Move to the far right in Swedish election

[vandermolen]

Any views on this? My wife's brother's family live in Stockholm so we have been following this news rather closely. I find it rather worrying myself.

[Mr. Minnow]

Any views on this? My wife's brother's family live in Stockholm so we have been following this news rather closely. I find it rather worrying myself.

The increase in the far right vote is by no means insignificant, but it shouldn't be overstated either. About 82% of those who voted voted against the far right, so they're not storming to power on a huge surge of mass support. The most they can hope for is to play a part in a coalition, but they may well not even get that.

What is perhaps more worrying than this specific result is the fact that it's the latest of a lengthening list of Western countries to see an increase in political sentiment which is at best nationalist, and sometimes downright xenophobic/racist. We've seen it with Le Pen in France, the current Italian government, the parties in power in Poland and Hungary - and obviously there's Trump and Brexit too.

Why is it happening? I think it has a lot to do with the crash of 2008 and the reaction to it, and the fact that centre-left parties had signed up to the ideological tenets of free market fundamentalism/neoliberalism/Thatcherism/whatever you want to call it, on the grounds that there was "no alternative". As long as things kept ticking over and those parties were winning elections they weren't going to do too much to challenge that status quo. But then the crash hit. And that meant voters were faced with a "choice" between established parties who were either on the right/centre-right, and hence enthusiastic believers in the Thatcherite consensus - the very ideology which produced the crash - or parties on the centre-left, who had signed up to that same ideology because they didn't know what else to do. Clearly, it wasn't going to be credible for centre-left parties to suddenly disown that ideology, not after spending years claiming that there was no alternative. So the view that political parties are "basically all the same", which was already widespread, became even more dominant, and in a febrile climate like that of the last decade it's not surprising that many people have not just been looking for something different, but are also willing to consider much more radical alternatives than they previously would have.

The fact that centre-left parties lost credibility because of their association with an economic ideology which has had (and continues to have) such damaging consequences is particularly unfortunate, because normally it would be those parties which we would have looked to to provide alternative policies aimed at a more equitable distribution of wealth and thus the mitigation of the grotesque inequality which provides such fertile ground for resentment. Instead, those parties' loss of credibility left the way open for the far right to whip up nationalist and xenophobic sentiment, which can only make things worse, not least because it doesn't address the underlying causes of legitimate grievances. We can see this with Brexit: Farage has openly admitted that his strategy was to make the EU synonymous with immigration, so ensuring that by blaming the EU for all Britain's ills, the blame also went on immigrants. This bullshit isn't going to take us to the sunlit uplands that the Brexiters promised - and things will probably turn ugly when leave voters realise that - but it worked in terms of winning the referendum.

The above goes a long way to explaining Corbyn's rise to the Labour leadership. Unlike the self-styled "moderates" he'd never bought into the Thatcherite consensus, so he could attack it with credibility. The same could not be said for the other candidates in that leadership election, and we saw what happened. Even now, the Labour right seems to think that a reheated Blairism is what will sweep them back to power, yet Corbyn's Labour is one of the few centre-left parties which, for all the turbulence caused by the divisions between the left and right of the party, hasn't plummeted in popularity. If the "moderates" put half as much effort into revitalising their own intellectual position as they do into attacking Corbyn, Labour might have the kind of poll lead which they keep saying it should have.   

One thing to be thankful for about the Sweden result is that it could have been a lot worse: Sweden has a much stronger welfare state than we do in the UK, and that's one reason it doesn't have the sort of obscene levels of inequality which have become normalised here. If Sweden were more like the UK in those respects I shudder to think what the result would have been.

[vandermolen]

The increase in the far right vote is by no means insignificant, but it shouldn't be overstated either. About 82% of those who voted voted against the far right, so they're not storming to power on a huge surge of mass support. The most they can hope for is to play a part in a coalition, but they may well not even get that.

What is perhaps more worrying than this specific result is the fact that it's the latest of a lengthening list of Western countries to see an increase in political sentiment which is at best nationalist, and sometimes downright xenophobic/racist. We've seen it with Le Pen in France, the current Italian government, the parties in power in Poland and Hungary - and obviously there's Trump and Brexit too.

Why is it happening? I think it has a lot to do with the crash of 2008 and the reaction to it, and the fact that centre-left parties had signed up to the ideological tenets of free market fundamentalism/neoliberalism/Thatcherism/whatever you want to call it, on the grounds that there was "no alternative". As long as things kept ticking over and those parties were winning elections they weren't going to do too much to challenge that status quo. But then the crash hit. And that meant voters were faced with a "choice" between established parties who were either on the right/centre-right, and hence enthusiastic believers in the Thatcherite consensus - the very ideology which produced the crash - or parties on the centre-left, who had signed up to that same ideology because they didn't know what else to do. Clearly, it wasn't going to be credible for centre-left parties to suddenly disown that ideology, not after spending years claiming that there was no alternative. So the view that political parties are "basically all the same", which was already widespread, became even more dominant, and in a febrile climate like that of the last decade it's not surprising that many people have not just been looking for something different, but are also willing to consider much more radical alternatives than they previously would have.

The fact that centre-left parties lost credibility because of their association with an economic ideology which has had (and continues to have) such damaging consequences is particularly unfortunate, because normally it would be those parties which we would have looked to to provide alternative policies aimed at a more equitable distribution of wealth and thus the mitigation of the grotesque inequality which provides such fertile ground for resentment. Instead, those parties' loss of credibility left the way open for the far right to whip up nationalist and xenophobic sentiment, which can only make things worse, not least because it doesn't address the underlying causes of legitimate grievances. We can see this with Brexit: Farage has openly admitted that his strategy was to make the EU synonymous with immigration, so ensuring that by blaming the EU for all Britain's ills, the blame also went on immigrants. This bullshit isn't going to take us to the sunlit uplands that the Brexiters promised - and things will probably turn ugly when leave voters realise that - but it worked in terms of winning the referendum.

The above goes a long way to explaining Corbyn's rise to the Labour leadership. Unlike the self-styled "moderates" he'd never bought into the Thatcherite consensus, so he could attack it with credibility. The same could not be said for the other candidates in that leadership election, and we saw what happened. Even now, the Labour right seems to think that a reheated Blairism is what will sweep them back to power, yet Corbyn's Labour is one of the few centre-left parties which, for all the turbulence caused by the divisions between the left and right of the party, hasn't plummeted in popularity. If the "moderates" put half as much effort into revitalising their own intellectual position as they do into attacking Corbyn, Labour might have the kind of poll lead which they keep saying it should have.   

One thing to be thankful for about the Sweden result is that it could have been a lot worse: Sweden has a much stronger welfare state than we do in the UK, and that's one reason it doesn't have the sort of obscene levels of inequality which have become normalised here. If Sweden were more like the UK in those respects I shudder to think what the result would have been.

Thanks for responding. I find your comments very insightful.

[71 dB]

Why do people think far right has answers to economical problems? As if closing the borders fixes the economy... ...people should learn that those who shout out simple solutions don't have any more solutions than those who tell you the problems are complex and difficult to solve.

[The new erato]

Why do people think far right has answers to economical problems? As if closing the borders fixes the economy... ...people should learn that those who shout out simple solutions don't have any more solutions than those who tell you the problems are complex and difficult to solve.

Yes, but nobody ever won an election by telling people that the world is a complex place and requires sophisticated solutions. Not ever.

[71 dB]

Yes, but nobody ever won an election an telling people that the world is a complex place and requires sophisticated solutions. Not ever.

That's why the World sucks so much. I vote for people with sophisticated solutions doing my part.

[NikF]

Yes, but nobody ever won an election an telling people that the world is a complex place and requires sophisticated solutions. Not ever.

That's a hugely valid point.
I don't know how to explain this without resorting to stereotyping or appearing condescending, but...people from my background will (for want of a much better term and also greater investment in understanding) be prone to lashing out, due to being unequipped to consider a situation objectively. Almost everything is reduced to a binary - good guy = white hat, bad guy = black hat and as a result emotional responses are almost always to the fore.

That's why the World sucks so much. I vote for people with sophisticated solutions doing my part.

Fair enough, however, the world exists beyond the end of your own nose. Like it or lump it.

[Marc]

Yes, but nobody ever won an election an telling people that the world is a complex place and requires sophisticated solutions. Not ever.

""And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you... ask what you can do for your country."

I have to admit though that JFK said that at his inaugural speech, not during the campaign. (The coward, lol.)

[Mr. Minnow]

Thanks for responding. I find your comments very insightful.

Thanks.

I don't think the situation in Sweden is anywhere near as bad as it is here. Farage's poison has seeped deep into British politics and has largely taken over one of the two main parties, which has given it a veneer of respectability. Brexit could easily tank the economy - whether in the form of a sudden crash or something more protracted - and break up the UK. I don't think Sweden is facing anything like that. I wonder what the UK currently looks like from the continent - a real life Monty Python sketch that's got out of control would be my guess.  

[bwv 1080]

Well Sweden has a real Nazi movement in the 30s and white supremacy and eugenics were foundational premises of Swedish socialism (mandatory sterilization of the 'unfit' continued through the 1970s, long after the practice was abandoned in other western countries), plus the populace is much less used to a multiracial society than the relatively more Cosmopolitan brits. 

[vandermolen]

Thanks.

I don't think the situation in Sweden is anywhere near as bad as it is here. Farage's poison has seeped deep into British politics and has largely taken over one of the two main parties, which has given it a veneer of respectability. Brexit could easily tank the economy - whether in the form of a sudden crash or something more protracted - and break up the UK. I don't think Sweden is facing anything like that. I wonder what the UK currently looks like from the continent - a real life Monty Python sketch that's got out of control would be my guess.

I think that the only thing which might influence the growth of populist and increasingly anti-democratic parties in Europe are if the forces of moderation in the USA are successful in reining in President Trump. That may have a positive knock-on effect elsewhere although this could be wishful thinking.

[Mr. Minnow]

I think that the only thing which might influence the growth of populist and increasingly anti-democratic parties in Europe are if the forces of moderation in the USA are successful in reining in President Trump. That may have a positive knock-on effect elsewhere although this could be wishful thinking.

Trump is the main poster boy for these parties, so reining him in would help. It would be even better if he could be ousted, but probably only if it happens at the ballot box. If he's removed by impeachment then it won't matter how strong the evidence against him is, the tin foil hatters will still scream about the "Deep State". Unfortunately the Democrats' right seems to still be in control of the party, though from what I've read it seems there are some more progressive figures just beginning to challenge the status quo. They certainly need someone to emerge who can articulate a positive alternative to Trump's toxicity; not being Trump is unlikely to be enough.

[bwv 1080]

A not suprising outcome of an overly generous immigration policy. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10/the-death-of-the-most-generous-nation-on-earth-sweden-syria-refugee-europe/

[vandermolen]

Trump is the main poster boy for these parties, so reining him in would help. It would be even better if he could be ousted, but probably only if it happens at the ballot box. If he's removed by impeachment then it won't matter how strong the evidence against him is, the tin foil hatters will still scream about the "Deep State". Unfortunately the Democrats' right seems to still be in control of the party, though from what I've read it seems there are some more progressive figures just beginning to challenge the status quo. They certainly need someone to emerge who can articulate a positive alternative to Trump's toxicity; not being Trump is unlikely to be enough.

Once again I very much agree with you. What is happening in Turkey is very worrying. My Turkish colleague/friend is very worried - a real tragedy I think.

[zamyrabyrd]

A not suprising outcome of an overly generous immigration policy. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10/the-death-of-the-most-generous-nation-on-earth-sweden-syria-refugee-europe/

The origin of this self-destructive silliness is virtue-signaling: "See how good and generous we are" but not asking where the funds are coming from for such an expensive undertaking. Most of the "refugees" are not women and children, but strapping, over-sexed young men who in their countries of origin are strictly separated from girls after a certain age.

Sweden shouldn't suffer the pangs of guilt that other colonialist countries are punishing themselves for the sins of the great-grandfathers in Africa and Middle East. The question that really should be asked; "Has ANY good come from this massive social experiment, either for the host country or the uprooted, shiftless  migrants? I don't think so.

[JBS]

". Unfortunately the Democrats' right seems to still be in control of the party, though from what I've read it seems there are some more progressive figures just beginning to challenge the status quo. They certainly need someone to emerge who can articulate a positive alternative to Trump's toxicity; not being Trump is unlikely to be enough.

Fortunately, you should have said.
Remember that the political center of gravity is noticeably to the right compared to the European center of gravity. Most of those progressive figures  have  won in heavily Democratic constituencies.  Candidates in more mixed locales and those who run statewide and nationally have to attract voters who at best don't know progressive solutions and often distrust them. Obama is the most leftward President in our history, and anyone to the left of him would indoubtedly be viewed as too radical by most voters.

[Mr. Minnow]

Fortunately, you should have said.
Remember that the political center of gravity is noticeably to the right compared to the European center of gravity. Most of those progressive figures  have  won in heavily Democratic constituencies.  Candidates in more mixed locales and those who run statewide and nationally have to attract voters who at best don't know progressive solutions and often distrust them. Obama is the most leftward President in our history, and anyone to the left of him would indoubtedly be viewed as too radical by most voters.

Wasn't that the argument for having Clinton as the 2016 candidate instead of Sanders though? Much good it did them. If there's a time to make the case for a more overtly progressive direction, and shift the political centre of gravity, it's surely when many voters view the two main parties as two cheeks of the same arse and may therefore be willing to consider something that they previously wouldn't have.

The UK's political centre may not be as far to the right as that of the US, but we're still quite a bit further to the right than most of the continent, so prior to the 2017 election the conventional wisdom was that if Labour were to move an iota further left than Blair they'd be slaughtered. Even Ed Miliband was seen as too radical. The Labour right were so convinced of this that they kept quiet during the campaign as they wanted Corbyn to own what they fully expected to be a catastrophic result. Instead Labour's vote went up by 10% and far from winning the landslide she expected, May lost her majority entirely. The evidence for the turnaround during that campaign suggests that the crucial turning point was the launch of the Labour manifesto - i.e. the policies, which the Labour right said the public would comprehensively reject as far too radical, are what made the difference.

Now obviously the US is not the UK. Maybe someone further left than Obama really wouldn't be a viable candidate, I don't know. But if this supposedly safety first approach still led to defeat in 2016, it seems quite likely to do the same in 2020. If the Democrats don't come up with a genuine alternative, the likes of Trump will happily fill the vacuum.

[Mr. Minnow]

Once again I very much agree with you. What is happening in Turkey is very worrying. My Turkish colleague/friend is very worried - a real tragedy I think.

The situation in Turkey is indeed very different to Sweden. I'm not surprised your friend is worried, I would be too. And to think, one of the Leave campaign's most effective lines was the claim that Turkey was going to join the EU and flood us with millions of immigrants. It was a lie then and there's certainly no chance of Turkey joining now - every day Erdogan is in power takes Turkey further away from the EU and closer to an authoritarian state.

[JBS]

Wasn't that the argument for having Clinton as the 2016 candidate instead of Sanders though? Much good it did them. If there's a time to make the case for a more overtly progressive direction, and shift the political centre of gravity, it's surely when many voters view the two main parties as two cheeks of the same arse and may therefore be willing to consider something that they previously wouldn't have.

The UK's political centre may not be as far to the right as that of the US, but we're still quite a bit further to the right than most of the continent, so prior to the 2017 election the conventional wisdom was that if Labour were to move an iota further left than Blair they'd be slaughtered. Even Ed Miliband was seen as too radical. The Labour right were so convinced of this that they kept quiet during the campaign as they wanted Corbyn to own what they fully expected to be a catastrophic result. Instead Labour's vote went up by 10% and far from winning the landslide she expected, May lost her majority entirely. The evidence for the turnaround during that campaign suggests that the crucial turning point was the launch of the Labour manifesto - i.e. the policies, which the Labour right said the public would comprehensively reject as far too radical, are what made the difference.

Now obviously the US is not the UK. Maybe someone further left than Obama really wouldn't be a viable candidate, I don't know. But if this supposedly safety first approach still led to defeat in 2016, it seems quite likely to do the same in 2020. If the Democrats don't come up with a genuine alternative, the likes of Trump will happily fill the vacuum.

Hillary's problems were peculiar to herself, and would not have hampered another candidate of similar centrist views.  She has as many deficiencies in transparency and avoiding the appearance of corruption as Trump does. Put it simply: she did the email server thing in hopes of defeating any attempt at public scrutiny. Had there been no email server, there would have been no investigation and no Comey announcements to totally screw up the election, and she would now be POTUS. Nor did the hectoring of certain supporters that we in effect owed her the Presidency because she was a woman and that 8 years as FLOTUS, a less than full term in the Senate, and the SoState for Obama's first term made her the most qualified candidate in history, help her cause (she herself did not make that argument).
IOW she had a lot of baggage that no other Democrat had, and lost because of it.

[Mr. Minnow]

Hillary's problems were peculiar to herself, and would not have hampered another candidate of similar centrist views.  She has as many deficiencies in transparency and avoiding the appearance of corruption as Trump does. Put it simply: she did the email server thing in hopes of defeating any attempt at public scrutiny. Had there been no email server, there would have been no investigation and no Comey announcements to totally screw up the election, and she would now be POTUS. Nor did the hectoring of certain supporters that we in effect owed her the Presidency because she was a woman and that 8 years as FLOTUS, a less than full term in the Senate, and the SoState for Obama's first term made her the most qualified candidate in history, help her cause (she herself did not make that argument).
IOW she had a lot of baggage that no other Democrat had, and lost because of it.

She obviously had problems, but was Trump's claim that he was offering a radical alternative to the status quo - albeit a thoroughly repulsive one - not a factor as well? I don't know the answer to that, but if it was, I would think the fact that the Republicans have already gone for something very different means the Democrats will need to come up with an alternative of their own. If sticking to centrism were a necessary condition for winning an election, Trump would have got nowhere near the presidency.