General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Akka]

And? Does it matter what position on the spectrum I define when it comes to how the policy originates? It applies to left-wingers, centrists, you name it.

And? They're still policies from that part of the political spectrum. They cannot be analysed independently of context. If a party wanted to (completely hypothetically) reduce VAT, but deport all black people, you can't say reducing VAT is a positive for black people. What does the fact that one of more of your far-right parties have other policies? What relevance does it have to what was being discussed?

The definition of the word? What are you trying to argue? You asked if something can be both extreme and popular. The answer is yes. Why are you now trying to define what "extreme" means? What are you actually objecting to?

You seem to make a lot of effort to not get the point I was making. That's fine, you do you.

Words mean what people understand them to mean. There are loads of different definitions, the UK gov one is "Extremism is the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values or killing squadies". That is a bit specific but captures the idea that is based on the positions, not how popular they are. Killing squadies has been quite popular in certain bits of the UK at certain times for example.

"at certain times", yeah it seems that it's always relevant to the current social consensus then.


My main points still stand unaddressed, but well, what did I expect ?

 

[Gorbles]

My main points still stand unaddressed, but well, what did I expect

If nobody is understanding the point you're making, that's a you problem, not an problem with everyone else. But hey.

 

[Lexicus]

Okay, what makes something "extreme" then ? I mean, if you manage to define a position as "extreme" without comparing it to the relative social consensus of a time, good luck.

So your position is that, because the majority of Russians support the invasion of Ukraine, that is actually a "social consensus" and not a policy of extremism?

 

[Gorbles]

The comparison to "US rednecks" is also a pretty funny example of Not Getting It, because the majority US perception of "communism" is rooted in Red Scare history (that European liberals are more than happy to adopt at times, so it's not like it's the province of specific US demographics - plenty of folks were happy to scaremonger Corbyn in the UK a "communist" despite not being from the US, or remotely close to the "redneck" stereotype). It's a literal twisting of the narrative to make a word mean something else.

Whereas this is a right-wing party having a right-wing solution to a specific problem, that Akka is trying to claim isn't right-wing because a lot of people agree that it's a problem. Sure. That still makes the right-wing position on it right-wing, and anybody who votes for them are voting for a right-wing party regardless of how non-right-wing any other positions they may hold are. And, given that this is apparently immigration, it's 100% a safe bet that the actual, literal policy here is 100% right-wing in nature.

Which makes all the handwringing over people "not getting it" even funnier. We get it dude. We just disagree that a right-wing party tackling immigration is magically going to arrive at an apolitical answer to the alleged problem. The solution is going to be extreme, and the solution is going to be a part of their party's platform that comprises what a potential voter's vote counts for. You don't vote for an individual, theoretically-harmless-despite-the-party-being-extremist-in-some-description, policy. You vote for a party, and all their policies, and you weight the relative benefits and the relative harm (ideally). So if people are gravitating to this party, then yes, this makes the people doing this right-leaning.

 

[Akka]

If nobody is understanding the point you're making, that's a you problem, not an problem with everyone else. But hey.

Thank you for acting as a stand-in for everyone.

So your position is that, because the majority of Russians support the invasion of Ukraine, that is actually a "social consensus" and not a policy of extremism?

Well, we would need to be sure it's actually what they really think, considering the situation. But IF they were really supportive, I mean, it wouldn't be "extreme" from their point of view. Doesn't make it any less bad for everyone else involved, nor does it change my opinion on the subject either.
At a time, invading neighbours was pretty much expected in case of disagreements between countries, or even just between heads of state. That certainly wasn't considered "extreme". At a time, saying that regular peasants should have a voice in politics would have branded one as a madman. Today it's the opposite that would be considered "extreme" (though not in every country).

I mean, I asked what makes something "extreme" if not relative to current consensus, if it was so self-evident I would have got some actual answers that, well, don't depend on current consensus, rather than just the pretend bewilderment but unability to answer I'm getting. It all just sounds like denial.


Not that any of this has any REAL relationship toward my main point, which was the disconnect between political parties and the population they are supposed to represent.

 

[Gorbles]

Thank you for acting as a stand-in for everyone.

It was you that said this:

My main points still stand unaddressed, but well, what did I expect ?

Nice snark in the face of everybody replying to you though. Good confidence

Not that all that has any REAL relationship toward my main point, which was the disconnect between political parties and the population they are supposed to represent.

This was your main point? Not the talking about the far right, or the policy in question, or whatever. This? The most basic observation anyone could make of a bunch of countries in the year 2024?

Stunningly insightful.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, we would need to be sure it's actually what they really think, considering the situation. But IF they were really supportive, I mean, it wouldn't be "extreme" from their point of view. Doesn't make it any less bad for everyone else involved, nor does it change my opinion on the subject either.
At a time, invading neighbours was pretty much expected in case of disagreements between countries, or even just between heads of state. That certainly wasn't considered "extreme". At a time, saying that regular peasants should have a voice in politics would have branded one as a madman. Today it's the opposite that would be considered "extreme" (though not in every country).

I mean, I asked what makes something "extreme" if not relative to current consensus, if it was so self-evident I would have got some actual answers that, well, don't depend on current consensus, rather than just the pretend bewilderment but unability to answer I'm getting. It all just sounds like denial.


Not that any of this has any REAL relationship toward my main point, which was the disconnect between political parties and the population they are supposed to represent.

With this qualification it's clear that your actual point is that nothing looks extreme from inside a propaganda bubble that is designed to normalize it and make it appear to be the correct solution.

The thing is, from any kind of liberal pro-human rights perspective policies like invading Ukraine to commit genocide or deporting a quarter of France's Jews to extermination camps are extreme regardless of what proportion of the population thinks they are a good idea.

There are other issues with your point. For one thing it takes the distribution of public opinion as given and takes no account of the mechanisms of opinion formation. For another it ignores that in representative government elected officials are meant to serve as a sort of check on popular opinion in exactly this sense. If 40% of the population wants an unworkable or unconstitutional policy, that policy finding little to no support in the elected legislature is actually representative government working as designed.

The issue of the "Jewish question" actually maps onto this perfectly; in the 1930s across Europe people felt there was a pressing "Jewish question" and felt that their elites and elected representatives were "living in a different reality", unconcerned with offering solutions to this "problem." This was one of the factors that led to wide popular support for fascist parties, and where these parties gained control of the state they also took control of the mechanisms of opinion formation, including the media but also educational and civil society institutions, engineering public opinion to be more and more extreme over time, culminating in the Holocaust which was, again, widely supported all over Europe in its essentials, but which I don't think it can be argued seriously was not "extreme."

 

[Akka]

With this qualification it's clear that your actual point is that nothing looks extreme from inside a propaganda bubble that is designed to normalize it and make it appear to be the correct solution.

The thing is, from any kind of liberal pro-human rights perspective policies like invading Ukraine to commit genocide or deporting a quarter of France's Jews to extermination camps are extreme regardless of what proportion of the population thinks they are a good idea.

My point is the rather tautological conclusion that what is extreme or not depends on what is the consensus about normality. It usually is just a "*shrug* duh, obviously" point, but as the subject here is precisely the disconnect between, well, the Overton window of the general population compared to the Overton window of the "elites", it kinda is relevant. As in, which one is supposed to offer the "correct" viewpoint on what is extreme and what is not ?

There are other issues with your point. For one thing it takes the distribution of public opinion as given and takes no account of the mechanisms of opinion formation. For another it ignores that in representative government elected officials are meant to serve as a sort of check on popular opinion in exactly this sense. If 40% of the population wants an unworkable or unconstitutional policy, that policy finding little to no support in the elected legislature is actually representative government working as designed.

I don't disagree with that. Popular opinion is volatile and not always well-informed, while politics has the task to do things that actually work in the longer term in the real world.

That being said, in a democracy, political legitimacy is still bound by what the people want. If governments ignore a problem that is a recurrent sore in the public opinion for decades, people starting to vote for someone who actually speak about it, is also representative government working as designed. I mean, what's the point of democracy if government are simply expected to ignore subjects that are important for their voters ?

The issue of the "Jewish question" actually maps onto this perfectly; in the 1930s across Europe people felt there was a pressing "Jewish question" and felt that their elites and elected representatives were "living in a different reality", unconcerned with offering solutions to this "problem." This was one of the factors that led to wide popular support for fascist parties, and where these parties gained control of the state they also took control of the mechanisms of opinion formation, including the media but also educational and civil society institutions, engineering public opinion to be more and more extreme over time, culminating in the Holocaust which was, again, widely supported all over Europe in its essentials, but which I don't think it can be argued seriously was not "extreme."

Popular support for fascist parties had much more to do with the economical crisis that happened at the time and the aftermath of WW1. As for attempted the eradication of the Jews, it was certainly something that was considered "extreme", even at the time - the shock about concentration camps rocked the world until now.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, what's the point of democracy if government are simply expected to ignore subjects that are important for their voters ?

Conversely, what's the point of democracy if fundamental human rights can be ignored by a majority vote?

In the US tens of millions of voters see Donald Trump's project for autocracy and the use of the government to take revenge on his enemies as an 'important subject.' Why should anyone who isn't an Orc care what they want?

 

[Farm Boy]

They're brothers and sisters, orcs and elves. But orcs don't follow the right god*. What's the USA's god? We print one on the money, but I'm going to guess it's actually the money.

*And I suppose they weren't "perfectly suited" for the world they happened to be born into.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I usually pick the Orcs in Warcraft 3. The Blademaster is awesome...

Although... thinking about it... the Orcs are probably simultaneously the most racially diverse and the most potentially racially offensive, since their faction contains the widest array of racial depictions,, caricatures and stereotypes (IIRC the humans are mostly European'ish and the Night Elves are mostly American'ish).

As for gods... I think the Orc faction worships a combination of Gaia, ancestors, like Doomhammer, spirits and of course, demons.

Then again... its just a game

As for (one of) the other point(s) being discussed... I still feel that we are better of as a society disqualifying Trump from office and/or the election for what he has done than we are letting him get back into office in the name of "democracy".

 

[Kaitzilla]

It looks like any 3rd party candidate will be annihilated this year.

From 1 month ago:

A broad anti-Trump coalition plots a campaign to stop a No Labels third-party bid

The group aims an all out attack on a plan to run a third major American presidential candidate.

www.semafor.com

“Through every channel we have, to their donors, their friends, the press, everyone — everyone — should send the message: If you have one fingernail clipping of a skeleton in your closet, we will find it,” one speaker said during the call. “If you think you were vetted when you ran for governor, you’re insane. That was nothing. We are going to come at you with every gun we can possibly find. We did not do that with Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, we should have, and we will not make that mistake again.”

 

[Akka]

Conversely, what's the point of democracy if fundamental human rights can be ignored by a majority vote?

Finding the way to balance the need of democracy with the respect of human rights (and the need of continued democracy) is admitedly a core problem that our societies must deal with.
(as a side note, immigration regulation doesn't violate human rights, even if you often like to pretend to, there is no such thing as the right to go to live in some other country ; while on the contrary, there is a human right of people to decide for their own fate for themselves, and that includes deciding who can and who can't come to live on their land)

In the US tens of millions of voters see Donald Trump's project for autocracy and the use of the government to take revenge on his enemies as an 'important subject.' Why should anyone who isn't an Orc care what they want?

This situation is precisely an acute case of the said-above stumbling block. Trump voters are dangerous to democracy (and the man himself should have already been disqualified from office on the ground of treason if nothing else).
At the same time, you can't have democratic legitimacy while ignoring 40 % of the population.
It's a critical requirement for the survival of modern democracy to understand how this situation came to happen, how to defuse it, and how to bring back these people to the democratic game and make them again respect it above partisanship.

 

[Gorbles]

as a side note, immigration regulation doesn't violate human rights, even if you often like to pretend to, there is no such thing as the right to go to live in some other country

Kinda showcasing my earlier points, here. Saying the quiet bit out loud, as it were.

 

[AdrienIer]

Because 20 years ago, it hadn't been left to fester for 20 more years. As I pointed, immigration has been a societal problem for at least 40 years. The situation has barely changed since then. If you leave a problem unaddressed and it grows over time, very obviously it will radicalize people over it.

What's been left to fester is poverty. Poverty of the immigrants and immigrant's descendants that let develop a religious counterculture (that can be seen with all immigrant's religion really) opposed to a republican ideal, and poverty of the white working class that led it to look for easy answer to their woes.

I would roll my eyes at the idea that people on the far-left have a coherent worldview considering how much any "far" ideology is always tripping over itself in self-contradiction and simply chose to ignore it (people on the far-right also don't mind banging their chest about their ideas and think that "their" ideas are totally self-consistent will fix the world overnight, don't worry).

I'm not claiming it's more or less coherent than the far right views, just that the people on the far left feel it's coherent and accept them while those on the far right refuse to look at where it leads and what a coherent world view composed of those views looks like.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Can anyone think of a near-right position on immigration?

 

[Akka]

What's been left to fester is poverty. Poverty of the immigrants and immigrant's descendants that let develop a religious counterculture (that can be seen with all immigrant's religion really) opposed to a republican ideal, and poverty of the white working class that led it to look for easy answer to their woes.

That's also true, but that's an oversimplification. The amount of people who support the law and who are opposed to immigration in general, goes WELL beyond poverty levels.

I'm not claiming it's more or less coherent than the far right views, just that the people on the far left feel it's coherent and accept them while those on the far right refuse to look at where it leads and what a coherent world view composed of those views looks like.

That's just wishful thinking from your part.
Many people hold far-left ideas but don't consider them "far"-left, while other take pride in how radical they are. It's exactly the same for the far-right. The exact same thought process works on both ends.

But when it comes to the subject we're discussing, the very point I'm making is that the claim of "far" is doubtful due to the disconnect between the political class and the population at large, and that it became a "far-right"-exclusive subject because the other parties have largely ignored the situation, leaving only the far-right to speak about it.
So we see this kind of knee-jerk reaction where any attempt at limiting immigration is labelled as "far-right", and as such only far-right parties dare to speak about it, despite it not being exclusive to the far-right at all (even if obviously being a much more central part of their ideology). Cf my previous posts about circular reasoning.

 

[Gorbles]

That's just wishful thinking from your part.
Many people hold far-left ideas but don't consider them "far"-left, while other take pride in how radical they are. It's exactly the same for the far-right. The exact same thought process works on both ends.

And the people in the middle (or otherwise inbetween the extremes) are perfect and their logic has no flaws nor internal inconsistencies. For example, calling every opinion you don't want to entertain "wishful thinking". Not even agreeing to disagree. Opposing opinions must be invalidated in some way.

Another example of this is calling things "oversimplifications". We're on a video game forum. A lot of what we discuss is a simplification by necessity. Just as your stereotyped reduction of every left-winger in existence is also a gross simplification. But there's little point in correcting it. Heaven knows I've tried.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Why should the leaders not simply choose their voters?

Drive out and imprison the opposition.
Import friendly voters, from overseas if needed.

 

[AdrienIer]

Can anyone think of a near-right position on immigration?

Of course. A center right view is that you try to accept migrants who can work in jobs you need, and accept people who seek asylum and can prove that they're fleeing because of human rights issues. The other ones are kindly taken back to their country. Many countries have that as a theoretical principle, but to my knowledge none actually achieve that.

The left wants to accept most migrants, including those fleeing extreme poverty (as opposed to direct threats which is the usual rule for asylum seekers). The far right is that you accept almost no one and try to throw out of your country anyone not 100% culturally aligned with you (see Hungary).