Elections in various countries

[rotting bones]

For some reason, large numbers of voters think the political right is economically competent. Because this is the case, leftists seem terrified of change. Every expression of popular will looks like a fascist victory. But why is it the case in the first place? Is it because liberals encouraged a massive growth of small businesses? It it because of Anti-Communist propaganda? Because of the power of extremist institutions?

Are you referring to the French situation we were discussing earlier? Or something else?

The trend is similar in most countries from what I can see. For the French situation specifically, I assume most voters want law and order to be restored since the middle class is the majority.

[Raphael]

For some reason, large numbers of voters think the political right is economically competent. Because this is the case, leftists seem terrified of change. Every expression of popular will looks like a fascist victory. But why is it the case in the first place? Is it because liberals encouraged a massive growth of small businesses? It it because of Anti-Communist propaganda? Because of the power of extremist institutions?

Might be simply a matter of not-that-thoughtful people thinking "Hey, those business types are right-wing, and they must certainly know a lot about money, so surely, the right-wing is good about things involving money!"

[Ares Land]

For some reason, large numbers of voters think the political right is economically competent. Because this is the case, leftists seem terrified of change. Every expression of popular will looks like a fascist victory. But why is it the case in the first place? Is it because liberals encouraged a massive growth of small businesses? It it because of Anti-Communist propaganda? Because of the power of extremist institutions?

Might be simply a matter of not-that-thoughtful people thinking "Hey, those business types are right-wing, and they must certainly know a lot about money, so surely, the right-wing is good about things involving money!"

What Raphael says; it explains a lot.
Another factor: when you earn above the median income (as 50% of people do) and have above half the median wealth in a developed country, life looks pretty good. Why rock the boat?

[rotting bones]

For some reason, large numbers of voters think the political right is economically competent. Because this is the case, leftists seem terrified of change. Every expression of popular will looks like a fascist victory. But why is it the case in the first place? Is it because liberals encouraged a massive growth of small businesses? It it because of Anti-Communist propaganda? Because of the power of extremist institutions?

Might be simply a matter of not-that-thoughtful people thinking "Hey, those business types are right-wing, and they must certainly know a lot about money, so surely, the right-wing is good about things involving money!"

What's confuses me is that the worship of wealth is a new phenomenon. People often think the wealthy have always been regarded as uniquely knowledgeable, but there is nothing traditional about this attitude. Traditionally, the poor believed they were in competition with the rich, an exaggeration in the opposite direction.

Maybe a successful advertising campaign on social media about wealthy lifestyles combined with the promise of social mobility started a stampede? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN5uiNKMVgg The precarity of life in a modern economy might also feed into this somehow.

Ideally, the solution is education. However, voters usually don't believe leftists these days. Well, they do after the right shits its pants for the umpteenth time, but they forget every single time 4-8 years later. (In the US, it could be the absence of a real leftist alternative. E.g. Obama was a Reagan fan.) And mainstream institutions naturally will not educate people against themselves. It might be easier to convince voters that they are stupid and should stop believing in their sanity.

[rotting bones]

For some reason, large numbers of voters think the political right is economically competent. Because this is the case, leftists seem terrified of change. Every expression of popular will looks like a fascist victory. But why is it the case in the first place? Is it because liberals encouraged a massive growth of small businesses? It it because of Anti-Communist propaganda? Because of the power of extremist institutions?

Might be simply a matter of not-that-thoughtful people thinking "Hey, those business types are right-wing, and they must certainly know a lot about money, so surely, the right-wing is good about things involving money!"

What Raphael says; it explains a lot.
Another factor: when you earn above the median income (as 50% of people do) and have above half the median wealth in a developed country, life looks pretty good. Why rock the boat?

But the far right does promise to rock the boat. They promise a Trotsky-like permanent revolution where the boat gets rocked forever.

[rotting bones]

Another possibility is that people whose needs are taken care of fall into an existential crisis where they look for some reason to justify their existence. Fundamentalists and extremists offer pat answers that sound plausible to most people for inexplicable reasons.

[lëtzeshark]

The proposal was indeed rejected.
As for recourses, I think the relevant precedent is that of Quebec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference ... of_Quebec . It's not super clear to me but I understand that yes, the Canadian government would have to enter negotiations.

Basically, what Alberta was proposing is basically the first stage of a two-stage process (which failed). Canada enacted a law defining the terms of such a final referendum in the aftermath of the Québec 1995 sovereignty referendum; the act also details that an amendment to the Canadian constitution would be necessary to effect the separation. In light of Québec's rumblings about having another sovereignty referendum, this could also be interesting given that Québec never formally ratified the Canadian constitution.

Notably, the US would likely also require a formal constitutional amendment to allow for secession: the US constitution currently allows states to join, but not explicitly to leave.

[Raphael]

Another possibility is that people whose needs are taken care of fall into an existential crisis where they look for some reason to justify their existence. Fundamentalists and extremists offer pat answers that sound plausible to most people for inexplicable reasons.

Good point.

[rotting bones]

Another possibility is that people whose needs are taken care of fall into an existential crisis where they look for some reason to justify their existence. Fundamentalists and extremists offer pat answers that sound plausible to most people for inexplicable reasons.

Good point.

It could just be institutional pressure. Secular humanists need strong institutions that are willing to fight just as dirty.

[WeepingElf]

For some reason, large numbers of voters think the political right is economically competent. Because this is the case, leftists seem terrified of change. Every expression of popular will looks like a fascist victory. But why is it the case in the first place? Is it because liberals encouraged a massive growth of small businesses? It it because of Anti-Communist propaganda? Because of the power of extremist institutions?

Might be simply a matter of not-that-thoughtful people thinking "Hey, those business types are right-wing, and they must certainly know a lot about money, so surely, the right-wing is good about things involving money!"

What Raphael says; it explains a lot.
Another factor: when you earn above the median income (as 50% of people do) and have above half the median wealth in a developed country, life looks pretty good. Why rock the boat?

Another point is that many leftists communicate wrongly. They talk about the problems very much, but hardly about the solutions. Most leftist writers write dystopias. That way, they create the impression that the future will be worse than the present, from where it is not a long way to thinking that the past was better, and to bring back that better past is precisely what the rightists promise their voters.

[Ares Land]

But the far right does promise to rock the boat. They promise a Trotsky-like permanent revolution where the boat gets rocked forever.

They offer a couple of simplistic radical measures (aimed at people the average voter doesn't like) but otherwise promise to keep things as they are (indeed, as they were when the average voter was young and still had all his hair), thereby offering a way to rock the boat without rocking the boat.

Ideally, the solution is education. However, voters usually don't believe leftists these days. Well, they do after the right shits its pants for the umpteenth time, but they forget every single time 4-8 years later. (In the US, it could be the absence of a real leftist alternative. E.g. Obama was a Reagan fan.) And mainstream institutions naturally will not educate people against themselves. It might be easier to convince voters that they are stupid and should stop believing in their sanity.

Education will help against obvious political scams (of which fascism is the most common variety). It won't turn people into left-wingers or right-wingers, but that's all right. We can live with non-fascist conservatives.

The problem is, you can't live with fascists. You don't accept losing an election to the fascists in the way you accept losing an election to conservatives. That's why fascism being a viable option breaks the democratic game.

[Ares Land]

Another point is that many leftists communicate wrongly. They talk about the problems very much, but hardly about the solutions. Most leftist writers write dystopias. That way, they create the impression that the future will be worse than the present, from where it is not a long way to thinking that the past was better, and to bring back that better past is precisely what the rightists promise their voters.

On the dystopias: I don't know. French science fiction always was horribly dystopian, even back in the 70s and the 80s. Didn't hurt the left's chances, really, and SF was a lot more popular back then. Considering just aesthetics, though, I'm sick of the grimdark as well!

That being said, yes of course. It's difficult to get a clear idea of the solutions. 'Tax the rich' is certainly a good start, but what's the rest of the platform?

I think there's a wider issue of tactics. The more radical wing does well with, I don't know, 30% of the voters -- but the problem is you have to reach 51%. I think they have issue appealing to more moderate voters, which wouldn't necessarily be that hard to do.

I think in France Mélenchon could have been president long ago if he'd had the sense to drop two or three of his really stupid views. (Not, mind you, his more radical views. Just his stupid ones.)

[Raphael]

I think in France Mélenchon could have been president long ago if he'd had the sense to drop two or three of his really stupid views. (Not, mind you, his more radical views. Just his stupid ones.)

I guess, if he would have realized that they were stupid views, he wouldn't have held them in the first place.

[bradrn]

I think in France Mélenchon could have been president long ago if he'd had the sense to drop two or three of his really stupid views. (Not, mind you, his more radical views. Just his stupid ones.)

I guess, if he would have realized that they were stupid views, he wouldn't have held them in the first place.

English note: first ‘would have’ should be ‘had’.

(And yes, I quite agree. The antisemitism is especially offputting.)

[Ares Land]

I think in France Mélenchon could have been president long ago if he'd had the sense to drop two or three of his really stupid views. (Not, mind you, his more radical views. Just his stupid ones.)

I guess, if he would have realized that they were stupid views, he wouldn't have held them in the first place.

It's not uncommon to have stupid views and then later change your mind; even for politicians.

When it comes to that particular politician, the seeming inability to consider being wrong is noticeable enough to be worrying.
Let's be honest, it's a common fault in the radical left.

To some extent, it's understandable. To be prominent now, radical left-wingers had to get started in the 2000s at best. Imagine the kind of person that could be so entirely convinced, back in 2005, that radical left-wing politics and socialism were the future as to bet their entire career on it.

[rotting bones]

I also noticed that when Bengal was at least verbally leftist, it was dominated by annoyingly tragic storylines. Stories other than critical realism were thought to be unsophisticated. Hayden White also associated radical leftism with tragedy:



I don't think stories have a large effect on politics. Otherwise I might be tempted to theorize that happy humans don't stop to critically consider whether their natural inclinations are having a harmful effect on others.

[alice]

Another point is that many leftists communicate wrongly. They talk about the problems very much, but hardly about the solutions.

I thought the leftist solution to everything is seizing the means of production, or a working-class revolution, or something similar? Well, for more radical values of "leftist", maybe. And don't forget that what many leftists hate most is other leftists, and what they like most is catching out other leftists in ideological purity tests, neither of which is conducive to good communication.

[rotting bones]

Another point is that many leftists communicate wrongly. They talk about the problems very much, but hardly about the solutions.

I thought the leftist solution to everything is seizing the means of production, or a working-class revolution, or something similar? Well, for more radical values of "leftist", maybe. And don't forget that what many leftists hate most is other leftists, and what they like most is catching out other leftists in ideological purity tests, neither of which is conducive to good communication.

Everyone hates leftists. The right hates leftists. The center hates leftists. Why wouldn't leftists hate leftists? Despite what the Bible says, leftists are human too.

[Raphael]

I thought the leftist solution to everything is seizing the means of production, or a working-class revolution, or something similar? Well, for more radical values of "leftist", maybe.

Nah, that's the relatively reasonable kind of leftists. The more out-there kind seems to think that the way to go is to destroy the means of production. Just smash everything. Burn it all down. Once we've burned down everything connected to making the food people eat, the buildings and furniture people sleep in, the clothes people wear, and the medical care people get when they're ill, certainly everyone will live happily ever after.

[Travis B.]

I thought the leftist solution to everything is seizing the means of production, or a working-class revolution, or something similar? Well, for more radical values of "leftist", maybe.

Nah, that's the relatively reasonable kind of leftists. The more out-there kind seems to think that the way to go is to destroy the means of production. Just smash everything. Burn it all down. Once we've burned down everything connected to making the food people eat, the buildings and furniture people sleep in, the clothes people wear, and the medical care people get when they're ill, certainly everyone will live happily ever after.

There is a certain kind of leftist who seems to believe that everything is ethically bad, ranging from eating anything other than organic fair-trade vegan food (the more loony-tunes types believe that that food also has to be raw fruit -- heads of lettuce feel pain too), to driving a car (especially if it is not electric), to living in the suburbs (especially if you have to commute to and from a job or school), to having children (you do know how much a single child and all their potential descendants will do to the environment, right? -- and that is ignoring the potential pain you will be causing by bringing a child into the world which could have been avoided by not doing so), to failing to self-flagellate enough for one's sin of being born in categories X, Y, and Z (that you must check your obvious heaping of privilege is a given -- you know who you are), and so on.