to) the Commission’s own legislative proposals, this doesn’t change the fact that it has relatively little control over the actions of the Commission. It has even less control over the European Central Bank, which ultimately exercises the power of life and death over euro area governments.

Yet even if economics were not a factor, there is a greater reason to be sceptical of the Right-populist wave’s life expectancy. On perhaps the most important issue concerning Europe’s future — the war in Ukraine and the bloc’s geopolitical positioning — the parties are deeply divided. Most Nordic, Baltic and Eastern parties, just like their mainstream equivalents, are strongly in favour of greater ties with Nato, though the same goes for Vox and Meloni. Then there are those who are strongly opposed and favour a renormalisation of relations with Russia — most notably Orbán, Le Pen and the Austrian Freedom Party. And then you have those which are deeply split on the issue, such as the AfD.

At their root, these divisions simply reflect the often divergent or even conflicting economic and geopolitical interests that characterise the EU’s member states. If the Right-populists think that these differences can be cancelled in the name of anti-wokeness — and synthesised into a common European policy — they are operating under the same Europhile delusion that the mainstream has been peddling for the past 30 years. Ultimately, there is only one project capable of delivering a truly populist agenda, in material and not simply cultural terms: one focused on reclaiming national sovereignty and democracy from the EU. It is a tragedy, then, that Europe’s Right-populists have all but given up the project.


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

71 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago

What amazes me is that so many people fear “right wing populist parties” and brand them anti democratic. The odd thing about democracy is that the will of the people should win out which is not in the interest of our politicians. Rampant immigration is always bad for indigenous populations, and Europe is no exception (except the fact that they will never be indigenous to anywhere).
Wokeness has been horrific to most people. It is a tool of the narcissistic left who have been causing so much hurt through DEI. The worst part for many is that this hurt is hard to identify. Virtue signalers are not all bad, most are just lazy. They jump on this bandwagon because they can do the most percieved good with the least amount of effort.
My hope is that these parties across Europe can rid the continent of wokeness. But also the time is fast approaching that many of the refugees start making their way home. All the various European cultures need a plethora of champions, and these champions will always struggle as long as wokeness has a stranglehold, and the refugees give the wokies a weapon to hurt the Europeans. It is sad but true.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

I think you (and I) might understand it better if we were non-white, or had a a non-white spouse, or mixed race grandchild (perhaps you’d are/do, this is a general response). I am not making an accusation of racism nor saying that all right-tilted populism is racist, but pointing out that populist movements with identitarian overtones or even undertones have a tendency to scare those who don’t share the dominant ethnicity/race of the given nation.
Much to the hard Left’s dismay, many non-Euro-descended voters already support these populist backlash movements: Orbán, Meloni, Trump, et al. But far more would be onboard with a platform that included opposition to the “Great Awokening” if they could be assured that restriction on immigration and a focus on assimilation did not flirt with so heavily with white identitarianism, so that a first or second generation Pakistan-British or Chinese-Canadian shopkeeper, for example, needn’t fear he will be made to feel (more?) foreign or unwelcome for his appearance or accent, or his grandchildren be targeted, though they sound and act pretty much like the neighborhood white kids.
While such threats may not be imminent, nor such worries fully warranted, I don’t think they are altogether groundless either. The movements do not stop at opposition to hard-left overreach, but enfold or make inroads into hard-right overreach too.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Rotherham, etc.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Why does this attitude only apply to Europeans and never, say, to the Japanese, who fiercely protect their culture? Are Hungarians and Poles, who are doing the same thing, somehow racists, but the Japanese are not? What on Earth is “white identitarianism”? It’s quite fashionable these days to identify as black or brown or “of color” (and never shut up about it), but being of a peachy-hued European stock is a both a grave sin and somehow a “privilege”. Shouldn’t a Norwegian be just as protective of his culture as a Māori? A Spaniard as French Canadian? A Laotian as a Lithuanian? Those who immigrate to new countries in any direction have a duty to assimilate to the prevailing culture, not the other way around.

Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago

Nicely said Allison.
Many white people in Southern Africa who have been living in that part of the world for many centuries and had to leave due to violence obviously don’t seem to count for AJ.
Anybody sticking up for their people deserve support, not just the non-white ones. Here in Australia, an Aboriginal is celebrated for supporting Aboriginal kids, a white person is lynched if they supported white kids.
Sorry AJ, but it is you who is the racist.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

A cheap trick, Peter. What white Australian was lynched? I guess you mean unfairly shouted down or cancelled, which could be tantamount to lynching in some alternate universe of prevailing anti-white victimization. Unjust and bad enough mind you, but let’s keep it proportional .
I oppose all racial essentialism and broad-brushing. Are your people confined to some specific ethnicity or just broadly a little pale when not suntanned?. I reject that expression when it’s used in a us vs. them manner like that. It’s much more often used that way by black and brown folks–“My People!”–but I guess we’re levelling the playing field on that one too.
Of course it is (or at least should be fine) to support, even celebrate, your culture as you perceive it, but why does it have to be against another culture? There can be a greater or lesser will to assimilate/combine cultures or peacefully coexist.
I didn’t call you racist and I don’t think I earned that label from you, man.
*Granted: I did label a couple of other commenters that way, which I should not have done despite my remote assessment to that effect, in one case more so than the other.

Last edited 10 months ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

A cheap trick, Peter. What white Australian was lynched? I guess you mean unfairly shouted down or cancelled, which could be tantamount to lynching in some alternate universe of prevailing anti-white victimization. Unjust and bad enough mind you, but let’s keep it proportional .
I oppose all racial essentialism and broad-brushing. Are your people confined to some specific ethnicity or just broadly a little pale when not suntanned?. I reject that expression when it’s used in a us vs. them manner like that. It’s much more often used that way by black and brown folks–“My People!”–but I guess we’re levelling the playing field on that one too.
Of course it is (or at least should be fine) to support, even celebrate, your culture as you perceive it, but why does it have to be against another culture? There can be a greater or lesser will to assimilate/combine cultures or peacefully coexist.
I didn’t call you racist and I don’t think I earned that label from you, man.
*Granted: I did label a couple of other commenters that way, which I should not have done despite my remote assessment to that effect, in one case more so than the other.

Last edited 10 months ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago

The Japanese are most certainly more racist in attitude and practice, on average, than most, perhaps all, majority-white nations. And even many white folks who are hesitant or afraid to admit that might speak up against (but probably do nothing about, what could they do?) a rising identitarian movement in Asia or elsewhere, like the hideous ethnic hatred and genocide in Rwanda. Or the largely “white on white” ethnic hatreds in the former Yugoslavia.
So: It does apply, and I do apply it. But we are talking about our neck of the global woods, where we live, can vote, and have a cultural and political say that is a least supposed to matter. I’m not saying that white people are the current world champions in racism–often far from it, power and prestige differentials skew the appearance of bias–but the West has professed a certain openness, one that many in this forum (and elsewhere) hate in principle, and one that I admit can be dangerous and disruptive to a culture.
But in the West broadly speaking, a culture needn’t have a primarily ethnic or racial character. In America, it has not been about the true dominance of any one ethnicity for a long time: the bullshit category of “whiteness” is pan-ethnic and includes dozen of countries of origin now that the tent has been enlarged to include my Irish ancestors and many others, and people of any hue can assuredly “make it” here in any walk of life, potentially and often for real.
Nothing wrong with defending the culture in and of itself–I’m actually in favor of that, and so are many others, in principle, that are not “of the Right”. The troubling pivot is when “culture” becomes interchangeable with appearance, accent, or worship. That is why mentioned the hypothetical shopkeeper: quite assimilated with multi-racial, totally Westernized grandchildren, but not-white and has an accent. Are his racial/ethnic concerns about a right-populism that he might otherwise support totally groundless?
“A duty to assimilate”…I tend to agree in principle. I’ve always disliked to hear, for example, of someone who’s been here twenty years and speaks little or no English. But how far must that assimilation extend, and what levers, if any, will be used to enforce it? That is an important and legitimate question to ask.

Last edited 10 months ago by AJ Mac
Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago

Nicely said Allison.
Many white people in Southern Africa who have been living in that part of the world for many centuries and had to leave due to violence obviously don’t seem to count for AJ.
Anybody sticking up for their people deserve support, not just the non-white ones. Here in Australia, an Aboriginal is celebrated for supporting Aboriginal kids, a white person is lynched if they supported white kids.
Sorry AJ, but it is you who is the racist.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago

The Japanese are most certainly more racist in attitude and practice, on average, than most, perhaps all, majority-white nations. And even many white folks who are hesitant or afraid to admit that might speak up against (but probably do nothing about, what could they do?) a rising identitarian movement in Asia or elsewhere, like the hideous ethnic hatred and genocide in Rwanda. Or the largely “white on white” ethnic hatreds in the former Yugoslavia.
So: It does apply, and I do apply it. But we are talking about our neck of the global woods, where we live, can vote, and have a cultural and political say that is a least supposed to matter. I’m not saying that white people are the current world champions in racism–often far from it, power and prestige differentials skew the appearance of bias–but the West has professed a certain openness, one that many in this forum (and elsewhere) hate in principle, and one that I admit can be dangerous and disruptive to a culture.
But in the West broadly speaking, a culture needn’t have a primarily ethnic or racial character. In America, it has not been about the true dominance of any one ethnicity for a long time: the bullshit category of “whiteness” is pan-ethnic and includes dozen of countries of origin now that the tent has been enlarged to include my Irish ancestors and many others, and people of any hue can assuredly “make it” here in any walk of life, potentially and often for real.
Nothing wrong with defending the culture in and of itself–I’m actually in favor of that, and so are many others, in principle, that are not “of the Right”. The troubling pivot is when “culture” becomes interchangeable with appearance, accent, or worship. That is why mentioned the hypothetical shopkeeper: quite assimilated with multi-racial, totally Westernized grandchildren, but not-white and has an accent. Are his racial/ethnic concerns about a right-populism that he might otherwise support totally groundless?
“A duty to assimilate”…I tend to agree in principle. I’ve always disliked to hear, for example, of someone who’s been here twenty years and speaks little or no English. But how far must that assimilation extend, and what levers, if any, will be used to enforce it? That is an important and legitimate question to ask.

Last edited 10 months ago by AJ Mac
Andrew Vavuris
Andrew Vavuris
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

AJ stop drinking the leftist coolant! Your thoughts have the odor of the left.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Vavuris

So this needs to be an echo chamber of the right in order for you to feel sufficiently safe?
I think the moderate left (which includes me, in a general way) and moderate right (at least a plurality of the commenters here) have enough in common to build consensus against both the far-far left and far-far right. Most people have a preference about which they’d choose if they had to, whether they’d run left or right, but I really don’t. I think both extremes lead in murderous, totalitarian directions, and that I am not truly forced to choose one or the other, certainly not yet.
It’s no good to simply dismiss every one who disagrees with you about some things as a kool-ade zombie or sold-out ideologue. (Both sides do this way too often now). Unless you just want a forum of commiseration and self-soothing, where almost no one that doesn’t already share the “party line” is ever persuaded.
Can’t even self-declared right wingers of the fair-minded sort (I know they do exist) see why some reasonable people might fear right-populist movements?
*For the unrequested record: I do not support wokery, nor the specific things clustered under that banner like: compelled speech, special/extreme trans rights, or engineered equity campaigns. I don’t regard such things as part of a moderate left or center-left viewpoint and certainly not of the Liberal tradition I am in general sympathy with.

Last edited 10 months ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Vavuris

So this needs to be an echo chamber of the right in order for you to feel sufficiently safe?
I think the moderate left (which includes me, in a general way) and moderate right (at least a plurality of the commenters here) have enough in common to build consensus against both the far-far left and far-far right. Most people have a preference about which they’d choose if they had to, whether they’d run left or right, but I really don’t. I think both extremes lead in murderous, totalitarian directions, and that I am not truly forced to choose one or the other, certainly not yet.
It’s no good to simply dismiss every one who disagrees with you about some things as a kool-ade zombie or sold-out ideologue. (Both sides do this way too often now). Unless you just want a forum of commiseration and self-soothing, where almost no one that doesn’t already share the “party line” is ever persuaded.
Can’t even self-declared right wingers of the fair-minded sort (I know they do exist) see why some reasonable people might fear right-populist movements?
*For the unrequested record: I do not support wokery, nor the specific things clustered under that banner like: compelled speech, special/extreme trans rights, or engineered equity campaigns. I don’t regard such things as part of a moderate left or center-left viewpoint and certainly not of the Liberal tradition I am in general sympathy with.

Last edited 10 months ago by AJ Mac
Ben Jones
Ben Jones
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I am not a fan of identarian politics either, but you do realise the Front Nationale in France (even in the old monster Jean Marie’s day) has always had Jewish, North African and Asian members. I think at one point the deputy leader’s wife was Japanese. Obviously, French nationalism is meant to be civic, and I have no doubt AfD (for example) harbours racists, but I still don’t see where your original point follows.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

I’m saying that more nonwhites of a traditional or assimilationist bent would support these movements if they felt there was less of a racial or blood-or-soil character about them. I’m saying the perceived racialized or hyper-in-group threat may be more or less real, but the fear is not insane or historically ungrounded, whether in Poland, France, or India (Hindus vs. Muslims now and for ages).

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

I’m saying that more nonwhites of a traditional or assimilationist bent would support these movements if they felt there was less of a racial or blood-or-soil character about them. I’m saying the perceived racialized or hyper-in-group threat may be more or less real, but the fear is not insane or historically ungrounded, whether in Poland, France, or India (Hindus vs. Muslims now and for ages).

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

see Ian Barton’s comment below, AJ (“The main reason people fear so-called “right-wing populist parties” is because they are trained to by their respective MSM.”) …
That’s you that is.

Last edited 10 months ago by Justin Clark
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

“Nuh uh, that’s you…Mom, Justin’s bein’ mean again!”
I’m not a bubble dweller nor an uncritical consumer of any media. I’m not saying I’m purely objective or correct about everything, mind you. But simply inverting things to only trust fringe sources that bend in one direction doesn’t produce a very comprehensive picture either, but one that appears very clear and simple.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

“Nuh uh, that’s you…Mom, Justin’s bein’ mean again!”
I’m not a bubble dweller nor an uncritical consumer of any media. I’m not saying I’m purely objective or correct about everything, mind you. But simply inverting things to only trust fringe sources that bend in one direction doesn’t produce a very comprehensive picture either, but one that appears very clear and simple.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Too many thumbs-down here.
As a life-long citizen of Brooklyn I’m a bit taken aback by the vehement anti immigrant feelings so often expressed in the UnHerd comments. It’s one thing to be anti-immigration, to want your government to cut back or to be unhappy with those immigrants who make no effort to assimilate; but it’s another thing altogether to be anti-immigrant, to paint them all with the same brush. People deserve a chance to be judged on their own merits and the society deserves a shot of new blood sometimes.
AJ Mac’s concluding point is the most important one on the ground, here and now. We get to choose, or at least we should, but hateful rhetoric is not going to win any elections. White identitarianism is a losing proposition; especially in any nation famed for its shipping and seaports and its global reach. I can see for myself that all the different people who have washed up here in Bklyn make it a better and richer (if somewhat more chaotic) place.

Last edited 10 months ago by laurence scaduto
Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Rotherham, etc.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Why does this attitude only apply to Europeans and never, say, to the Japanese, who fiercely protect their culture? Are Hungarians and Poles, who are doing the same thing, somehow racists, but the Japanese are not? What on Earth is “white identitarianism”? It’s quite fashionable these days to identify as black or brown or “of color” (and never shut up about it), but being of a peachy-hued European stock is a both a grave sin and somehow a “privilege”. Shouldn’t a Norwegian be just as protective of his culture as a Māori? A Spaniard as French Canadian? A Laotian as a Lithuanian? Those who immigrate to new countries in any direction have a duty to assimilate to the prevailing culture, not the other way around.

Andrew Vavuris
Andrew Vavuris
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

AJ stop drinking the leftist coolant! Your thoughts have the odor of the left.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I am not a fan of identarian politics either, but you do realise the Front Nationale in France (even in the old monster Jean Marie’s day) has always had Jewish, North African and Asian members. I think at one point the deputy leader’s wife was Japanese. Obviously, French nationalism is meant to be civic, and I have no doubt AfD (for example) harbours racists, but I still don’t see where your original point follows.

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

see Ian Barton’s comment below, AJ (“The main reason people fear so-called “right-wing populist parties” is because they are trained to by their respective MSM.”) …
That’s you that is.

Last edited 10 months ago by Justin Clark
laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Too many thumbs-down here.
As a life-long citizen of Brooklyn I’m a bit taken aback by the vehement anti immigrant feelings so often expressed in the UnHerd comments. It’s one thing to be anti-immigration, to want your government to cut back or to be unhappy with those immigrants who make no effort to assimilate; but it’s another thing altogether to be anti-immigrant, to paint them all with the same brush. People deserve a chance to be judged on their own merits and the society deserves a shot of new blood sometimes.
AJ Mac’s concluding point is the most important one on the ground, here and now. We get to choose, or at least we should, but hateful rhetoric is not going to win any elections. White identitarianism is a losing proposition; especially in any nation famed for its shipping and seaports and its global reach. I can see for myself that all the different people who have washed up here in Bklyn make it a better and richer (if somewhat more chaotic) place.

Last edited 10 months ago by laurence scaduto
Ian Barton
Ian Barton
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

The main reason people fear so-called “right-wing populist parties” is because they are trained to by their respective MSM.
.
It seems that every time there is an election, the narrative is to scare people that the facists (sic) might get in. When the populist party actually gain ground on the incumbent – but fail to win an overall majority – the MSM then headline the result as a failure of the “hard-right” to achieve what they wanted.
.
For example, just look at the recent BBC coverage of Spain and the US to see this in play.

Last edited 10 months ago by Ian Barton
O F
O F
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

So based on your premise Peter, the German politicians unhappy with the electoral success of the NSDAP back in 1933 should have embraced the will of those who had no truck homosexuality, Jews, etc.

Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago
Reply to  O F

The NSDAP never won an election in their own right. They were a junior partner in a coalition with another party. In fact they were losing seats so they took power by force. That is not democracy as much as you want it to be.

Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago
Reply to  O F

The NSDAP never won an election in their own right. They were a junior partner in a coalition with another party. In fact they were losing seats so they took power by force. That is not democracy as much as you want it to be.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

Straw man nonsense. Nobody fears these boil-in-a-bag solution hawkers, albeit they are extremely tedious, every one of them spouting the same old bug-eyed, excitable codswallop. Face it, any party which claims to be either left or right, to any appreciable degree, is intrinsically simplistic.   

Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I think it is intrinsically simplistic to believe that any political party has the answer. Let’s be honest here, we only pick the least worst candidate. If a fringe party ever wins anything, all they get is a reality check. All we get is the same old rubbish with a different smell

Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I think it is intrinsically simplistic to believe that any political party has the answer. Let’s be honest here, we only pick the least worst candidate. If a fringe party ever wins anything, all they get is a reality check. All we get is the same old rubbish with a different smell

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

We’ve been using the term “liberal democracy” for so many decades that we’ve forgotten it’s an oxymoron by nature. “Democracy” demands that law broadly reflect the majority will of the people governed by it. “Liberalism” posits a set of universal rights which must be upheld regardless of the will of the people. The conflict between these is inevitable.
The EU bureaucrats cloak their commitment to liberalism in the language of democracy, but they are, in reality, liberal authoritarians. They use coercive means to demand fealty to their set of policy preferences. There’s nothing democratic about that at all.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

I think you (and I) might understand it better if we were non-white, or had a a non-white spouse, or mixed race grandchild (perhaps you’d are/do, this is a general response). I am not making an accusation of racism nor saying that all right-tilted populism is racist, but pointing out that populist movements with identitarian overtones or even undertones have a tendency to scare those who don’t share the dominant ethnicity/race of the given nation.
Much to the hard Left’s dismay, many non-Euro-descended voters already support these populist backlash movements: Orbán, Meloni, Trump, et al. But far more would be onboard with a platform that included opposition to the “Great Awokening” if they could be assured that restriction on immigration and a focus on assimilation did not flirt with so heavily with white identitarianism, so that a first or second generation Pakistan-British or Chinese-Canadian shopkeeper, for example, needn’t fear he will be made to feel (more?) foreign or unwelcome for his appearance or accent, or his grandchildren be targeted, though they sound and act pretty much like the neighborhood white kids.
While such threats may not be imminent, nor such worries fully warranted, I don’t think they are altogether groundless either. The movements do not stop at opposition to hard-left overreach, but enfold or make inroads into hard-right overreach too.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

The main reason people fear so-called “right-wing populist parties” is because they are trained to by their respective MSM.
.
It seems that every time there is an election, the narrative is to scare people that the facists (sic) might get in. When the populist party actually gain ground on the incumbent – but fail to win an overall majority – the MSM then headline the result as a failure of the “hard-right” to achieve what they wanted.
.
For example, just look at the recent BBC coverage of Spain and the US to see this in play.

Last edited 10 months ago by Ian Barton
O F
O F
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

So based on your premise Peter, the German politicians unhappy with the electoral success of the NSDAP back in 1933 should have embraced the will of those who had no truck homosexuality, Jews, etc.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

Straw man nonsense. Nobody fears these boil-in-a-bag solution hawkers, albeit they are extremely tedious, every one of them spouting the same old bug-eyed, excitable codswallop. Face it, any party which claims to be either left or right, to any appreciable degree, is intrinsically simplistic.   

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

We’ve been using the term “liberal democracy” for so many decades that we’ve forgotten it’s an oxymoron by nature. “Democracy” demands that law broadly reflect the majority will of the people governed by it. “Liberalism” posits a set of universal rights which must be upheld regardless of the will of the people. The conflict between these is inevitable.
The EU bureaucrats cloak their commitment to liberalism in the language of democracy, but they are, in reality, liberal authoritarians. They use coercive means to demand fealty to their set of policy preferences. There’s nothing democratic about that at all.

Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago

What amazes me is that so many people fear “right wing populist parties” and brand them anti democratic. The odd thing about democracy is that the will of the people should win out which is not in the interest of our politicians. Rampant immigration is always bad for indigenous populations, and Europe is no exception (except the fact that they will never be indigenous to anywhere).
Wokeness has been horrific to most people. It is a tool of the narcissistic left who have been causing so much hurt through DEI. The worst part for many is that this hurt is hard to identify. Virtue signalers are not all bad, most are just lazy. They jump on this bandwagon because they can do the most percieved good with the least amount of effort.
My hope is that these parties across Europe can rid the continent of wokeness. But also the time is fast approaching that many of the refugees start making their way home. All the various European cultures need a plethora of champions, and these champions will always struggle as long as wokeness has a stranglehold, and the refugees give the wokies a weapon to hurt the Europeans. It is sad but true.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
10 months ago

Britain was only able to exit the EU because, thanks to the visceral hatred of a Chancellor for his prime minister, we never adopted the euro. The luckiest escape since Dunkirk.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It isn’t impossible to leave the Euro as well.as the EU, just very much more challenging to accomplish.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Hear hear!

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It isn’t impossible to leave the Euro as well.as the EU, just very much more challenging to accomplish.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Hear hear!

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
10 months ago

Britain was only able to exit the EU because, thanks to the visceral hatred of a Chancellor for his prime minister, we never adopted the euro. The luckiest escape since Dunkirk.

AC Harper
AC Harper
10 months ago

“At the weekend, Vox’s strong performance confirmed that Spain is likely to join Hungary, Poland, Italy, Finland and Austria and elect a Right-populist party to government.”

Well done Thomas Fazi for resisting the urge to write “Far Right-populist party” although you could argue that “populist” is a dog whistle term for the same political orientation. Whatever the terms used it must bother the Powers That Be that such parties are democratic, even while they still remain within the Establishment.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
10 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

I had the same thought – overuse of the term “far right” probably defines whether an author’s articles are going to be worth reading – or whether a wider media source (e.g. the BBC) is worth continuing to consume.

Last edited 10 months ago by Ian Barton
Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
10 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

I’ve never seen or heard of a “far-left” government, organization, or individual. Somehow, like the mythic bongo bird, it is always unseen and unheard. Of course, the term ‘far’ is used, created, and designed to create an impression of unreasonableness in the human mind; the speaker is himself ‘far-left’.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
10 months ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

George Alagiah had to correct himself after saying “far right” when the autocue said “far left”. It was probably the first time he’d ever had to say it.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
10 months ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

George Alagiah had to correct himself after saying “far right” when the autocue said “far left”. It was probably the first time he’d ever had to say it.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
10 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

I had the same thought – overuse of the term “far right” probably defines whether an author’s articles are going to be worth reading – or whether a wider media source (e.g. the BBC) is worth continuing to consume.

Last edited 10 months ago by Ian Barton
Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
10 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

I’ve never seen or heard of a “far-left” government, organization, or individual. Somehow, like the mythic bongo bird, it is always unseen and unheard. Of course, the term ‘far’ is used, created, and designed to create an impression of unreasonableness in the human mind; the speaker is himself ‘far-left’.

AC Harper
AC Harper
10 months ago

“At the weekend, Vox’s strong performance confirmed that Spain is likely to join Hungary, Poland, Italy, Finland and Austria and elect a Right-populist party to government.”

Well done Thomas Fazi for resisting the urge to write “Far Right-populist party” although you could argue that “populist” is a dog whistle term for the same political orientation. Whatever the terms used it must bother the Powers That Be that such parties are democratic, even while they still remain within the Establishment.

SIMON WOLF
SIMON WOLF
10 months ago

If Thomas Fazi believes being labelled ‘far right’ is not ‘anti-establishment’ i suggest he tries going for job interviews in most Western countries stating he has ‘far right’ politics and find out how many corporations etc would give him a job.Or go to a bank and see if they offer him a bank account.Or apply to do a course at a university and see how many univesities offer him a place.And then try the same experiment declaring his politics ‘woke left’ and see if anyone declines him a job,a bank account or a university place.

SIMON WOLF
SIMON WOLF
10 months ago

If Thomas Fazi believes being labelled ‘far right’ is not ‘anti-establishment’ i suggest he tries going for job interviews in most Western countries stating he has ‘far right’ politics and find out how many corporations etc would give him a job.Or go to a bank and see if they offer him a bank account.Or apply to do a course at a university and see how many univesities offer him a place.And then try the same experiment declaring his politics ‘woke left’ and see if anyone declines him a job,a bank account or a university place.

Peter B
Peter B
10 months ago

I got as far as this: “From a cultural standpoint, such parties could not be further from the liberal-progressive mainstream”.
If these [populist] parties are now winning elections, then they are the mainstream rather than the “liberal-progressives”. At least in the countries where they are winning.
That sentence alone simply reinforces my view that Mr Fazi is little more than a tribal campaigner with no actual commitment to any serious study, understanding and learning. Sadly, a typical modern commentator. It doesn’t matter how many elections the populists win, they will never be “mainstream” for Mr. Fazi and his ilk.
The article is just low grade spin.
There are moments when you think the author might be connecting with reality – “In fact, the European Parliament has relatively limited powers: unlike national parliaments, it doesn’t even have the power to initiate legislation” – but rather than pausing to question whether that is desirable, he moves straight on, happy that he’s scored his hit against the despised populists. For Mr. Fazi, one senses that the end justifies the means and there is no principle to anything.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Come on, there are many points I take issue with Thomas Fazi over; using well known and understood political labels isn’t one of them! Firstly, it is far too early to say that parties like the Sweden Democrats or Brothers of Italy, or Vox in Spain, after decades or Christian or Social Democratic rule, are now “mainstream”. If we don’t use some sort of similar labelling we can’t make any sense of the political and cultural shifts going on. And your comment entirely ignores the phenomenon which is discussed here often enough, of an unrepresentative left / liberal / progressive capture of many government institutions, not only in the UK.

Here is a definition of “mainstream” – ‘the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional’ – “they withdrew from the mainstream of European politics”.

The policy positions of the Chinese Communist Party are certainly “mainstream” in the context of China, despite the fact that the citizens didn’t vote for them!

At no point does Mr Fazi give any indication that he “despises” the populist governments. He just takes them to task for not being economically radical (redistributionist) enough. You can agree or disagree with him about this (I feel he goes in for a lot of wishful thinking) but it is a reasonably argued position.

Lastly, you simply completely ignore one of his main points, which is that the “populists” in power are doing no more to challenge the hegemony of EU institutions and rule than the governments they
replaced!

Last edited 10 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Peter B
Peter B
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

What are the quotes around the words below for if it is not sneering condescension about these parties ?
‘From “nationalist” and “patriotic” parties’
The tone of this article is not accidental. No more than the BBC’s coverage of the Spanish election. When the right do this it’s condemned as “dog whistle” stuff. When the media do it, we’re just supposed to roll with it.
An important note here – Fazi is commenting all all right of centre parties – that includes the PP (Popular Party) in Spain – and not only the more right wing ones like Vox.
Mainstream: again, I was commenting on the majority governments in selected countries. I made no claim about Vox being mainstream.
Mainstream: this is merely a label used by those who want others to believe they are the majority – or deserve to have their votes weighted more (due to their assumed intellectual and/or cultural “superiority”) in order that they are. Just as the minority Russian socialist faction labelled themselves the “Bolsheviks” (the big party).

stephen archer
stephen archer
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

If the “mainstream” definition is important, it is also current and not just historical. The right wing parties in Denmark and Sweden have been mainstream for at least the last ten years, To take the Sweden Democrats as an example, they’ve had an increasing share of the poll from 13% to 20%, taking voters from all parties except left of the Social Democrats. They can’t even be described as “far right” since a lot of their policies (immigration, crime, taxation) allign with those of other parties. On taxation for example they’re alligned to that of the Social Democrats. Opposition to them tends to be ideological, focused on their background and some shady party individuals with extreme leanings who have since been shown the door. It’s difficult to regard any of the other parties apart from the Conservatives and Social Democrats as mainstream in the sense that they will never expect to receive more than 10% of the electorate even though their policies in some cases are midddle of the road. The Sweden Democrats rise in popularity to mainstream is a direct consequence of Sweden’s immigration and integration policies together with increasing lawlessness over the last 20-30 years. The trends are apparent elsewhere in Europe, maybe not so much in the UK, so further right wing parties mentioned may be gravitating towards mainstream in coming years.

Last edited 10 months ago by stephen archer
Peter B
Peter B
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

What are the quotes around the words below for if it is not sneering condescension about these parties ?
‘From “nationalist” and “patriotic” parties’
The tone of this article is not accidental. No more than the BBC’s coverage of the Spanish election. When the right do this it’s condemned as “dog whistle” stuff. When the media do it, we’re just supposed to roll with it.
An important note here – Fazi is commenting all all right of centre parties – that includes the PP (Popular Party) in Spain – and not only the more right wing ones like Vox.
Mainstream: again, I was commenting on the majority governments in selected countries. I made no claim about Vox being mainstream.
Mainstream: this is merely a label used by those who want others to believe they are the majority – or deserve to have their votes weighted more (due to their assumed intellectual and/or cultural “superiority”) in order that they are. Just as the minority Russian socialist faction labelled themselves the “Bolsheviks” (the big party).

stephen archer
stephen archer
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

If the “mainstream” definition is important, it is also current and not just historical. The right wing parties in Denmark and Sweden have been mainstream for at least the last ten years, To take the Sweden Democrats as an example, they’ve had an increasing share of the poll from 13% to 20%, taking voters from all parties except left of the Social Democrats. They can’t even be described as “far right” since a lot of their policies (immigration, crime, taxation) allign with those of other parties. On taxation for example they’re alligned to that of the Social Democrats. Opposition to them tends to be ideological, focused on their background and some shady party individuals with extreme leanings who have since been shown the door. It’s difficult to regard any of the other parties apart from the Conservatives and Social Democrats as mainstream in the sense that they will never expect to receive more than 10% of the electorate even though their policies in some cases are midddle of the road. The Sweden Democrats rise in popularity to mainstream is a direct consequence of Sweden’s immigration and integration policies together with increasing lawlessness over the last 20-30 years. The trends are apparent elsewhere in Europe, maybe not so much in the UK, so further right wing parties mentioned may be gravitating towards mainstream in coming years.

Last edited 10 months ago by stephen archer
Andrew Vavuris
Andrew Vavuris
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Perhaps Mr Fazi could elaborate on his dismissive comment, “On other, arguably more important issues, however,….”

C Yonge
C Yonge
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Vavuris

Yes. That’s a very telling comment.

C Yonge
C Yonge
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Vavuris

Yes. That’s a very telling comment.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Come on, there are many points I take issue with Thomas Fazi over; using well known and understood political labels isn’t one of them! Firstly, it is far too early to say that parties like the Sweden Democrats or Brothers of Italy, or Vox in Spain, after decades or Christian or Social Democratic rule, are now “mainstream”. If we don’t use some sort of similar labelling we can’t make any sense of the political and cultural shifts going on. And your comment entirely ignores the phenomenon which is discussed here often enough, of an unrepresentative left / liberal / progressive capture of many government institutions, not only in the UK.

Here is a definition of “mainstream” – ‘the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional’ – “they withdrew from the mainstream of European politics”.

The policy positions of the Chinese Communist Party are certainly “mainstream” in the context of China, despite the fact that the citizens didn’t vote for them!

At no point does Mr Fazi give any indication that he “despises” the populist governments. He just takes them to task for not being economically radical (redistributionist) enough. You can agree or disagree with him about this (I feel he goes in for a lot of wishful thinking) but it is a reasonably argued position.

Lastly, you simply completely ignore one of his main points, which is that the “populists” in power are doing no more to challenge the hegemony of EU institutions and rule than the governments they
replaced!

Last edited 10 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Andrew Vavuris
Andrew Vavuris
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Perhaps Mr Fazi could elaborate on his dismissive comment, “On other, arguably more important issues, however,….”

Peter B
Peter B
10 months ago

I got as far as this: “From a cultural standpoint, such parties could not be further from the liberal-progressive mainstream”.
If these [populist] parties are now winning elections, then they are the mainstream rather than the “liberal-progressives”. At least in the countries where they are winning.
That sentence alone simply reinforces my view that Mr Fazi is little more than a tribal campaigner with no actual commitment to any serious study, understanding and learning. Sadly, a typical modern commentator. It doesn’t matter how many elections the populists win, they will never be “mainstream” for Mr. Fazi and his ilk.
The article is just low grade spin.
There are moments when you think the author might be connecting with reality – “In fact, the European Parliament has relatively limited powers: unlike national parliaments, it doesn’t even have the power to initiate legislation” – but rather than pausing to question whether that is desirable, he moves straight on, happy that he’s scored his hit against the despised populists. For Mr. Fazi, one senses that the end justifies the means and there is no principle to anything.

Mark Goodhand
Mark Goodhand
10 months ago

pro-austerity

It’s hard to take seriously anyone who presents deficit reduction, never mind debt reduction, as “pro austerity”.
We can’t just carry on borrowing and printing. We need to learn to live within our means.
Argue as you like about infrastructure investments & tax cuts aimed at boosting long-term growth, versus welfare spending today, but the starting point should be a balanced budget and a debt burden that doesn’t put countries at the mercy of bond markets.

Mark Goodhand
Mark Goodhand
10 months ago

pro-austerity

It’s hard to take seriously anyone who presents deficit reduction, never mind debt reduction, as “pro austerity”.
We can’t just carry on borrowing and printing. We need to learn to live within our means.
Argue as you like about infrastructure investments & tax cuts aimed at boosting long-term growth, versus welfare spending today, but the starting point should be a balanced budget and a debt burden that doesn’t put countries at the mercy of bond markets.

Emre S
Emre S
10 months ago

Not sure if they gave up on exiting the EU because they lost hope. I think it’s other way around. They stopped thinking about it because they got hope that they’ll inherit the EU one day in the future if things continue to go they way they do. Brexit, the loss of arguably the most liberal country in Europe, probably made this even likelier.

Emre S
Emre S
10 months ago

Not sure if they gave up on exiting the EU because they lost hope. I think it’s other way around. They stopped thinking about it because they got hope that they’ll inherit the EU one day in the future if things continue to go they way they do. Brexit, the loss of arguably the most liberal country in Europe, probably made this even likelier.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago

This is Thomas Fazi reverting to wishful form on economic issues. Which is a model state he can point to which simply gives workers pay rises unrelated in any way to the productivity of an economy? Every attempt to do so has failed miserably. Of course workers taking industrial action in any actual socialist societies – and the Soviet Union, Eastern European countries, Cuba etc were certainly these – treated any such attempt by workers to increase their wages as ‘sabotage’ and a counter revolutionary act.

With regard to populist parties shifting their position on leaving the EU, this doesn’t seem to be all that difficult to understand. The realities of power are rather different from Mr Fazi or indeed us lot for that matter – penning zero cost or influence comments on UnHerd! I have absolutely no brief for the EU, but could it be perhaps that having observed the dismal and undoubted failure of Britain’s botched exit, at least so far, that this would be a politically unpopular and risky move and one likely to lead to years of chaos and endless rounds of negotiation with the EU and/or neighbouring trading countries? Even in the case of a complete dissolution, as Mr Fazi correctly observes, just because two countries both have “populist” governments doesn’t mean they will both agree amicably on key policies. And leaving the Euro is even more risky, which the UK did not need to do. In the case of Italy, we are also talking about a founder nation of the EEC / EU which has been a member for over 60 years, and not Britain’s 40.

In the long run it might perhaps be better, as well as certainly more democratic, to leave the EU, but in the (not all that) long run politicians and voters are all politically, if not physically, dead.

And lastly, given that something like a complete cultural revolution as well as mass demographic change is occurring, the “culture war” issues which Mr Fazi dismisses so lightly, are not second order but of absolutely central importance.

Last edited 10 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

I suppose the question comes down to this: Are modern expectations for economic “security” realistic? A chicken in every pot etc? Will the “city of pigs” do?

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

I suppose the question comes down to this: Are modern expectations for economic “security” realistic? A chicken in every pot etc? Will the “city of pigs” do?

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago

This is Thomas Fazi reverting to wishful form on economic issues. Which is a model state he can point to which simply gives workers pay rises unrelated in any way to the productivity of an economy? Every attempt to do so has failed miserably. Of course workers taking industrial action in any actual socialist societies – and the Soviet Union, Eastern European countries, Cuba etc were certainly these – treated any such attempt by workers to increase their wages as ‘sabotage’ and a counter revolutionary act.

With regard to populist parties shifting their position on leaving the EU, this doesn’t seem to be all that difficult to understand. The realities of power are rather different from Mr Fazi or indeed us lot for that matter – penning zero cost or influence comments on UnHerd! I have absolutely no brief for the EU, but could it be perhaps that having observed the dismal and undoubted failure of Britain’s botched exit, at least so far, that this would be a politically unpopular and risky move and one likely to lead to years of chaos and endless rounds of negotiation with the EU and/or neighbouring trading countries? Even in the case of a complete dissolution, as Mr Fazi correctly observes, just because two countries both have “populist” governments doesn’t mean they will both agree amicably on key policies. And leaving the Euro is even more risky, which the UK did not need to do. In the case of Italy, we are also talking about a founder nation of the EEC / EU which has been a member for over 60 years, and not Britain’s 40.

In the long run it might perhaps be better, as well as certainly more democratic, to leave the EU, but in the (not all that) long run politicians and voters are all politically, if not physically, dead.

And lastly, given that something like a complete cultural revolution as well as mass demographic change is occurring, the “culture war” issues which Mr Fazi dismisses so lightly, are not second order but of absolutely central importance.

Last edited 10 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Andrew Vavuris
Andrew Vavuris
10 months ago

Most European countries have failed at assimilation. That’s the insidious nature of political correctness; which is nothing more than Christians lacking the faith and (ultimately) courage to proselytize the dominant culture.

Your criticism of the popular right barely scratches the surface. Europe suffers, firstly, from a crisis of Christianity. It’s Churches are infected with perverts passing off as clerics. They need to be thrown out as the heretics they have become.

Why do European governments collect taxes for the churches?!

The popular right is a symptom more of frustration brought about by the left’s imposition of its Godless ideology into the lives of ordinary people.

Andrew Vavuris
Andrew Vavuris
10 months ago

Most European countries have failed at assimilation. That’s the insidious nature of political correctness; which is nothing more than Christians lacking the faith and (ultimately) courage to proselytize the dominant culture.

Your criticism of the popular right barely scratches the surface. Europe suffers, firstly, from a crisis of Christianity. It’s Churches are infected with perverts passing off as clerics. They need to be thrown out as the heretics they have become.

Why do European governments collect taxes for the churches?!

The popular right is a symptom more of frustration brought about by the left’s imposition of its Godless ideology into the lives of ordinary people.

Saul D
Saul D
10 months ago

It turns out Vox didn’t do very well. They dropped from 52 seats to 33. What did happen in Spain was a strengthening of the two main parties and a weakening of the smaller more radical parties, but with only a small swing across the aisle.
The left-right division remains an uncrossable barrier where voters stick to their side – very much in contrast to the UK where blue will vote red and red will vote blue. In Spain, PP and PSOE have regained leadership of their side by absorbing lessons and policies from their rivals, making those rivals less relevant, but without doing anything to win appeal from a wider majority.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago
Reply to  Saul D

Interesting comment, but if true it is a big change from the historic pattern, where the UK had much more stable political parties and support than most continental countries. Of course that has significantly changed since Brexit.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago
Reply to  Saul D

Interesting comment, but if true it is a big change from the historic pattern, where the UK had much more stable political parties and support than most continental countries. Of course that has significantly changed since Brexit.

Saul D
Saul D
10 months ago

It turns out Vox didn’t do very well. They dropped from 52 seats to 33. What did happen in Spain was a strengthening of the two main parties and a weakening of the smaller more radical parties, but with only a small swing across the aisle.
The left-right division remains an uncrossable barrier where voters stick to their side – very much in contrast to the UK where blue will vote red and red will vote blue. In Spain, PP and PSOE have regained leadership of their side by absorbing lessons and policies from their rivals, making those rivals less relevant, but without doing anything to win appeal from a wider majority.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
10 months ago

Interesting. But for me the focus on the so called ‘Populist Right Wing’ misses a bigger factor in the failure to challenge the EU and overturn economic orthodoxy. Where is the Centre Right? Why is the Centre so weak?? The disintegration of our own Fake Tories surely makes this the bigger question as I reckon a clear majority of Brits and Europeans now sit in the centre/right space. Yet in France here and elsewhere, proper centrist political parties are collapsing just when we need them most. All need to protect enterprise, fight the strangulation of the Socialist Regulatory Blob, challenge mass open border migration and deliver sensible non Net Zero energy solutions. These are mainstream core problems. Not the preserve of the Afd and these others out on the fringe. Why is there this void and black hole on centre right just when a majority crave pragmatic anti progressive fightback on these lines??

Mike Downing
Mike Downing
10 months ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I went for a look round the shops on Saturday (well the ones that are left) and it’s the same. You can buy one version of something for £45 or a bargain version for £3. There’s no middle ground here either (apart from M&S, and that’s only kept afloat by its food Hall where everything is vastly overpriced).

Last edited 10 months ago by Mike Downing
Ian Barton
Ian Barton
10 months ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I think the issue here is that the old centre-right parties were run by politicians who felt the need to represent the views of many of their constituents, whereas now both the centre-left and centre-right politicians are taking instruction from quangos at the local, EU or world levels.
.
Membership of these quangos became more attractive than listening to the plebs(sic), so they got out of the habit.

Last edited 10 months ago by Ian Barton
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
10 months ago
Reply to  Ian Barton

I 100% agree. I bang on about the post 97 Blairite/EU New Order or Revolution because many here write as if our system of government is somehow unchanged (see Nick Timothy in Tel still not quite getting it). The powers of the Executive, Parliament and nation state were all utterly and deliberately dismantled to make us a proper conformist compliant EU Statelet. Greater power has been vested in supreme judges here and abroad and diffused into the new vast unelected Blob Regulatory Quangocracy, yes. And the result? Impotence, Fake Tories, a seeming One Party progressive State and no progress with national renewal. But given that the massive silent majority of Brits and Europeans are utterly horrified by unplanned uncontrolled mass immigration, toxic DE1, anti poor Net Zero eco fanaticism AND the progressive agitation in and command of culture media and law, it is simply astonishing that it is still the inadequate far right extremes that gain all this attention and that strong neo Thatch type centre right parties are not awakening to the fight.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
10 months ago
Reply to  Ian Barton

I 100% agree. I bang on about the post 97 Blairite/EU New Order or Revolution because many here write as if our system of government is somehow unchanged (see Nick Timothy in Tel still not quite getting it). The powers of the Executive, Parliament and nation state were all utterly and deliberately dismantled to make us a proper conformist compliant EU Statelet. Greater power has been vested in supreme judges here and abroad and diffused into the new vast unelected Blob Regulatory Quangocracy, yes. And the result? Impotence, Fake Tories, a seeming One Party progressive State and no progress with national renewal. But given that the massive silent majority of Brits and Europeans are utterly horrified by unplanned uncontrolled mass immigration, toxic DE1, anti poor Net Zero eco fanaticism AND the progressive agitation in and command of culture media and law, it is simply astonishing that it is still the inadequate far right extremes that gain all this attention and that strong neo Thatch type centre right parties are not awakening to the fight.

Mike Downing
Mike Downing
10 months ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I went for a look round the shops on Saturday (well the ones that are left) and it’s the same. You can buy one version of something for £45 or a bargain version for £3. There’s no middle ground here either (apart from M&S, and that’s only kept afloat by its food Hall where everything is vastly overpriced).

Last edited 10 months ago by Mike Downing
Ian Barton
Ian Barton
10 months ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I think the issue here is that the old centre-right parties were run by politicians who felt the need to represent the views of many of their constituents, whereas now both the centre-left and centre-right politicians are taking instruction from quangos at the local, EU or world levels.
.
Membership of these quangos became more attractive than listening to the plebs(sic), so they got out of the habit.

Last edited 10 months ago by Ian Barton
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
10 months ago

Interesting. But for me the focus on the so called ‘Populist Right Wing’ misses a bigger factor in the failure to challenge the EU and overturn economic orthodoxy. Where is the Centre Right? Why is the Centre so weak?? The disintegration of our own Fake Tories surely makes this the bigger question as I reckon a clear majority of Brits and Europeans now sit in the centre/right space. Yet in France here and elsewhere, proper centrist political parties are collapsing just when we need them most. All need to protect enterprise, fight the strangulation of the Socialist Regulatory Blob, challenge mass open border migration and deliver sensible non Net Zero energy solutions. These are mainstream core problems. Not the preserve of the Afd and these others out on the fringe. Why is there this void and black hole on centre right just when a majority crave pragmatic anti progressive fightback on these lines??

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago

The EU will bend to the will of its member states, or it will cease to exist. It may be an anti-democratic institution, but it‘s power ultimately resides in the democratic states that created it.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

If the EU continues to spread its scope into more policy/control areas of member states, I would expect the local democracies to have ever shrinking capabilities to either influence – or leave the project.

Last edited 10 months ago by Ian Barton
Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Just seems naive on a few levels – mostly trust of politicians but also how easily electorates can be manipulated

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

If the EU continues to spread its scope into more policy/control areas of member states, I would expect the local democracies to have ever shrinking capabilities to either influence – or leave the project.

Last edited 10 months ago by Ian Barton
Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Just seems naive on a few levels – mostly trust of politicians but also how easily electorates can be manipulated

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago

The EU will bend to the will of its member states, or it will cease to exist. It may be an anti-democratic institution, but it‘s power ultimately resides in the democratic states that created it.

John Stevens
John Stevens
10 months ago

National state level patriotism enabled the industrial revolution in Europe and the supplanting of the great pre-industrial economies of China and India. It culminated in the continental-scale European-heritage national state of the US. European state level patriotism, through the EU, which is the essence of what the New European Right is about, could enable the re-industrialisation of Europe and its successful resistance to the revival and potential superiority of those Asian giants. The key question is the capacity to create and sustain continental-scale unity in a democracy. And the US is clearly the model. But the US’ current challenges are also a warning of the difficulties ahead.

Last edited 10 months ago by John Stevens
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
10 months ago
Reply to  John Stevens

The ideal endgame is a loose alliance of European nation states wedded to free trade and enterprise and cooperation outside of the defunct failed US Federal model. A souped up EEC. The EU of 2023 is broken, its failures masked by the energies released by expansion East and the single market. Naive federalist mania saw it jump the gun by introducing the Euro currency without any of the unitary fully empowered institutions necessary to make such a flaky half cocked Union work. Cue the waterboarding of Greece; mass youth employment, zero growth, its ever more aggressive protectionism and risk aversion and a perma war between Germany and the South. It must either go forward or back. Stay still and it will implode nastily. Only then perhaps will that ideal endgame – a sane de federalised more democratic New Europe – emerge.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
10 months ago
Reply to  John Stevens

The ideal endgame is a loose alliance of European nation states wedded to free trade and enterprise and cooperation outside of the defunct failed US Federal model. A souped up EEC. The EU of 2023 is broken, its failures masked by the energies released by expansion East and the single market. Naive federalist mania saw it jump the gun by introducing the Euro currency without any of the unitary fully empowered institutions necessary to make such a flaky half cocked Union work. Cue the waterboarding of Greece; mass youth employment, zero growth, its ever more aggressive protectionism and risk aversion and a perma war between Germany and the South. It must either go forward or back. Stay still and it will implode nastily. Only then perhaps will that ideal endgame – a sane de federalised more democratic New Europe – emerge.

John Stevens
John Stevens
10 months ago

National state level patriotism enabled the industrial revolution in Europe and the supplanting of the great pre-industrial economies of China and India. It culminated in the continental-scale European-heritage national state of the US. European state level patriotism, through the EU, which is the essence of what the New European Right is about, could enable the re-industrialisation of Europe and its successful resistance to the revival and potential superiority of those Asian giants. The key question is the capacity to create and sustain continental-scale unity in a democracy. And the US is clearly the model. But the US’ current challenges are also a warning of the difficulties ahead.

Last edited 10 months ago by John Stevens
Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago

Good article, thanks. Thomas has pulled a quote right out of context: “neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other institution, body, office or entity”. This is not the European Commission (EC) cocking a snook at the member states. It is the oath taken by each member of the EC, stating that they will not favour any individual member state. European populist parties are fully aware of the toothlessness of the European Parliament. However, the general swing to the right throughout Europe has an increasing effect on the composition of the European Council of Ministers, which body defines the overall political direction and priorities of the EU.
Before I get any flame for being a remainer, I should stress that I did not vote in the Brexit referendum. (Though maybe saying that means even more flame.)

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
10 months ago

That oath is probably the single most anti-democratic feature of the entire satrapy. We elect a government to represent us. The government nominates a Commissioner to represent us in Brussels. The Commissioner then swears an oath not to represent us. It’s a farce.

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

When a Romanian, say, is made a commissioner for agriculture, things would work even less well if he/she blatantly batted for Romanian farmers, to the detriment of others, whilst in office (though, obviously, thart sort of thing does happen).

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
10 months ago

Quite, but that implicitly comprises a loss of national democratic accountability….. so he’s nominated solely on “being a good guy” by his fellow politicians – that is anti-democratic on many levels. The EU “State” that contains the member states is anti-democratic.

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago
Reply to  Andy Iddon

In the case of the UK, the likes of Peter Mandelson and Leon Brittan were made European Commissioners because they had become embarrassments in domestic politics. I understand from various European friends that exactly the same is true of commissioners from various EU member states.
One of the few things that the European Parliament are allowed to do is to reject people who have been nominated as commissioners, a power that they have only exercised a couple of times in recent years.

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago
Reply to  Andy Iddon

In the case of the UK, the likes of Peter Mandelson and Leon Brittan were made European Commissioners because they had become embarrassments in domestic politics. I understand from various European friends that exactly the same is true of commissioners from various EU member states.
One of the few things that the European Parliament are allowed to do is to reject people who have been nominated as commissioners, a power that they have only exercised a couple of times in recent years.

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
10 months ago

Quite, but that implicitly comprises a loss of national democratic accountability….. so he’s nominated solely on “being a good guy” by his fellow politicians – that is anti-democratic on many levels. The EU “State” that contains the member states is anti-democratic.

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

“The government nominates a Commissioner to represent us in Brussels.” That was never the role of a Commissioner in the EC. There are 24 EC commissioners, each with a specific function. None is there to represent a particular member state. A government of a member state proposes a candidate for a particular role, not to be its represenatative.

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

When a Romanian, say, is made a commissioner for agriculture, things would work even less well if he/she blatantly batted for Romanian farmers, to the detriment of others, whilst in office (though, obviously, thart sort of thing does happen).

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

“The government nominates a Commissioner to represent us in Brussels.” That was never the role of a Commissioner in the EC. There are 24 EC commissioners, each with a specific function. None is there to represent a particular member state. A government of a member state proposes a candidate for a particular role, not to be its represenatative.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
10 months ago

That oath is probably the single most anti-democratic feature of the entire satrapy. We elect a government to represent us. The government nominates a Commissioner to represent us in Brussels. The Commissioner then swears an oath not to represent us. It’s a farce.

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago

Good article, thanks. Thomas has pulled a quote right out of context: “neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other institution, body, office or entity”. This is not the European Commission (EC) cocking a snook at the member states. It is the oath taken by each member of the EC, stating that they will not favour any individual member state. European populist parties are fully aware of the toothlessness of the European Parliament. However, the general swing to the right throughout Europe has an increasing effect on the composition of the European Council of Ministers, which body defines the overall political direction and priorities of the EU.
Before I get any flame for being a remainer, I should stress that I did not vote in the Brexit referendum. (Though maybe saying that means even more flame.)

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
10 months ago

Thomas Fazi seems to be pretty confused about the various populist movements in Europe. All they have in common is, they are anti-establishment and hate the current top down government of the Brussels establishment. His claim, that they are “wedded to neoliberal orthodoxy imbedded in the EU” is total nonsense. Again, (as he mentions this term in many of his articles) what does he mean by neoliberalism? My understanding is that neoliberalism is supposed to be free market capitalism. Does he really believe, that the appointed leading bureaucrats of the EU are some kind of neo-Thatcherites? Most of them are Socialists with leftwing agendas or non entities of left leaning Conservatives like von der Leyen.
Many of the new populist movement have different agendas, as mentioned above, they only unite in the hate of the appointed “government” in Brussels.
The 5 Stars Movement had basically left wing economic policies. The AfD in Germany is currently divided between a nationalistic/socialist and a more libertarian leaning wing, both are united by patriotism. They just achieved 22% in recent polls, because they are anti-establishment, anti woke and above anti Green. All the Scandinavian right wing populist movements seem to be also more libertarian, what Fazi would call “neoliberal”, in their economic policies.
Wish we could have a more articulate article about the different movements, where they meet and where they divide and what it means for the future of Europe, not articles, which seem to be unclear about the movements’ philosophies and goals, throwing them all into one populist pot.

Last edited 10 months ago by Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
10 months ago

Thomas Fazi seems to be pretty confused about the various populist movements in Europe. All they have in common is, they are anti-establishment and hate the current top down government of the Brussels establishment. His claim, that they are “wedded to neoliberal orthodoxy imbedded in the EU” is total nonsense. Again, (as he mentions this term in many of his articles) what does he mean by neoliberalism? My understanding is that neoliberalism is supposed to be free market capitalism. Does he really believe, that the appointed leading bureaucrats of the EU are some kind of neo-Thatcherites? Most of them are Socialists with leftwing agendas or non entities of left leaning Conservatives like von der Leyen.
Many of the new populist movement have different agendas, as mentioned above, they only unite in the hate of the appointed “government” in Brussels.
The 5 Stars Movement had basically left wing economic policies. The AfD in Germany is currently divided between a nationalistic/socialist and a more libertarian leaning wing, both are united by patriotism. They just achieved 22% in recent polls, because they are anti-establishment, anti woke and above anti Green. All the Scandinavian right wing populist movements seem to be also more libertarian, what Fazi would call “neoliberal”, in their economic policies.
Wish we could have a more articulate article about the different movements, where they meet and where they divide and what it means for the future of Europe, not articles, which seem to be unclear about the movements’ philosophies and goals, throwing them all into one populist pot.

Last edited 10 months ago by Stephanie Surface
Andrzej Wasniewski
Andrzej Wasniewski
10 months ago

“Ultimately, there is only one project capable of delivering a truly populist agenda, in material and not simply cultural terms: one focused on reclaiming national sovereignty and democracy from the EU.”
Cannot agree more what I do not get is that the main argument in the article against those right wing populist parties is that they are for deregulation and for reducing Europe idiotic welfare benefits.
So right wing is bad because it is not left wing. Go figure.

Andrzej Wasniewski
Andrzej Wasniewski
10 months ago

“Ultimately, there is only one project capable of delivering a truly populist agenda, in material and not simply cultural terms: one focused on reclaiming national sovereignty and democracy from the EU.”
Cannot agree more what I do not get is that the main argument in the article against those right wing populist parties is that they are for deregulation and for reducing Europe idiotic welfare benefits.
So right wing is bad because it is not left wing. Go figure.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
10 months ago

I don’t think that the populist right, today, is anything more than a cultural rebellion of the ordinary middle class against their snobby educated-class masters.
But it’s a start.
Thomas Sowell is onto it with his three-layer theory of the Anointed, the Benighted, and the Mascots.

Last edited 10 months ago by Christopher Chantrill
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago

To what class does Dr. Sowell–educated at Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago–belong himself? You seem to be using “educated class” as some ethical mono-metric. But highly educated people you agree with somehow escape that easy label.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago

To what class does Dr. Sowell–educated at Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago–belong himself? You seem to be using “educated class” as some ethical mono-metric. But highly educated people you agree with somehow escape that easy label.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
10 months ago

I don’t think that the populist right, today, is anything more than a cultural rebellion of the ordinary middle class against their snobby educated-class masters.
But it’s a start.
Thomas Sowell is onto it with his three-layer theory of the Anointed, the Benighted, and the Mascots.

Last edited 10 months ago by Christopher Chantrill
Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
10 months ago

How do America’s states differ from this? Each state has a governor, legislature, court, etc., each city likewise. We call them the “laboratories of democracy” in that each can pursue its own agenda (within limits), and through this aggressive competition, the best win and the entire group’s trajectory is ‘ever upward’. People “vote with their feet” and move to where the opportunities are. Europe is different. The countries speak different languages and have markedly different cultures. I see two connections between the countries, though. One is the Islamic imports from Turkey, Syria, Algeria, etc., that maintain their faith, language, and culture no matter where they be. Another is the English language, which curiously enough, has a European variant(s). Islam might be able to unite Europe, or perhaps American culture (such as it is) may be able to do it. As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will hang separately.”

Last edited 10 months ago by Samuel Ross
Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Islam will destroy Europe and a new culture will rise in the ashes. Why do you think that Hitler wanted to replace Christianity with Islam? He wanted to change Europe into something completely different.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

Aren’t you misinterpreting’Lebensraum’ here?

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

Hitler didn’t want to ‘replace Christianity with Islam”. Why would he introduce another religion to take precedence perhaps over National Socialist dogma?. He certainly toyed with overtures to Muslim Arab sentiment, including infamously palling up with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, rather obviously because both were very anti-Semitic.

Last edited 10 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

Aren’t you misinterpreting’Lebensraum’ here?

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter D

Hitler didn’t want to ‘replace Christianity with Islam”. Why would he introduce another religion to take precedence perhaps over National Socialist dogma?. He certainly toyed with overtures to Muslim Arab sentiment, including infamously palling up with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, rather obviously because both were very anti-Semitic.

Last edited 10 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Peter D
Peter D
10 months ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Islam will destroy Europe and a new culture will rise in the ashes. Why do you think that Hitler wanted to replace Christianity with Islam? He wanted to change Europe into something completely different.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
10 months ago

How do America’s states differ from this? Each state has a governor, legislature, court, etc., each city likewise. We call them the “laboratories of democracy” in that each can pursue its own agenda (within limits), and through this aggressive competition, the best win and the entire group’s trajectory is ‘ever upward’. People “vote with their feet” and move to where the opportunities are. Europe is different. The countries speak different languages and have markedly different cultures. I see two connections between the countries, though. One is the Islamic imports from Turkey, Syria, Algeria, etc., that maintain their faith, language, and culture no matter where they be. Another is the English language, which curiously enough, has a European variant(s). Islam might be able to unite Europe, or perhaps American culture (such as it is) may be able to do it. As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will hang separately.”

Last edited 10 months ago by Samuel Ross
Justin Clark
Justin Clark
10 months ago

I think I like Right Wing… sounds more central in politics… keen to avoid far right and far far right wings

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

Yes. An important distinction. I wish that more people in the broad center or even “inner wings” were as keen to avoid these pitfalls, on both sides of the political spectrum.
(By the way, if you don’t like my comment for whatever reason, flag it or downvote or it into oblivion and it will probably disappear for 12 hours, though usually not permanently. That’s how it seems to work here. Very often the time-outing or censorship bears little or no relationship to content or tone, but instead to popularity or lack thereof. Way to go, (Un)Herd!)

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

Yes. An important distinction. I wish that more people in the broad center or even “inner wings” were as keen to avoid these pitfalls, on both sides of the political spectrum.
(By the way, if you don’t like my comment for whatever reason, flag it or downvote or it into oblivion and it will probably disappear for 12 hours, though usually not permanently. That’s how it seems to work here. Very often the time-outing or censorship bears little or no relationship to content or tone, but instead to popularity or lack thereof. Way to go, (Un)Herd!)

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
10 months ago

I think I like Right Wing… sounds more central in politics… keen to avoid far right and far far right wings

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago

Whatever happened to “p***s envy”?

G. Kaminskas
G. Kaminskas
10 months ago

This article is garbage. Such a shame to see UNHERD declining into an undergraduate-mentality left wing rag. I will be unsubscribing.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  G. Kaminskas

If this forum seems left wing to you then you know which far-right rabbit holes to tunnel into. Toodles.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  G. Kaminskas

If this forum seems left wing to you then you know which far-right rabbit holes to tunnel into. Toodles.

G. Kaminskas
G. Kaminskas
10 months ago

This article is garbage. Such a shame to see UNHERD declining into an undergraduate-mentality left wing rag. I will be unsubscribing.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
10 months ago

TL;DR – right wing populists are different wherever you go.
Wow, cheers. Who’d have thunk it, eh?

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
10 months ago

TL;DR – right wing populists are different wherever you go.
Wow, cheers. Who’d have thunk it, eh?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
10 months ago

So, Brexit for all, because we’ve seen what a stunning success that was lol. 
Fragment Europe as much as possible? 
You’re Putin’s useful idiot.
I come from the opposite standpoint:
“Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe …”
The British wouldn’t join of course, as they’d regard mere equality as a humiliation, but the rest of the W European states should be one country.
Anything else is regressive, small-minded, unambitious claptrap.
Answer me this – why is the world’s richest region depending on the Yanks for protection?
Pathetic, and calling for increased fragmentation will only entrench this lamentable servitude.   

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
10 months ago

So, Brexit for all, because we’ve seen what a stunning success that was lol. 
Fragment Europe as much as possible? 
You’re Putin’s useful idiot.
I come from the opposite standpoint:
“Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe …”
The British wouldn’t join of course, as they’d regard mere equality as a humiliation, but the rest of the W European states should be one country.
Anything else is regressive, small-minded, unambitious claptrap.
Answer me this – why is the world’s richest region depending on the Yanks for protection?
Pathetic, and calling for increased fragmentation will only entrench this lamentable servitude.