Join institutional investors, analysts and strategists from the world's largest banks: Subscribe today
Already have an account? log in
C’est La Vie
I'd say France descended into political chaos on Wednesday, but they were already there. Sorry. And I'm not sure who I'm apologizing to.
We should be clear, I think, on this point: Emmanuel Macron did what he had to do earlier this year when he called the electorate's bluff and dared French voters to put the far-right in power. A quick recap's probably in order.
In June, Marine Le Pen's National Rally scored big in a vote for EU parliament seats, prompting Macron to dissolve the National Assem
I would love to read your thoughts on why governments across the political west are suddenly at risk of being taken over by far right actors. Maybe you’ve already written something and I missed if, but I’m struggling to understand why in the last few months we’ve seen multiple democracies suddenly falter. It feels like the world has gone through a looking glass of sorts.
It’s not so different from the late 1920s early 1930s after the great depression. Except the usa this time is in the same situation as Europe. Though the US did have its ‘nativist’ fascist movement back then…
Liberalism has failed the middle class.
Take me back to the 60s
It bears remembering that “far right” is a very unclear concept. I wonder if there really is a “far right” wave or not. For example, my local European Swedish-language media and (consequently?) the international media would call the Sweden Democrats, True Finns, and Nordic Resistance Movement all “far right” or even “radical populist right” (I am actually quoting here), while not applying same classification to U.S. Republicans. It’s unclear if this is deliberate lack of nuance or just clickbaiting. However, the first two are mostly normal pro-welfare state pro-democracy essentially social democratic parties which are “far right” due to being to varying degrees critical of immigration, the third are actual Nazi racial theorists who do not appear to be any closer to power than previously, possibly less so; and the fourth are pro military force against internal undesirables, which would be “extreme right” in Europe and probably cause the party to be illegal locally.
These parties seem to share anti-incumbent sentiment, populism and anti-immigration stances, as well as new campaigning strategies (paralleling Republicans, Sweden Democrats are much more active on social media than other parties); but does that mean “far right” is a useful description for non-authoritarian and not anti-union/labor parties. The first two parties certainly resemble the Social Democrats more than they do NSDAP, the third is the NSDAP and what the fourth is I have no idea.
It’s certainly a bad time for the old guard. Neoliberalism has not worked out for people. Locally the “wedge issue” is not abortion or trans rights which are uncontroversial but immigration. From my lived experience, 10 years ago it was not permissible to say “migrants with no desire or ability to integrate can sometimes cause problems” in polite society. A friend who worked for a moderate right wing political party and was well networked back then opined that he would not even talk to anybody who was an “immigration critic”. These days you have people saying that in parliament and my friend is out of politics. But that could just as well be a canard when it comes to understanding the phenomenon; many people are angry/worried about the kitchen table economic issues and might therefore choose to punish the incumbents while the much-publicized wedge issues are peripheral for most people, certainly I don’t think 1/4th of the population would vote for a party they think would be worse economically but deport more immigrants. Failure of neoliberalism.
Like you I would love to read a piece about this.
This was meant as a reply to Mountain Economist.
Failure of what. I extracted from Wikipedia the various interpretations of what neoliberalism is. It seems to a ghost concept that can be used as a punching bag whenever people want others to listen to them.
There is debate over the meaning of the term. Sociologists Fred L. Block and Margaret Somers claim there is a dispute over what to call the influence of free-market ideas which have been used to justify the retrenchment of New Deal programs and policies since the 1980s: neoliberalism, laissez-faire or “free market ideology”.[55] Other academics such as Susan Braedley, Med Luxton, and Robert W. McChesney, assert that neoliberalism is a political philosophy which seeks to “liberate” the processes of capital accumulation.[56] In contrast, Frances Fox Piven sees neoliberalism as essentially hyper-capitalism.[57] Robert W. McChesney, while defining neoliberalism similarly as “capitalism with the gloves off”, goes on to assert that the term was largely unknown by the general public in 1998, particularly in the United States.[58] Lester Spence uses the term to critique trends in Black politics, defining neoliberalism as “the general idea that society works best when the people and the institutions within it work or are shaped to work according to market principles”.[59] According to Philip Mirowski, neoliberalism views the market as the greatest information processor, superior to any human being. It is hence considered as the arbiter of truth. Adam Kotsko describes neoliberalism as political theology, as it goes beyond simply being a formula for an economic policy agenda and instead infuses it with a moral ethos that “aspires to be a complete way of life and a holistic worldview, in a way that previous models of capitalism did not.”[60]
Folks, read “The Divide”: https://heisenbergreport.com/2024/03/31/the-divide/
This is why I publish the monthlies. I tackle the big issues, but you gotta be willing to read 5,000 words.