Brexit

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

These are all superficial observations, though - basically saying people on either end are disaffected, which is to be expected the further one drifts from the center. I think Vlad is right that the two are not ideologically comparable: the "far left" is about equity and the "far right" is about inequity. I know how fashionable it is in here to hate on Bernie, but I would wager you would much rather see him in the White House than Trump.

Furthermore, reducing far right / far left in the US to Trump vs Sanders respectively is a fallacy; those who really are on either end of the spectrum probably have no interest in either of those candidates.

Generally agreed, although there have been white supremacists/fascists who have attended/supported Trump rallies - it's a fairly common occurrence. Anti-capitalists have been largely skeptical of Sanders from what I've seen, but he has received plenty of attention.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

These are all superficial observations, though - basically saying people on either end are disaffected, which is to be expected the further one drifts from the center. I think Vlad is right that the two are not ideologically comparable: the "far left" is about equity and the "far right" is about inequity.

Well in theory, but we all know practice is something entirely different.

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

I know how fashionable it is in here to hate on Bernie, but I would wager you would much rather see him in the White House than Trump.

You keep saying this, but no one in here is just fashionably "hating" on Bernie. Personally I'd be weary of both, but from a practical standpoint you're probably right.

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Furthermore, reducing far right / far left in the US to Trump vs Sanders respectively is a fallacy; those who really are on either end of the spectrum probably have no interest in either of those candidates.

Well these are the current extremes in our political climate; there isn't a loud enough Anarchist or Fascist voice to be included in this conversation.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by trainmaniac

Well... UK kicked out Churchill after WWII also by democratic means.

Churchill wasn't exactly the brilliant, reasonable man history paints him to be.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

I think you're now making the mistake of looking at the EU as a whole instead of its member states separately. Yes, not every economy is in strong shape, but many are. So those are attractive for investors for its economical climate. What is very important for many companies investing in a EU country is its access to the common market, the other EU economies. And that is where it'll hurt the UK. Investing in the UK does not mean anymore having access to the rest of the EU. For that you'll have to invest in an EU-member country. Now, this does not mean that there'll be no investment in the UK at all. But for a European HQ a company will likely choose another country.

This makes sense, but for me this underscores a problem with the logic of the EU. Why put up red tape for investors or companies at all? By doing so you are forcing a choice that doesn't need to be there in the first place and in the process reducing surplus. Why not have a free-trade zone among European countries or even a larger conglomerate and get rid of the common currency and central bank? There is going to be UK/Eurozone integration regardless of the UK's membership - why not make it easy rather than difficult?

[anitram]

The EU, for all its faults, did force a number of poor, mostly Eastern European/Balkan states to undergo significant economic reforms and cut down on corruption (nowhere near good enough but also considerably better than before). The impetus for those changes would certainly NOT have been there if you just proposed a free trade Eurozone. A free-trade zone also doesn't address the flow of labour.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by mama cass

Irvine, in Europe, i believe the whole scale shifts a lot further to the left compared with the US, and even Democrats are at least close to if not further right than the British Conservatives... i think our Socialists (here in France) would be seen as Communists over there

it's the same between France and the UK - the Conservative equivalent in France are not as far right as the Conservatives in Britain

depends on the issue though, yes? economically, the US is much more to the right than Europe, but when it comes to immigration, notions of culture and identity, etc., Europe seems more conservative. we don't really have American equivalents to UKIP or the National Front -- their platforms seem (to me, an outsider) to be economically more populist and protectionist (left-ish) but culturally much more conservative (basically racist and anti-immigrant). we may be seeing some of this in the US, though, which is new, with the rise of Trump (although looks like he's going to get clobbered in the general election).

but on the whole, we don't have perfect alignments between the US/North America and Europe. we can find issues to compare and contrast, but what broadly constitutes the Left and the Right have different issues.

what i'm noticing -- despite how "shameful" it is -- is that there's a growing economic populism on the Left and on the Right. it's been noted in the US that there is a clear overlap between Bernie votes and Trump voters -- that people who have been left behind by globalization are looking to reverse their downward economic trajectories and diminishing opportunities. Trump blames immigrants, Sanders blames Wall Street, but both are highly suspicious of so-called "elites" -- as noted in the vague Greenwald article from earlier that i'm seeing in the feeds of my most leftist friends on FB -- and both sides seem utterly convinced that "the mainstream media" is conspiring against them.

it's an interesting phenomenon and i don't think we really know what it is yet, but, yes, the far Left and the far Right are finding common economic ground.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

I'd say that in general the Democrats are viewed as center-right to the rest of the world. There is no real (viable) left in the USA. You could probably say that Sanders was center-left.

In my eyes Dutch anti-islam, anti-EU, anti-everything politician Wilders and his party are then very close to the Republican party. And yes, with Wilders being a Trump-like figure, though more political savvy.

economically, yes. and also on issues of global security (though the US is in a rather unique position making it impossible to compare with any other country).

i wouldn't put the Republicans on the same ground as the European Right when it comes to immigration/Islam. at least not the Romney crowd (the low-tax economic conservatives). the Trump voters, to me, seem a closer comparison. and this is why the Republicans are fracturing.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

I think Vlad is right that the two are not ideologically comparable: the "far left" is about equity and the "far right" is about inequity.

and this is what i think is changing.

look at Trump's economic platform.

Defying Republican orthodoxy, Trump trashes trade deals and advocates tariffs


MONESSEN, Pa. — Donald Trump on Tuesday channeled more than a year’s worth of fiery and freewheeling protectionist rhetoric into an uncharacteristically disciplined address, putting him out of step with decades of conservative economic orthodoxy and even some of his own prior positions.

Speaking in a warehouse filled with piles of compressed aluminum cans and scraps of metal, Trump ticked through a seven-step plan to boost domestic job growth that included renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, labeling China a currency manipulator, and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and preventing its implementation.

At a rally in Ohio hours later, Trump said the trade pact was being “pushed by special interests who want to rape our country,” repeating “rape” several times.

The presumptive GOP presidential nominee mentioned Britain’s recent decision to leave the European Union, saying that “our friends in Britain recently voted to take back control of their economy” and that “now it’s time for the American people to take back their future.” Quoting Founding Fathers and former presidents, Trump said international trade agreements have left American workers behind.

“On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy, we are going to put America first again,” Trump said. “We are going to make America wealthy again.”

Speaking in Monessen, Pa., Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would withdraw the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Reuters)
He also took sharp aim at presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by invoking the populist attacks she has faced from her rival in the primaries, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

“People who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge, nothing’s going to change,” Trump said.

The speech highlighted one of the key areas of disagreement pitting Trump against business leaders and establishment Republicans, who for decades have advocated free-trade policies and have generally opposed tariffs and other measures.

(and, sorry for all the responses, i should be multiquoting)

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it's an interesting phenomenon and i don't think we really know what it is yet, but, yes, the far Left and the far Right are finding common economic ground.

Isn't this the case in the aftermath of any economic downturn, though, where people who have suffered look to blame someone or something for that suffering?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Isn't this the case in the aftermath of any economic downturn, though, where people who have suffered look to blame someone or something for that suffering?

yes. it wouldn't surprise me that a lot of these political shifts are due to the recession.

would the GOP of 2004 even recognize the GOP of 2016?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

The far-ish left and right find are find common ground in the populist scapegoating of "elites" (whatever those are), demands for ideological purity, suspecting the worst possible motivations of those who disagree with them, and the effective corralling of the economic anxieties of the working classes towards and against larger institutions that they now declare failed. And, in your case, the drive by snark.

I read the big Glen Greenwald article on Brexit from a few days ago, and it could have found a home in the National Review or whatever.

Yeah, this kind of pisses me off. I think there is a difference between "demanding ideological purity" and "being pissed at settling for Clinton" that the anti-Sanders left has largely ignored to paint the "far left" as being just like the far-right.

I understand your points here, and your frustration with some of Vlad's posts. But you also should understand how the tone has come off. You say we're scapegoating people who disagree by assigning them the worst possible motivations, but can you see how this sort of attitude comes off as "othering" the far left to make yourself feel better about where you fall on the progressivism scale? It's dismissive. I've always found the "hey, the far ends of both sides suck, we can agree on that" a huge cop out, a cheap way to gain legitimacy in a political discussion. Are there aspects of the far left I'm not thrilled about? I guess. I can't think of many, other than the occasional tone-deafness and over-reliance on this cycle on sloganeering rather than substance. But comparing the far left to the far right just rubs me wrong, and ignores so much context that informs the positions.

It's very true that politics moves slower than we would like it to, even when there is an obvious right-and-wrong (which there often is, way more than many would like to admit). But that does not mean that the candidates themselves need to be middle-ground centrists. There was a very long period of time there where the right stayed extreme while the left caved and caved and allowed the center to move even farther right. I don't yearn for those days.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Yeah, this kind of pisses me off. I think there is a difference between "demanding ideological purity" and "being pissed at settling for Clinton" that the anti-Sanders left has largely ignored to paint the "far left" as being just like the far-right.

it would piss me off too if that's what i said, but it isn't. and i've long agreed with what it is i think you're saying: it's totally bogus to think the far left and the far right are the same. they aren't. i think it's bogus for someone to say "both parties are the same! they're all crooks! i'm an honest broker because i'm calling them both out!" when we have clear, demonstrable differences between at least the political parties.

what i am saying is they seem to be finding common ground in a minimum of two ways:

1. the far right and the far left seem to be agreeing on protectionist populism geared towards the working class
2. there's a vocalized scapegoating of "elites" or "global elites" on both sides -- whomever they may be.

I understand your points here, and your frustration with some of Vlad's posts. But you also should understand how the tone has come off. You say we're scapegoating people who disagree by assigning them the worst possible motivations, but can you see how this sort of attitude comes off as "othering" the far left to make yourself feel better about where you fall on the progressivism scale? It's dismissive.

i really don't feel the obligation to flash whatever progressive credentials might be required to place myself on whatever scale may or may not exist, but this highlights what seems to me to be a newly vocalized in mainstream discourse since the rise (and fall) of Sanders: there are True Progressives, and if you deviate from our orthodoxy you are Part Of The Problem.

i'm also not sure how critiques and distinctions come off as "othering" -- but i suppose that's how it is now?

I've always found the "hey, the far ends of both sides suck, we can agree on that" a huge cop out, a cheap way to gain legitimacy in a political discussion. Are there aspects of the far left I'm not thrilled about? I guess. I can't think of many, other than the occasional tone-deafness and over-reliance on this cycle on sloganeering rather than substance. But comparing the far left to the far right just rubs me wrong, and ignores so much context that informs the positions.

i think i addressed this earlier.

It's very true that politics moves slower than we would like it to, even when there is an obvious right-and-wrong (which there often is, way more than many would like to admit). But that does not mean that the candidates themselves need to be middle-ground centrists. There was a very long period of time there where the right stayed extreme while the left caved and caved and allowed the center to move even farther right. I don't yearn for those days.

i think a lot of complex things are getting mixed up in here and we may be talking past each other to a certain extent.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

This makes sense, but for me this underscores a problem with the logic of the EU. Why put up red tape for investors or companies at all? By doing so you are forcing a choice that doesn't need to be there in the first place and in the process reducing surplus. Why not have a free-trade zone among European countries or even a larger conglomerate and get rid of the common currency and central bank?

There is this free-trade zone among European countries. The common currency (and then, by extension, the European central bank) is to allow even more economic prosperity and union to be recognized as a powerhouse. OK, that was maybe the theoretical outset, but still. The introduction of the euro has brought much economic prosperity with the abolishment of exchange rates between the euro-countries. Imagine if every state in the US had its own currency. Trade would become so much more inefficient and some states would suffer even more economically as their trade position would be so low.

And for a free-trade zone to happen effectively rules have to be in place. Like the free movement of goods, labour and services. Now, the UK seems to be stepping back from it, but it's one of the conditions to make it work. You can't just say "I welcome whatever you want to export to us and with you shielding off everything in your country." The openess needs to be bilateral.

There is going to be UK/Eurozone integration regardless of the UK's membership - why not make it easy rather than difficult?

True. However, in the eyes of the EU it's currently the UK that wants to make it difficult. The UK seems to suggest they want to nitpick among the conditions and results. Which is not something the EU is prepared to do.

[deep]

Originally Posted by mama cass

Irvine, in Europe, i believe the whole scale shifts a lot further to the left compared with the US, and even Democrats are at least close to if not further right than the British Conservatives... i think our Socialists (here in France) would be seen as Communists over there

it's the same between France and the UK - the Conservative equivalent in France are not as far right as the Conservatives in Britain

Are you in France or England and in which country are you a citizen? (just for context)

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

True. However, in the eyes of the EU it's currently the UK that wants to make it difficult. The UK seems to suggest they want to nitpick among the conditions and results. Which is not something the EU is prepared to do.

this gave me a much needed giggle earlier - from a British TV sitcom called Yes, Minister, over 30 years ago! it basically sums it all up perfectly...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

and this is a must-see too - it's perfect and pretty bang on i reckon!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6H...ature=youtu.be

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by deep

Are you in France or England and in which country are you a citizen? (just for context)

i'm a British citizen but a permanent resident of France - i have residency/work rights due to being an EU/British citizen, so will be a bit in limbo with all of this lol

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by mama cass

i'm a British citizen but a permanent resident of France - i have residency/work rights due to being an EU/British citizen, so will be a bit in limbo with all of this lol

I'm in a similar boat. Irish citizen (via the US) in England. Dunno what's gonna happen at the end of the English membership.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Churchill wasn't exactly the brilliant, reasonable man history paints him to be.

I think this is an oft forgotten thing, even today. He was vile and not much better than Mussolini.

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Yeah, this kind of pisses me off. I think there is a difference between "demanding ideological purity" and "being pissed at settling for Clinton" that the anti-Sanders left has largely ignored to paint the "far left" as being just like the far-right.

Yeah, look, I tend to think Sanders is still very limited even for what he is. I'm certainly not going to demand 'ideological purity' from him as it would suggest he is someone he has never been, he is what he is.

I understand your points here, and your frustration with some of Vlad's posts. But you also should understand how the tone has come off. You say we're scapegoating people who disagree by assigning them the worst possible motivations, but can you see how this sort of attitude comes off as "othering" the far left to make yourself feel better about where you fall on the progressivism scale? It's dismissive. I've always found the "hey, the far ends of both sides suck, we can agree on that" a huge cop out, a cheap way to gain legitimacy in a political discussion. Are there aspects of the far left I'm not thrilled about? I guess. I can't think of many, other than the occasional tone-deafness and over-reliance on this cycle on sloganeering rather than substance. But comparing the far left to the far right just rubs me wrong, and ignores so much context that informs the positions.

It's just a painfully lazy position to take, it's reminiscent of approaching a far right rally (see Sacramento several days ago) with counter protestors and saying 'both sides are as bad as each other', which is something so commonly implied in the mainstream media both in Australia and the US. And yes, not to mention the historical significance - mindlessly equating the two vastly different and opposing sides is ignorant at best and very dangerous at worst. I'm happy to discuss with those of a liberal political persuasion, but you cross that particular line and there's really no point in engaging.

There was a very long period of time there where the right stayed extreme while the left caved and caved and allowed the center to move even farther right. I don't yearn for those days.

I think this is still fairly prevalent today, albeit on a lesser scale of course.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I'm in a similar boat. Irish citizen (via the US) in England. Dunno what's gonna happen at the end of the English membership.

are you in the UK now? stay safe because the xenophobia that has been unleashed right now is horrific

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by mama cass

are you in the UK now? stay safe because the xenophobia that has been unleashed right now is horrific

Appreciate it, but I'm actually in the US for a few weeks then out to Leicester. Don't know if Leicester is seeing the xenophobia extra hard, or the opposite.