Brexit

[Todd]

Too scared to tell the majorities of the electorates in Wales and Engleand that they have been fooled into making a stupid decision?

With political developments in Italy and Sweden, the prevalence of thugs in Hungary and Poland, protests across the continent due to economic distress, a destabilizing war in the east, and generally less friendly relations with the primary security provider of the West across the continent than the UK enjoys, it may not be as unpopular a choice with all Britons as your post implies.  Sometimes people want to feel like more than economic inputs for supranational bureaucrats and corporations.  Also, typically it is not good politics to call the electorate stupid.  UK polls may show something different.

[Que]

With political developments in Italy and Sweden, the prevalence of thugs in Hungary and Poland, protests across the continent due to economic distress, a destabilizing war in the east, and generally less friendly relations with the primary security provider of the West across the continent than the UK enjoys, it may not be as unpopular a choice with all Britons as your post implies.  Sometimes people want to feel like more than economic inputs for supranational bureaucrats and corporations.  Also, typically it is not good politics to call the electorate stupid.  UK polls may show something different.

Not calling the electorate stupid is clever politics, absolutely. At least in the short term.
You suggest a larger seperation from political developments elsewhere than is warranted. And on the the flipside the UK has less influence on the handling of those developments. The amount of bureaucracy and the influence of international corporations in the UK has clearly grown instead of decreased. And the "special relationship" with the "primary security provider of the West" aka the US has, despite high expectations, not improved or intensified at all. Rather the opposite.

From a economical and geopolitical perspective Brexit has made the UK less significant, it's as simple as that.
For the US, the UK was a usefull "bridge" to the EU - a major member state that was a natural, like minded ally. Not anymore.

[Todd]

Not calling the electorate stupid is clever politics, absolutely. At least in the short term.

Incorrect.  It's good politics in all places at all times in democracies.

Rather the opposite.

Incorrect.  The AUKUS deal shows that the US and UK still work together more closely than the US and Europe more broadly.  The special status afforded all English speaking (white majority) countries in Five Eyes also demonstrates the hierarchy of security relationships globally. 

From a economical and geopolitical perspective Brexit has made the UK less significant, it's as simple as that.  For the US, the UK was a usefull "bridge" to the EU - a major member state that was a natural, like minded ally. Not anymore.

Partly correct, partly incorrect.  First, nothing as significant as the partial dismemberment of a supranational organization results in simple anything.  Second, the idea that the UK acted as a bridge to Europe outside of perhaps The City is more or less false, and ultimately not relevant.  As the current political and economic crisis in Europe shows, the dollar has become more important and central since Brexit, not less, and US security is what safeguards the continent.  European leaders, elected or appointed (eg, in the ECB) are acting with a degree of obedience exceeding that of the Suez crisis.  The UK is less important globally than it was during the Blair years or before, but the only European powers of comparable or greater significance are Germany, France, and Russia - the same as before the establishment of the EU.  The EU strives for global significance via soft power and regulation.  The former always falls flat and the latter is setting the EU on a collision course with China and the US separately.   

[Florestan]

Given that all online English dictionaries I consulted defined thug as a brutal, violent, even downright criminal person, I fail to see any prevalence of such people in the politics of either Hungary or Poland.

[Todd]

The European right is innatedly thuggish.

[Irons]

The European right is innatedly thuggish.

Not half as thuggish as the American right.

[Todd]

Not half as thuggish as the American right.

How do you quantify this, body count?

[Irons]

How do you quantify this, body count?

Parliament hasn't been stormed, not in my lifetime at least.

[Todd]

Parliament hasn't been stormed, not in my lifetime at least.

The UK is Europe?

[Irons]

The UK is Europe?

In not is. Being pedantic, no right-wing mob has attacked and trashed a European government building.

The recent shocking violent attack on the husband of Nancy Pelosi is another example of  dangerous right-wing extremism.
   

[Todd]

In not is. Being pedantic, no right-wing mob has attacked and trashed a European government building.

The recent shocking violent attack on the husband of Nancy Pelosi is another example of  dangerous right-wing extremism.

There is much consternation about electoral successes of the right in various European countries.  They have not had to attack and trash European government buildings since they are taking them over.  Also, I happen to live in the suburbs of a city where left wing protestors attacked government buildings, even setting fire to some.  But no biggie.

As to the second item, the attack on Pelosi appears to have been conducted by a person whose wife stated he had/has mental health issues, and he once thought he was Jesus.  People will of course conflate that with right wing extremism.

[Irons]

There is much consternation about electoral successes of the right in various European countries.  They have not had to attack and trash European government buildings since they are taking them over.  Also, I happen to live in the suburbs of a city where left wing protestors attacked government buildings, even setting fire to some.  But no biggie.

As to the second item, the attack on Pelosi appears to have been conducted by a person whose wife stated he had/has mental health issues, and he once thought he was Jesus.  People will of course conflate that with right wing extremism.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I worry of the power of the right in America. What happens there affects us all. Hopefully scaremongering but an American (a college professor but didn't catch his name) was speaking on the radio last Saturday. He claims the next election is a tinderbox. If Democrats win the extremist wing of the Republican party will claim the election rigged and all hell let loose.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I worry of the power of the right in America. What happens there affects us all. Hopefully scaremongering but an American (a college professor but didn't catch his name) was speaking on the radio last Saturday. He claims the next election is a tinderbox. If Democrats win the extremist wing of the Republican party will claim the election rigged and all hell let loose.

I hope and pray not!

PD

[Jo498]

There is much consternation about electoral successes of the right in various European countries.  They have not had to attack and trash European government buildings since they are taking them over.  Also, I happen to live in the suburbs of a city where left wing protestors attacked government buildings, even setting fire to some.  But no biggie.

You are usually one of the first to (correctly) point out when people make bold claims about a country an ocean apart.
If you knew anything about many of the European "Right" (e.g. Meloni, the other Italians, the Swedes, the "Alternative" in Germany etc.) you would realize that they are not far right, i.e. they have some cranks among them and some with a shady past but mostly their positions are what was utterly mainstream conservative about 15-20 years ago and utterly mainstream full stop (i.e. shared by ~95% of society/parties except for some fringe groups) about 30-35 years ago. (E.g. cranky fascist ideas like that control of borders and migration is among the core tasks of a national state and that there is something like a normal family with a female, a male and a few children they usually begot together.) They can only appear "right" after 20 years of left-"liberal" globalism that brands any deviation from their gospel as crazy rightwing "protofascist" etc.

And of course they will become more powerful. We have decades of EU bureaucracy transferring wealth away, we had about 7 years of "immigration crisis", 2 years of the pharma coup of the millenium and now the European economy is being destroyed for good because of the Ukraine war. The surprising thing is not that alternative parties from the right (or sometimes left) gain, the surprising thing is that in many countries people still stick to the utterly corrupt and dysfunctional parties and "elites" who got them into this mess.

[Florestan]

You are usually one of the first to (correctly) point out when people make bold claims about a country an ocean apart.
If you knew anything about many of the European "Right" (e.g. Meloni, the other Italians, the Swedes, the "Alternative" in Germany etc.) you would realize that they are not far right, i.e. they have some cranks among them and some with a shady past but mostly their positions are what was utterly mainstream conservative about 15-20 years ago and utterly mainstream full stop (i.e. shared by ~95% of society/parties except for some fringe groups) about 30-35 years ago. (E.g. cranky fascist ideas like that control of borders and migration is among the core tasks of a national state and that there is something like a normal family with a female, a male and a few children they usually begot together.) They can only appear "right" after 20 years of left-"liberal" globalism that brands any deviation from their gospel as crazy rightwing "protofascist" etc.

And of course they will become more powerful. We have decades of EU bureaucracy transferring wealth away, we had about 7 years of "immigration crisis", 2 years of the pharma coup of the millenium and now the European economy is being destroyed for good because of the Ukraine war. The surprising thing is not that alternative parties from the right (or sometimes left) gain, the surprising thing is that in many countries people still stick to the utterly corrupt and dysfunctional parties and "elites" who got them into this mess.

Amen, brother!

[vandermolen]

I hope and pray not!

PD

+1

[Todd]

He claims the next election is a tinderbox. If Democrats win the extremist wing of the Republican party will claim the election rigged and all hell let loose.

This is a midterm.  Your source is hysterical and/or dishonest.  (College professors are often the second most hysterical group of "serious" people, behind only talking heads.)  Here's some of what will happen.  Republicans will almost certainly win the House.  This is very common and happens regularly in midterms.  Pelosi will be forced from a leadership position as a result.  She may receive an ambassadorship as a consolation prize.  Kevin McCarthy will most likely become speaker.  He will push for House investigations into the Biden Administration (a standard practice), into the federal Covid response, and will play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling.  The Senate is a toss-up.  Republicans should be in a stronger position, but partly because they selected awful candidates in some races (eg, Georgia), the Democrats have a decent chance of gaining a seat or two.  The problem Democrats face is that their candidates are also often quite awful (eg, in Georgia).  The shabby state of politics can be summed up in Pennsylvania, where the Senate race pits an actual snake oil salesman against an invalid who cannot form seven-word sentences even when using a teleprompter.  (Watch the debate if you do not believe me.)  If Republicans win the Senate, the great Addison McConnell will become majority leader again and, as a staunch institutionalist and master strategist and tactician, he will push for standard Republican policies and block the Biden administration at every turn.  Republicans are on track to win 1-3 additional governorships*, along with some down ballot state offices that used to be pretty tired - specifically Secretary of State roles, or similar administrative functions that run elections - and that has some members of the press and the broader intelligentsia saying and writing hysterical things.  You may very well have heard or read the phrase "election denier" or some variant thereof in use, always against Republicans.  That's the angle.  It is bipartisan, of course; you can go back and re-read articles from 2000, from 2016, or even earlier this year in Georgia - yes, Georgia is that bad - to find examples of Democrat election denial.  Their concerns are different, though, their concerns are real, etc.  The state races will have electoral implications in 2024, which is what the hysteria is all about.

How could the US be where it's at, on the brink of electing mega-MAGA Republicans?  Well, as it turns out, my high school polisci teacher laid out an analysis of politics that is as true now as it was when I was a kid, and which was reinforced even by my uniformly (American) liberal professors in college, and it has been shown to be correct every election.  Pocketbook politics always trump all other considerations.  Inflation is high, it is real, it is pervasive, and it always costs the party in power seats.  There is a growing sense of unease about the economy generally, and that has the same effect.  Public safety is a secondary issue that can rise to primary importance, and with high crime levels in many cities and areas (Oregon, and Portland, has experienced a verifiable with the DOJ surge in crime, for instance), it also favors the law and order party, which is traditionally the Republican party.  Tertiary issues like those favored by the Democrats this cycle don't ever work as well.  Abortion, gun control, transgender rights (a newish one) are wedge issues, and they tend to mobilize party activists and be much more important in the primaries than in the general election. 

Since tertiary issues have lost traction, Democrats have switched gears to warning about the perils facing democracy itself.  The shift occurred a couple weeks ago or so, as it became clear post-Roe abortion began fading as an issue.  The threat to democracy is their closer.  It's not a strong one, partly because of its intrinsic dishonesty.  But the entire world should be prepared to read, hear, and see a lot more of this over the next two years as the US gears up for 2024. 

Note that war and foreign policy does not register as an issue in the US most of the time.  It only does during large conflicts, and it lost its overall potency after Nixon killed the draft.  Ukraine is politically irrelevant.


* Republicans may even win the governorship of Oregon for the first time in forty years.  This is because Oregon has three women running for office, one a former Democrat who will siphon off votes from the current Democrat.  The fact that Nike founder Phil Knight has publicly poured almost $5 million into the Republican and Independent candidates' campaigns has helped.  (Oregon has no contribution limits for state races.)  He has publicly stated that he will do whatever it takes to prevent Tina Kotek from taking office.  Pretty much every large Oregon-domiciled corporation has poured money into Christine Drazan's campaign.  The hatred of Kotek by centrists and conservatives is palpable.

Also, on the topic of governors, Kari Lake is a politician to watch for a glimpse into the future.  She's exactly the type of candidate that people of any political persuasion should be wary of.  She's an opportunist and not a true believer, so she's not the threat, but her background in media allows her to deftly dispatch the press and stay on message.  If someone with her polish, Kristi Noem's or Gavin Newsom's attractiveness, and Tom Cotton's or Bernie's views were to emerge, look out. 

If you knew anything about many of the European "Right" (e.g. Meloni, the other Italians, the Swedes, the "Alternative" in Germany etc.) you would realize that they are not far right

I rely on the characterization of the European right provided by the US corporate press.  The US corporate press is always right.  See their coverage of American politics and the American right, for instance.  Prior to very accurate reporting by the very factual, non-ideological US corporate press, I had gathered that right wing political parties in Europe tended to not win absolute majorities and therefore had to engage in run of the mill parliamentary politics to form governments.  This time is different.  For real.  A global movement toward the right means that soon we will all be wearing jackboots, varying only in degrees of stylishness.

[Irons]

This is a midterm.  Your source is hysterical and/or dishonest.  (College professors are often the second most hysterical group of "serious" people, behind only talking heads.)  Here's some of what will happen.  Republicans will almost certainly win the House.  This is very common and happens regularly in midterms.  Pelosi will be forced from a leadership position as a result.  She may receive an ambassadorship as a consolation prize.  Kevin McCarthy will most likely become speaker.  He will push for House investigations into the Biden Administration (a standard practice), into the federal Covid response, and will play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling.  The Senate is a toss-up.  Republicans should be in a stronger position, but partly because they selected awful candidates in some races (eg, Georgia), the Democrats have a decent chance of gaining a seat or two.  The problem Democrats face is that their candidates are also often quite awful (eg, in Georgia).  The shabby state of politics can be summed up in Pennsylvania, where the Senate race pits an actual snake oil salesman against an invalid who cannot form seven-word sentences even when using a teleprompter.  (Watch the debate if you do not believe me.)  If Republicans win the Senate, the great Addison McConnell will become majority leader again and, as a staunch institutionalist and master strategist and tactician, he will push for standard Republican policies and block the Biden administration at every turn.  Republicans are on track to win 1-3 additional governorships*, along with some down ballot state offices that used to be pretty tired - specifically Secretary of State roles, or similar administrative functions that run elections - and that has some members of the press and the broader intelligentsia saying and writing hysterical things.  You may very well have heard or read the phrase "election denier" or some variant thereof in use, always against Republicans.  That's the angle.  It is bipartisan, of course; you can go back and re-read articles from 2000, from 2016, or even earlier this year in Georgia - yes, Georgia is that bad - to find examples of Democrat election denial.  Their concerns are different, though, their concerns are real, etc.  The state races will have electoral implications in 2024, which is what the hysteria is all about.

How could the US be where it's at, on the brink of electing mega-MAGA Republicans?  Well, as it turns out, my high school polisci teacher laid out an analysis of politics that is as true now as it was when I was a kid, and which was reinforced even by my uniformly (American) liberal professors in college, and it has been shown to be correct every election.  Pocketbook politics always trump all other considerations.  Inflation is high, it is real, it is pervasive, and it always costs the party in power seats.  There is a growing sense of unease about the economy generally, and that has the same effect.  Public safety is a secondary issue that can rise to primary importance, and with high crime levels in many cities and areas (Oregon, and Portland, has experienced a verifiable with the DOJ surge in crime, for instance), it also favors the law and order party, which is traditionally the Republican party.  Tertiary issues like those favored by the Democrats this cycle don't ever work as well.  Abortion, gun control, transgender rights (a newish one) are wedge issues, and they tend to mobilize party activists and be much more important in the primaries than in the general election. 

Since tertiary issues have lost traction, Democrats have switched gears to warning about the perils facing democracy itself.  The shift occurred a couple weeks ago or so, as it became clear post-Roe abortion began fading as an issue.  The threat to democracy is their closer.  It's not a strong one, partly because of its intrinsic dishonesty.  But the entire world should be prepared to read, hear, and see a lot more of this over the next two years as the US gears up for 2024. 

Note that war and foreign policy does not register as an issue in the US most of the time.  It only does during large conflicts, and it lost its overall potency after Nixon killed the draft.  Ukraine is politically irrelevant.


* Republicans may even win the governorship of Oregon for the first time in forty years.  This is because Oregon has three women running for office, one a former Democrat who will siphon off votes from the current Democrat.  The fact that Nike founder Phil Knight has publicly poured almost $5 million into the Republican and Independent candidates' campaigns has helped.  (Oregon has no contribution limits for state races.)  He has publicly stated that he will do whatever it takes to prevent Tina Kotek from taking office.  Pretty much every large Oregon-domiciled corporation has poured money into Christine Drazan's campaign.  The hatred of Kotek by centrists and conservatives is palpable.

Also, on the topic of governors, Kari Lake is a politician to watch for a glimpse into the future.  She's exactly the type of candidate that people of any political persuasion should be wary of.  She's an opportunist and not a true believer, so she's not the threat, but her background in media allows her to deftly dispatch the press and stay on message.  If someone with her polish, Kristi Noem's or Gavin Newsom's attractiveness, and Tom Cotton's or Bernie's views were to emerge, look out. 


I rely on the characterization of the European right provided by the US corporate press.  The US corporate press is always right.  See their coverage of American politics and the American right, for instance.  Prior to very accurate reporting by the very factual, non-ideological US corporate press, I had gathered that right wing political parties in Europe tended to not win absolute majorities and therefore had to engage in run of the mill parliamentary politics to form governments.  This time is different.  For real.  A global movement toward the right means that soon we will all be wearing jackboots, varying only in degrees of stylishness.

You obviously know far more then I do so best we leave it there.

[Madiel]

A global movement to the right, eh?

Global?

*looks at Australian election result*

[SimonNZ]

He will push for House investigations into the Biden Administration (a standard practice)

"a standard practice"

, and will play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling. 

"brinksmanship"