To what extent is current alt right populism an Anglo-American phenomenon?

by on June 22, 2017 at 10:48 am in Current Affairs, Philosophy, Political Science | Permalink

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is part of the argument:

More generally, the U.S. is an environment where new products — and here I mean of the non-political sort — get started relatively easily. People are willing to take more chances with their consumption, and so this is a fertile environment for startups, which then spread to the broader world.

As for Britain, the traditional aristocracy is remarkably weakened, voting along class lines has disappeared and, most observers agree, if it were really up to the House of Lords, Brexit wouldn’t be happening.

On top of these factors is English, by far the world’s leading language for scientific and philosophic and political discourse, for blogs, for Twitter, and for many other kinds of dialogue. We shouldn’t be surprised if new ideas are more likely to surface and take hold in the English-speaking world.

Here is another bit:

To be sure, some evidence suggests the influence of President Trump is actually causing Western Europe to become more liberal. But don’t confuse style and substance. Another five to 10 years of deindustrialization, terrorist attacks and migrant crises might lead to a “home brew” version of Trumpian ideas in continental Europe, albeit cloaked in a more intellectual and more aristocratic garb. There is a running joke going around along the lines of “If fascist ideas come to [Country X], they will come in the form of anti-fascism.” Once the properly European version of the product comes to the fore, it might do very well indeed.

There is much more at the link.

1 GoneWithTheWind June 22, 2017 at 10:55 am

To what extent is alt-left failure an anglo-American phenomenon? Ask the citizens of Venezuela or Cuba. Watch as Europe collapses.

2 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 11:14 am

This is why libertarians are the only people with viable solutions to today’s problems. The left offers the same tired socialist brew that has failed over and over, and the right offers warmed over nationalism and ethnocentrism. The left wants social control and the right wants social exclusion.

Only libertarianism offers a positive vision of the future that is both liberating AND socially inclusive.

3 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 11:27 am

That is pretty funny, if you give it half a second of thought. The first joke is that Chavezism is the only thing left of alt right.

The second, Chavezism and Trumpism are demonstrations of the Horseshoe Theory:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

Trump would like to tell Ford and Apple what to do in a Chavez style, or slap arbitrary tariffs on German cars, he is just constrained by our institutions.

4 Thomas June 22, 2017 at 12:47 pm

Chavezism is just what happens when you give a leftist the authority that leftists want government to have.

5 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 2:56 pm

If you take most progressive/leftist ideas to their logical conclusion, you end up some sort of socialist hellhole. Nevermind that America is basically already a social democracy, so the only place left to go is further left. What did Bernie Sanders campaign on? Free college. What was Obama proposing? Universal pre-school. When you’ve already achieved all your objectives, the only place progressives want to go is more free shit, more government control of more aspects of the economy.

6 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 3:04 pm

That’s just picking and choosing, crafting your idea of what “Progressives” are. It doesn’t include Democratic Presidents who deregulated the financial industry, nor Democratic Presidents who called for reductions in unnecessary occupational licensing.

Have fun with that.

7 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 3:09 pm

If you talk to most progressives, they would disavow at least half of all Democratic presidents. As far as they are concerned the Democratic party is owned by Wall Street and they only way to vote left is to vote for the Green party.

8 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 3:13 pm

lol, if you define “progressives” to be people who disavow “Democrats” how on earth are you talking about “the left?”

9 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 3:39 pm

Yeah, Hazel what you are calling “most progressives” is the loony left, just like the loony right are all the people calling everyone RINOs.

10 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 4:03 pm

Bernie Sanders, who ran on free college, almost won the Democratic Party nomination. And Trump, advocate of xenophobic nationalism, won his parties nomination. I’d say the loonies are either in charge of both parties right now or close to being so.

Gary Johnson was the sane moderate last election or didn’t you notice that?

11 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 5:11 pm

For what it’s worth, most Americans have it figured out:

64% of the public says the GOP is too willing to cut govt, 61% say Dem Party too often sees govt as only way to solve problems.

https://twitter.com/jocelynkiley/status/877196886033260544

Note what this really means. Most people see both parties as more extreme than themselves.

12 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 5:26 pm

Cutting government is the good part of the GOP. Trump is not cutting government. Trump is all about keeping out scary foreigners and their products.

13 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 5:49 pm

I dunno Hazel, the main things Trump has actually done in office have been about deregulating (cutting government), and of course he’s trying to get a tax cut too.

And I did notice Johnson was the moderate, that’s why I voted for him (in my safe non-battleground state).

And yes the loonies have more leverage in their parties since before I can remember.

14 GoneWithTheWind June 22, 2017 at 5:44 pm

“Trump would like to tell Ford and Apple what to do…” I don’t think so. Perhaps you mean that Trump would like to see those jobs stay in the U.S. That is a good idea and he can in fact do it and without telling them what to do. Simply tax all imports. This makes sense, so why not? Tax them at a rate that would roughly equal the taxes (and external costs) that the company would have paid if they had manufactured their product in the U.S. No harm, no foul.

“or slap arbitrary tariffs on German cars” I am opposed to “arbitrary tariffs”. Put a tariff on all imports stop “arbitrary” tariffs.

15 Jason Bayz June 22, 2017 at 12:19 pm

“This is why libertarians are the only people with viable solutions to today’s problems. ”

Is it a viable solution if you can’t get more than 3% of the vote?

“The left offers the same tired socialist brew that has failed over and over, and the right offers warmed over nationalism and ethnocentrism.”

One is a failure, the other, we just can’t try for whatever reason.

16 Thiago Ribeiro June 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm

“the other, we just can’t try for whatever reason.” You woukd prefer it more like Germany 1933-1945 or more like the Confederarion?

17 Thiago Ribeiro June 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm

*would Confederation

18 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 1:14 pm

Or Israel, 1948 – current.

19 Thiago Ribeiro June 22, 2017 at 2:07 pm

Oh, I see it. A National Home for… what? White people, Anflos, Christians, Southern Americans?

20 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 2:49 pm

Exactly. We’re tried it, and the results were even worse than the usual slow death of socialism.
On the plus side, it didn’t take as much time to figure out.

21 Thiago Ribeiro June 22, 2017 at 3:53 pm

“We’re tried it, and the results were even worse than the usual slow death of socialism.”
Apparenrly, the same as with Socialism, some people want to try it again.

22 josh June 23, 2017 at 8:17 am

Or the United States 1923-1967.

23 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 12:57 pm

Does “socially inclusive” include all the people who can out-breed, out-thug, and out-vote you?

24 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 2:51 pm

Everyone outbreeds me. I’m only one person.
Or when you say “you” is that a plural “you” that is supposed to refer to my race?
I mean, I could take the “you” to mean a lot of different things, why is “white people” the thing that is at the top of YOUR list?

25 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 3:04 pm

The libertarian movement consists of higher IQ individuals, is whiter than Augusta National, and I suspect their average TFR is probably around 1.5. or lower, so it’s a relevant question. Which, by the way, you won’t answer.

26 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 3:11 pm

So is the “you” higher IQ people then? Cause I’m definitely in favor of higher IQ people, of all races, breeding more.

Why would I include below-average IQ white people (i.e. Trump voters) part of my identity group?

27 8 June 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm

The right-wing libertarians are becoming Alt-Right nationalists. (property rights extended to control of Fedgov)
The left-wing libertarians are becoming communists/cultural marxists (anti-property rights/anti-free association)

28 Rafael R June 23, 2017 at 6:53 pm

And yet libertarians refuse to accept any degree of concession to allow their ideology, the only ideology compatiple with a civilization based on the social division of labor, back in the day and outside of the Anglo-Saxon countries this ideology was/is called Liberalism.

And now liberalism is effectively dead in the US and UK, two of the first countries to develop and implement it. I wont call it “innovation”, I call it retrocession.

29 Dick the Butcher June 22, 2017 at 11:20 am

He’s not writing about me. I’m German-Irish.

It’s human nature to fear and hate those whom you (here the elites) have screwed. .

They would deport Anglo-Americans and replace Anglo-Americans with Mexican, etc. illegals and Muslim “refugees.” The elites/ruling class hate them because they don’t live up to expectations. They are not buying the nightmarish schemes. They are harshing their buzzes.

And, then there is the incompetence. The worst political class in US History: liberals were smug, entitled, corrupt, and incompetent. Peter Berkowitz: “…incompetence ranging from mismanagement of the economy and immigration to botching diplomacy and the conduct of war; politicization of the administrative state as illustrated by IRS targeting of conservatives during Obama’s first term; and the elite media’s use of double standards in reporting and opining about left and right. Underlying it all is the corruption of liberal education, which has become boot camp for progressivism, and of graduate and professional schools, which provide advance training in the progressive exercise of power. To play the vital role contemplated for them by our constitutional system, intellectual and political elites have a long way to go in regaining the people’s trust.”

And, they think we are stupid.

Idiot intellectuals don’t have a clue.

I’m laughing my ossoff in NY.

30 The Centrist June 22, 2017 at 2:47 pm

As someone sympathetic to the moderate centre-right in Europe, and worried especially about the alt-left (both here and in Europe), I want to see comments like “watch as Europe collapses” as hyperbole.

But then I think of Greece, lying and borrowing, borrowing and lying. And then I think of France, one of the economic powerhouses of Europe, with double digit unemployment, and debt over a hundred times its GDP.

31 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 2:55 pm

I would add to that:

The once quite sensible Germans importing a million low skilled refugees with no long term plans on how to assimilate them into German culture and shutting down their nuclear power plants with no ability to replace them except for the increased use of inefficient brown coal plants.

32 prior_test2 June 22, 2017 at 11:03 am

‘voting along class lines has disappeared’

Yet party leadership in the case of the Tories certainly hasn’t. Representing a group of people with as much disdain for the plebs as any Roman senator.

And really, the lack of any upper class is striking in the linked analysis – ‘The Conservatives, to all intents and purposes, were the party of the middle class and Labour that of the workers. The dividing lines were so notable that you could predict, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, how someone would vote just by knowing their social grade.’ So who was the party of the upper class? And when did England’s upper class start voting Labour?

Seriously, this seems to support the idea that voting has only changed among those that used to vote Labour – ‘As this campaign starts, the Conservatives hold a 22% lead amongst middle class voters and a 17% lead amongst working class ones.’

Further, one could note that this split – ‘In electoral terms, age is the new class. The starkest way to show this is to note that Labour is 19% ahead when it comes to 18-24 year-olds and the Conservatives are ahead by 49% among the over 65s.’ is pretty much the difference between those UK citizens who grew up as EU citizens, and those who didn’t.

Further, you do realize that the April date of this article shows that the recent vote isn’t included in this at all – you know, the vote where May lost her majority? After all, this is the very first line of the linked article – ‘But as the campaign begins, new YouGov analysis of over 12,000 people shows the demographic dividing lines of British voters.’

Stale information sloppily presented, seemingly expecting no one to notice – a true Marginal Revolution hallmark.

33 Fazal Majid June 22, 2017 at 1:03 pm

Since the demographic transition to an older population is the biggest trend in Western societies (more so in Europe than North America), it’s not surprising political parties would stake out turf along those lines.

What I find surprising is how the parties of the old (Republicans and Tories) adopted policies that seem suicidal given their core constituencies: entitlement reform in the US, the dementia tax in the U.K.

34 prior_test2 June 22, 2017 at 1:11 pm

Well, as the election showed, May paid for the dementia tax idea heavily, utterly losing her comfortable majority.

35 The Centrist June 22, 2017 at 2:56 pm

It may not have been that alone. Clearly voters punished her hubris: the election wasn’t needed. It was obviously called to take advantage of a disorganized Labour party. May was also exposed as uncharismatic and unimpressive as a leader (as in displaying shrewdness and competence). She allowed the alt-left Corbyn to unite his party, when earlier it looked like an internal party civil war.

Finally, don’t underestimate the power of young voters, who were promised the moon by Corbyn. How he’d pay for it all is another matter, one that probably didn’t matter to many young voters.

36 Alistair June 24, 2017 at 10:06 pm

Actually, it was more Labour surge than Conservative slump. 43% is nearly always a comfortable majority or landslide; May got as many votes as Margaret Thatcher at her height. More than Tony Blair. There’s not much evidence of dementia tax doing the damage.

Check the stats. Post dementia-tax, the Tory vote slips 2-3% from seniors, but broadly doesn’t change. Labour however is adding 10-20% of the youth cohort over the same period. These votes come from previous non-voters.

37 prior_test2 June 22, 2017 at 11:25 am

‘Once the properly European version of the product comes to the fore, it might do very well indeed.’

Why the animus towards Le Pen and Wilders? Because they are in a bit of doldrums at the moment? Come on, have more faith – after all, it took 16 years for Trump to go from failed presidential candidate to actual president. Le Pen and Wilders are at least as convinced as Trump was concerning how to make America great, by represent the only salvation of their nation. True fascists are fans of the will triumphing, after all – give this new generation more time for find the proper key to bring about a glorious 1000 years. Especially seeing how the Germans still appear uninterested in trying to do that again.

38 Andrew M June 22, 2017 at 11:40 am

What about Canada? No sign of an alt-right party emerging there.

39 Phill June 22, 2017 at 12:27 pm

That’s because they’re sucessfully co-opting the conservative party. The leadership race that just concluded featured several candidates loudly pandering to the crowd, and concluded with a guy whose campaign manager works at the Rebel.

40 The Centrist June 22, 2017 at 3:01 pm

These are one trick ponies. (Le Pen and Wilders.) Anti-immigration is all they have as a platform.

I see that Macron has just decried open border immigration.

41 Jeff R June 22, 2017 at 11:34 am

Aren’t Poland and Hungary kind of exceptions to the idea that this is an Anglo-American phenomenon? What about Modi? Your pal Edward Luce was just calling him a fascist on your podcast the other day, as I recall. Duterte? Erdogan? What are those guys but populist alt-righters who use a mix of authoritarian, nationalist, and identitarian attitudes to appeal to rather lower middle class elements in their respective countries?

42 Cptn Obvious June 22, 2017 at 1:25 pm

shhhhh… don’t spoil the narrative 😉

43 Heh June 22, 2017 at 9:25 pm

+1

44 Doug June 22, 2017 at 11:34 am

The alt-right’s detestable, but it largely exists because PC culture has shut the door to mainstream outlets for entire classes of legitimate grievances. Unless you’re painfully cavalier about ignoring reality, the fact is that different racial groups participate in violent crime at extraordinarily different rates. Maybe, maybe, maybe this is something that should be considered when making policy. Ot at the very least quantified. But mainstream political thinking has if anything moved further away from this position.

For example the Obama Justice Department stopped tracking perpetrator race in national violent crime surveys. And in most Western European nations race or immigrant status is explicitly censored as it related to prison populations. It might be helpful to know, e.g. that ipso facto Korean immigrants are less prone to violence than Algerians. Or that 50-year-old Algerian doctors with children are less violent than 22-year old Algerian high school dropouts with no documented work history. I still believe in mostly open-borders, and high immigration, but let’s at least be rational about it.

Instead the mainstream just keeps digging it’s heels in further. Any legitimate criticism even tangentially contrary to PC “wisdom” is treated as nothing short of white nationalism. So it’s not surprising that frustrated voters turn to clowns like Donald Trump or Boris Johnston. The fool’s the only person in the royal court able to interject unpopular truths.

45 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 11:51 am

The alt-right’s detestable, but it largely exists because PC culture has shut the door to mainstream outlets for entire classes of legitimate grievances. Unless you’re painfully cavalier about ignoring reality, the fact is that different racial groups participate in violent crime at extraordinarily different rates.

Too late. You’re already out here with the rest of us detestables.

I still believe in mostly open-borders, and high immigration, but let’s at least be rational about it.

This doesn’t follow from the premises you apparently accept. High immigration ipso facto is going to be from areas of high dysfunction to areas of low dysfunction. Another alt-right premise is that people, not Magic Dirt or “institutions” make countries, so high immigration means you are just importing There to Here–quiet, competent Danes and Swiss have no incentive to emigrate.

46 Doug June 22, 2017 at 1:17 pm

> Too late. You’re already out here with the rest of us detestables.

I’ll concede that many people self-described as or historically associated with the “alt-right” are intelligent, sensible and respectable thinkers. Even if I don’t agree with everything they say. Steve Sailer, Razib Khan, Moldbug, Nick Land, Half Sigma, Peter Frost, et al. And back before alt-right went mainstream, commenters like this were the definitely the core, even if blatant racists hung out at the periphery.

However in the past year, the alt-right has been much more typified by Richard Spencer and Stormfront trash. The problem is for everyone one person capable of maturely and intelligently considering statistical differences between human populations, there’s about 50 who are just going to break the subtitles of these ideas into naked tribal racism. James Watson can handles these ideas, the 90 IQ truck driver cannot. So, unfortunately the term “alt-right” is probably burned in respectable parlance forever.

> Another alt-right premise is that people, not Magic Dirt or “institutions” make countries

You’re setting up a straw man by blithely discarding institutions as “institutions”. There’s a reason that North Korea’s different than South Korea, and that’s “institutions”. Or why East Germany was far more dysfunctional than West. Or why the Bahamas is a pleasant first world country and Haiti is a smoldering ruin. Singapore went from a lawless third-world banana republic to the wealthiest country in the world because of institutions. Argentina went from the wealthiest country on Earth to a banana republic without any change in its population. Rhodesia, the breadbasket of the world, collapsed into Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, because its government changed, not because its people did.

> high immigration means you are just importing There to Here–quiet, competent Danes and Swiss have no incentive to emigrate.

Nearly 1 in 10 Swedish born people already live abroad. Even an advanced, developed, peaceful democracy is still going to produce a lot of natural emigrants. And even beyond not anywhere close to 100% of people in high-dysfunction areas bring that culture. A huge source of fleeing immigrants come from “market dominant minorities”, e.g. Jews, Malay Chinese, Igbos, Coptic Christians, White Africans, Parsis, German Cubans, etc. Rather than contributing to their homeland’s high dysfunction, they’re often the only people who are making things work. All of these examples make fantastic immigrants. They universally have higher cognitive capacity, better economic productivity and lower social pathologies than the median American or Western European.

47 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 1:38 pm

I mostly agree with this post, but the Bahamas are definitely not first world (still obviously better off than Haiti, because every place is). Also the change in government in Zimbabwe supports the racialists’ case.

48 Doug June 22, 2017 at 2:29 pm

Agree about Bahamas, they’re not great, and Haiti’s awful. So let’s be fair and benchmark it against Jamaica and it looks substantially better. The sole explaining reason being the disparate policies of their respective post-colonial governments.

As for Zimbabwe, don’t agree that it’s racialist. Post-revolution the demographics were basically the same, most whites didn’t flee until much later. But the point is a bad government ran a country into the ground before any major shift in population. Yes, that bad government happened to be black-run, but I don’t think that indicts all black-run governments. If Zimbabwe had been run by Paul Kagame instead of Robert Mugabe, I very much doubt it’d look anything like it does today.

49 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 3:25 pm

Yes, Zimbabwe supports the case that institutions matter.
It’s degeneration was directly caused by the government of Robert Mugabe, which expropriated land by executive fiat from white farmers and explicitly encouraged attacks against white farmers so as to drive them off their land. This wasn’t some spontaneous thing that happened due to racial differences. It was a policy explicitly pursued by the state.
Had Zimbabwe had institutions like property rights and courts that were willing to check executive power, it would be a different country.

50 Randy F McDonald June 23, 2017 at 12:18 am

Rhodesia was fighting a civil war because an immigrant minority was misruling the country badly. Independent Zimbabwe has problems, but at least it isn’t at war. (And if Rhodesia hadn’t done such a terrible job of governance, Zimbabwe might look much better.)

51 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 1:41 pm

I submit we are removing those countries’ Talented Tenths, increasing their homelands’ dysfunction and putting more pressure on the West to accept more immigration from these perpetual trainwrecks.

Fair point on the institutions, but they are built by determined, foresighted, and well-armed elites, and culture is downstream of power. Increasing democratization and diversity is eroding the institutions as they become less about their charters and more about making sure everybody feels comfortable.

Agreed that Spencer is a clown looking for a circus.

52 Doug June 22, 2017 at 2:31 pm

Fair points.

53 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 3:06 pm

The problem is for everyone one person capable of maturely and intelligently considering statistical differences between human populations, there’s about 50 who are just going to break the subtitles of these ideas into naked tribal racism.

Exactly. The alt-right has proven that white people are too stupid to handle the subtlties of race differences.

54 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 5:10 pm

“Exactly. The alt-right has proven that white people are too stupid to handle the subtlties of race differences.”

Damn that’s a racist statement.

55 Hazel Meade June 23, 2017 at 10:08 am

People hwo think that black people are intellectually inferior aren’t entitled to complain about racism.

56 JWatts June 23, 2017 at 11:59 am

“People hwo think that black people are intellectually inferior aren’t entitled to complain about racism.”

Free speech is not an entitlement and I don’t think black people are intellectually inferior. Furthermore, you’ve just made a racist statement, so whining about other people making racist statements is pretty ridiculous. You are just objecting to their form of racism.

57 Alistair June 24, 2017 at 10:10 pm

Let’s have a horrifying thought: What if the racists are correct for the wrong reasons ?

Alternatively, judge a position by its arguments, not its’ supporters.

58 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 3:04 pm

Another alt-right premise is that people, not Magic Dirt or “institutions” make countries

In other words that culture is not learned but is innate. Genetic or something.

59 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 3:18 pm

Different population groups generate different cultures based on statistical means of behavior, intelligence, time preference, and other factors, such as geography, and admittedly complex and numerous.

The Blank Slate theory of human development will be out there with phlogiston in another five to ten years.

60 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 3:27 pm

SO the Germans will always be prone to committing genocide, because of their German genes.
Maybe some people are just naturally fascist.

61 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 12:39 pm

The alt-right’s detestable, but it largely exists because PC culture has shut the door to mainstream outlets for entire classes of legitimate grievances.

Perhaps that was a partial factor, but certainly the other part was a bankruptcy of traditional conservative solutions. If you can’t govern, all you can do is be anti-left, and anti-solutionist.

62 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 12:56 pm

A good example of this is today’s AHCA. Would anyone like to come forward and argue why it is good for America? Or is it merely anti-ACA and anti-left?

63 Thomas June 22, 2017 at 2:42 pm

Would you care to argue when the AHCA is a product of alt-right thought?

64 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 3:00 pm

You are a grubby little $%^&*.

Given a chance to stand up FOR something, what do you do?

65 Thomas June 22, 2017 at 3:53 pm

“Would you care to argue when the AHCA is a product of alt-right thought?”

I meant:

“Would you care to argue why the AHCA is a product of alt-right thought?”

I don’t believe the AHCA has anything to do with the alt-right.

66 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 4:48 pm

You misunderstood the line above. It said “the other part was a bankruptcy of traditional conservative solutions.” That other part is what led to the AHCA

67 Thomas June 22, 2017 at 5:09 pm

Is your argument that AHCA is Obamacare-lite and is so because there is no conservative solution to healthcare? I agree that there is no Republican will to repeal Obamacare, but I don’t agree that there aren’t conservative “solutions” (in the same way Obamacare is a solution) to healthcare. Yes, it looks like Obamacare is the new normal. I’ll still vote Republican to prevent the next step “forward”, even if I know they aren’t willing to take a “heartless” conservative position.

68 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 3:02 pm

The digging in may be directly caused by the increasing prominence of the alt-right. When social norms (such as anti-racism) are threatened, people dig in and defend those norms, by enforcing them more strenuously.

It’s the right’s job to shut their loonies up, not the left’s, which won’t wort anyway. (Just like it’s the left’s job to shut their own loonies up, because they sure as fuck aren’t going to listen to the right).

In other words, if the right want to have a sane dialogue with the left about race issues, then it has to help enforce norms against straight up racism. Giving racists a free reign just to piss off the left is only going to make a rational dialogue less likely.

69 Thomas June 22, 2017 at 3:54 pm

“When social norms (such as anti-racism) are threatened”

The alt-right is a reaction to anti-white racism espoused and celebrated by the Democrat party.

70 The Centrist June 22, 2017 at 3:05 pm

Why is it racial? Look at middle Eastern or North African immigration to Europe. The problems are cultural! Immediate welfare, a culture of dysfunction, low skills, lack of interest in education, very few assimilation requirements, and so on.

71 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 3:49 pm

The new arrivals are low IQ and will never be capable of net tax-production.

72 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 11:39 am

Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Russia & rest of Eastern Europe and, as you mention, Japan, have a good deal of “alt-right populism.” Here’s an old clip from Macedonia:

https://youtu.be/p9fDMVVPe7U

There is probably a lot more traditionalist and “alt-right” thought in places like Europe and South America than English-dominated media tells us about.

73 collin June 22, 2017 at 11:40 am

Your article assumes Europe is the UK here and Nate Silver noted below that the nationalist candidates in Western Europe have had poor runs lately and the centerist Candidates are cleaning up. So the issues of UK and US might protect the good Center candidates in the rest of Europe.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-making-europe-liberal-again/

1) It is true the class lines are are breaking down a lot lately so we don’t know where this ends up the next decade.
2) Nationalism could backfire in the long run and Trump could self-destruct. In terms of alt right populism, in California we had Prop 187 victory in 1994 and look what happened to our state politics.
3) Trump is not governing like a populist. He is enacting the very traditional Paul Ryan policies while pretending to not to agree with it.
4) In the case of foreign policy, I still don’t understand why a US Democrats doesn’t go strong peace candidate. (I am noticing Bernie and Kaine are getting louder here but not a strong voice.) Trump military is amping up war everywhere in the Middle East with no real direction or stated goals. At this point, what is going on in Syria? And the Qatar and Saudia Arabia diplomatic bickering could have longer term consequences.

74 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 2:28 pm

“3) Trump is not governing like a populist. He is enacting the very traditional Paul Ryan policies while pretending to not to agree with it.”

That is an accurate observation. Of course, it’s impossible to tell if Trump is pretending or not.

“4) Trump military is amping up war everywhere in the Middle East with no real direction or stated goals.”

Trump hasn’t ramped up anything in the Middle East, he’s just continuing the policies of his predecessors Bush and Obama.

“In the case of foreign policy, I still don’t understand why a US Democrats doesn’t go strong peace candidate.”

Obama campaigned as a strong peace candidate, but he essentially followed along in Bush’s footsteps (or maybe the Clinton model). Despite all the rhetoric there doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference in foreign policy by different President’s over the last 30 years.

75 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 3:09 pm

“there doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference in foreign policy by different President’s over the last 30 years.”: the hell? Come on, man.

76 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 4:15 pm

That’s not a rebuttal to my point. Which President over the last 30 years has drastically changed US foreign policy? Substantially, not some tinkering at the margins?

77 Thomas June 22, 2017 at 5:10 pm

I think it’s safe to say that Obama wouldn’t have gone in to Iraq, and I’m not sure he would have gone in to Afghanistan. Maybe he would have lectured us on western evil instead?

78 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 5:18 pm

Obama did go into Syria and Libya. He stayed in Afghanistan and he withdrew from Iraq following the schedule that the Bush administration set up. The US maintained large forces in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Djibouti, Djibouti, etc.

Obama’s foreign policies were a continuation of the US status quo.

79 bob June 22, 2017 at 11:52 am

Popcorn time!

80 Jeremy June 22, 2017 at 12:01 pm

What exactly is alt right?
A) online trolls who say anything to get a reaction
B) far-right-wingers, neo-Nazis, white supremacists
C) anyone who voted for Trump
D) anyone who argues for free speech
E) conservatives, moderates and libertarians
F) all of the above, since they’re basically the same thing, am I right?

My liberal friends talk a lot about the alt-right but my conservative friends mostly haven’t heard of the term. Does that not seem odd?

81 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm

No, it sounds like willful ignorance. Did you read the wiki page and just not like it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

82 Jeremy June 22, 2017 at 1:35 pm

Did you read the link you just posted?

“The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people … The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from [many separate ideologies and interest groups] and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump … The alt-right has its roots [from internet trolls] … ”

How are monarchists related to Islamophobes? Or MRAs related to anti-immigration groups? And all of them are in the same group as neo-Nazis? How do you expect to have an intelligent (or even coherent) worldview when you’re conflating so many different things?

83 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 1:41 pm

That’s politics though. There are endless posters here talking about “leftists” and “the left” which to them is everyone to the left of Mitch McConnell (and sometimes even to his right). A lot of conflating going on there too.

84 ladderff June 22, 2017 at 2:12 pm

That’s because the left and the right are not symmetrical phenomena. The left shows a remarkable degree of coordination, including an impressive commitment to the principle of “no enemies to the left.” This is a big part of its continuing success in sucking the blood out of the world, whereas the right (the real right, not the GOP, or the cucked church, etc.) pretty much just writes blogs, which are naturally going to present a range of emphases and priorities producing a degree of internecine conflict.

There is no right-wing equivalent of the very clearly and easily identifiable global progressive consensus, which is taught the same way at every college and university in the Western world, broadcast from every news channel, and printed in every newspaper that anyone who matters subscribes to. That’s “the left,” no matter its partisans’ attempts to deny it exists. (Oh but wait: kings is a “moderate”.)

85 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 2:18 pm

What does “sucking the blood out of the world” mean?

And of course I’m a moderate, that’s my point. I’m almost right down the middle between the loony left and the loony right. But to you loony right types, everyone to the left of Paul Ryan is “the left”. Childish and partisan (but I repeat myself).

86 ladderff June 22, 2017 at 2:27 pm

Yes, you are a moderate. The meaning of this is quite simple: You move left at precisely the rate that the left dictates. You can see, maybe, why you should expect no credit from dissenters for your “moderation.”

Your confusion over this may be part of the reason you keep mentioning irrelevant persons like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.

87 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 2:33 pm

“That’s politics though. There are endless posters here talking about “leftists” and “the left” which to them is everyone to the left of Mitch McConnell (and sometimes even to his right). A lot of conflating going on there too.”

The difference is that the left self identifies as “Left”. If I said Nathan (or whatever handle he’s using lately) is a Lefty, he’s not going to object to being considered as Left-wing. On the other hand, very few on the Right, self identify as “alt-right”.

Calling the Right the “alt-right” is akin to calling the “Left” communists.

88 prior_test2 June 22, 2017 at 2:43 pm

‘The difference is that the left self identifies as “Left”.’

If you say so, but a lot of commenters here seem to see the left comprising anyone who disagrees with them. Not only regardless of the reason for that disagreement, but without seemingly understanding that the world does not fit into their left/right framework.

89 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 2:57 pm

@JWatts: Not everyone on “the left” are communists obviously, and not everyone on “the right” is alt-right. But some are communists and some are alt right. I’m not sure what we are arguing about here. The “alt right” label is not applied to everyone on “the right”, but it does encompass a fairly diverse set of beliefs. What they have in common is that they are opposed to “the left”, and they are different (ALTernative to) from “the right”.

90 Thor June 22, 2017 at 3:11 pm

The Left has an actual, existing, growing base, which cannot be said of any group on the Right. The campus is its bastion. What does the Right have? Some blogs, some shock jocks and radio?

The old Right, call it the Mitt Romney or Bush Right, could be found in country clubs, and Chambers of Commerce etc. Or even Wall Street, broadly construed. Where is the older GOP right now? It’s bastions. Gone?

91 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 3:15 pm

@Thor: the traditional Right is exactly in the same place you just said: Wall Street, country clubs, the Chamber of Commerce, most of the GOP. They’re still there, they are just getting outshouted by the alts. The Right is changing for sure. The Left is too.

92 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 4:24 pm

“@msgkings: Not everyone on “the left” are communists obviously, and not everyone on “the right” is alt-right. But some are communists and some are alt right. I’m not sure what we are arguing about here. The “alt right” label is not applied to everyone on “the right”, but it does encompass a fairly diverse set of beliefs. What they have in common is that they are opposed to “the left”, and they are different (ALTernative to) from “the right”.”

I agree with what you are saying.

What I was arguing about was the conflation of the “alt-right” and the Right in general. It’s clear that you don’t conflate the two.

93 Ricardo June 23, 2017 at 2:26 am

“The old Right, call it the Mitt Romney or Bush Right, could be found in country clubs, and Chambers of Commerce etc. Or even Wall Street, broadly construed. Where is the older GOP right now? It’s bastions. Gone?”

If you are the sort of person to ever complain about or refer to “Establishment Republicans,” that’s an implicit acknowledgement that there are indeed elites in the political and business worlds pushing a conservative agenda. There is still the ecosystem of think tanks, wealthy donors, lobbyists, scores of op-ed authors, talking heads, and bloggers pushing out the same set of talking points. One might include evangelical leaders as well.

94 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 1:49 pm

Is this surprising? Leaving aside what criticisms are thrown at “the left” or “the right,” we have a two-party system. Moderate, sane, people, as well as every nut imaginable have to decide how to sort themselves, Democrat or Republican. So Democrats get a certain sort of nut (Evergreen College) and Republicans get another (Bundy Ranch).

Now, the interesting thing about the alt-right nutters is that they have gotten into the Whitehouse, in the body of Steve Bannon.

Or maybe a better example is Michael Anton. He’s the guy who wrote the batshit “Flight 93 Election” essay. And where did he end up? As one of Trump’s national security advisers.

95 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 1:58 pm

That was an excellent essay written by an intelligent, educated individual. Which parts did you think were “batshit?”

96 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 2:10 pm

America is getting better by most measures. It was batshit to call a long term trend to greater wealth, longer life, and lower crime “certain death.”

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-us-is-richer-than-ever.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2016/12/life_expectancy_is_still_increasing.html

https://pimaliberator.com/murder-clearance-rates/

It was a childish rant calling election results you don’t like “certain death” instead.

97 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 2:11 pm

Mainly the part about the destruction of America if we don’t elect someone like Trump. Batshit.

98 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 2:36 pm

“Mainly the part about the destruction of America if we don’t elect someone like Trump. Batshit.”

I would assume that a moderate would then conclude that all those prominent politicians and media people clamoring that Trump is leading us to the destruction of America are Batshit crazy, also?

99 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 2:37 pm

I think a fair case was made that Hillary Clinton would have stood down on practically all immigration enforcement and packed SCOTUS with Bolsheviks carving “hate speech” and “assault weapons” out of the Bill of Rights.

100 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 3:00 pm

@JWatts: absolutely correct. I despise hysterical partisanship and that includes both sides. Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Bush DS, Obama DS, Trump DS, it’s all stupid. I don’t like Trump at all but I’m not the least bit worried he will “destroy America”. He’s a terrible president, but he’s far from the first.

101 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 3:09 pm

Nothing like lowering the bar. If a terrible President won’t “destroy America” then terrible Presidents are fine, and all we should aspire to.

Hell, a President and a Secretary of State who publicly negate each other on a diplomatic crisis are just fine.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-fine

102 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 3:11 pm

BTW, to anyone who said “ignore the twitter,” note that Whitehouse press briefings are being reduced or canceled, and it will now be all twitter, all the time.

103 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Oh here’s the board hysteric now. Anonymous, when did I say terrible presidents are fine and all we should aspire to? Let’s see if your narcissism will break just enough for you to realize…it’s not always about how you personally choose to feel about things.

104 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 3:15 pm

That is your particular problem, msgkings.

You think that any anonymous commentator who disagrees with your sanguine view of events does so for “narcissism.” You are the “this is fine” dog.

105 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 3:20 pm
106 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 3:24 pm

“White House Warns Reporters Not to Report on Instructions About Not Reporting on Today’s Press Conference”

This is fine.

107 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 3:46 pm

Keep clutching them pearls, Anonymous.

108 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 4:43 pm

You have to say empty things like “pearl clutching,” because you have no sensible position. You want to say you are anti-Trump, and you want to be anti-anti-Trump at the same time.

This is mathematically impossible. So flail, attack, whatever.

The sad thing is many Americans have painted themselves into the same corner, usually by tribal affiliation. They cannot stand for the things Trump actually does, like the dumpster fire that is Qatar diplomacy, and so they just attack people who talk about the dumpster fire of Qatar diplomacy. It is a way to say “this is fine” without coming out and making any positive argument that “this is great!”

Reference: State Department distances itself from Trump, creating an alternate U.S. foreign policy

109 Thomas June 22, 2017 at 5:11 pm

“note that Whitehouse press briefings are being reduced or canceled”

DNC operatives/journalists aren’t getting to harass Sean Spicey so often? Oh, no!

110 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 5:19 pm

I guess it is not surprising that Thomas would pop in to say journalists are enemies of the democracy. Let’s see if msgkings can find a way to thread the needle. Can he not agree with Thomas while claiming that my belief in a free press is overwrought?

111 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 5:22 pm

“@Anonymous: You want to say you are anti-Trump, and you want to be anti-anti-Trump at the same time.”

msgkings, I think Anonymous is telling you that “Either you are with us, or you are with the Trumpists”.

112 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 5:43 pm

I certainly see a difference between principled people of various stripes, and Trumpists.

I just don’t think principled people engage in quasi defense of Trump or his circus.

113 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 5:54 pm

@Anonymous: “I just don’t think principled people engage in quasi defense of Trump or his circus.”

Me neither, I’m glad you think I’m principled although I obviously don’t care much one way or another what your anonymous set of pixels thinks of me.

114 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 5:57 pm

@Anonymous again: basically we agree that Trump is a shitshow, but you have a problem with me because I’m not as strident as you about it. That’s your issue not mine.

115 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 5:59 pm

But it is funny how everyone is running from the big picture. No one, other than me, wants to say regular Whitehouse press conferences are good, or government transparency is good. Because to say those things are good is to imply that something might be trending the wrong way. And as you all want to remind me:

“This is fine.”

116 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 6:05 pm

No one else wants to say “It is really better if a President can coordinate with and manage his State Department for the national interest.” Because to say that implies that something is not good and

“This is fine.”

117 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 6:06 pm

OK I’ll say it. Regular White House press conferences are good, and government transparency is good. We agree! OK now what do I need to do?

118 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 6:08 pm

Also, it cracks me up how often you post some variation of “no one, other than me…” and still fail to see your own narcissism. But then I remember that’s a hallmark of the condition, not recognizing it in yourself. Didn’t your buddy Trump once say “I alone can fix it”?

119 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm

That acknowledgement of rational concern is actually enough.

120 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 6:13 pm

In terms of “only me,” just read this thread again. Getting anyone to acknowledge Trump’s errors and danger takes some tooth pulling. It always starts with some bs like “narcissism” or “partisanship” and has to be nailed down in terms.

And then what, you forget immediately where you stand on the welfare of the nation just to be a troll again?

121 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 6:20 pm

Some more national diplomacy hot off the twitter:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/878013639613186049

You have three choices: You may agree with the policy. You may disagree with the policy. You may call me “hysterical” and ignore the content completely.

122 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 6:22 pm

What you miss, as always, is that many of us agree with you about Trump’s errors, but apparently you aren’t satisfied until we say “I agree”. And then “that acknowledgement of rational concern is actually enough.” So I guess we’re done here?

123 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 6:24 pm

Until the next time you want it both ways, that Trump is terrible, but concern about him is hysterical.

Or to put it another way, the next time you demand that Trump concern be calibrated to your level alone, and to no one else’s.

124 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 6:26 pm

“You have three choices: You may agree with the policy. You may disagree with the policy. You may call me “hysterical” and ignore the content completely.”

Actually we have many more choices, including combining parts of those offered. Personally I choose #2, and #3a (calling you hysterical), and change #3b to “adding the content to the already huge list of examples of Trump’s awfulness”

125 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 6:27 pm

“Or to put it another way, the next time you demand that Trump concern be calibrated to your level alone, and to no one else’s.”

Um, aren’t you making the exact same demand here?

126 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 6:28 pm

Right, because only msgkings understands Trump and only he may set the level of concern … anyone else who tries is a … narcissist?

That doesn’t really sound right.

127 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 6:29 pm

“Um, aren’t you making the exact same demand here?”

No, you stupid ass. I say my level of concern any you call it names like the sick little troll you are.

You reduce commentary to your level.

128 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 6:32 pm

OK Anonymous you are getting upset, so I’ll let you have the last word. But I just don’t have the same level of concern as you do about the Clown in Chief, and that does not make me a troll. It does make you an hysteric if you get so upset with those of us who don’t see it your way.

129 Anonymous June 22, 2017 at 6:39 pm

The funny thing is Trump has so overshot my old “hysterical” projections. This is much, much, worse. I would not have dreamed that the State Department would have to go AWOL to handle a crisis. Nor would I have dreamed that the Whitehouse would use press blackouts for political purposes. National security maybe, but not to protect ratings. Not to mention rumblings of war.

Perhaps some of you can point back to where you predicted this, and set the base line six months ago, this as the definition of “fine.”

130 Ricardo June 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm

How old are these conservative friends? I think of the “alt-right” being a phenomenon of younger conservatives who think they are being edgy and contrarian (or, as in A), a bit trollish) by playing upon white nationalist or racist themes while also demonstrating little or no interest in religion. That said, this tendency has always existed on the right but was merely relegated to the fringes.

Here is an article from Breitbart published in March 2016, several months before the phenomenon started receiving much coverage in the mainstream media: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

131 8 June 23, 2017 at 3:20 pm

Your conservative friends are probably cuckservatives.

132 Thiago Ribeiro June 22, 2017 at 12:05 pm

Yes. An impoverished and desperate populace tends to try radical gamblings, be they the Bolsheviks or the Nazis.
British-American political traditions make almost impossible the success of a Bolshevik-like movement, so a Nazi-like movement becomes the sole expression of radical protest and dissatisfaction. Radical ethnocentrism is the future of England and the United States. In a few years, both the Magna Carta and the Constitution will have been thrown at the dustbin of history.

133 August Hurtel June 22, 2017 at 12:07 pm

This is a worldwide phenomenon. Not only are there plenty of Europeans on board there are the people who refer to the 白左, or white left. And I am sure, as much as it has spread on the internet in China, it has likely spread elsewhere as well. The kanji mean the same thing in Japan after all.

And, rather obviously, there’s Russia.

134 rayward June 22, 2017 at 12:24 pm

In Europe, populism is a euphemism for anti somebody, usually Jews or foreigners. In America, a nation of immigrants, you’d have to be anti everybody. Instead, populism in America is a euphemism for ignorance. H.L. Mencken: “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

135 Todd June 22, 2017 at 12:27 pm

“In America, a nation of immigrants, you’d have to be anti everybody”

looks like they are giving it a try

136 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 12:54 pm

At any point can a “nation of immigrants” become a nation of natives? Or is there some categorical imperative by which we must continually seek out ever more exotic people to import in service to this “nation of immigrants” mantra?

The country was 88% Anglo-European descent and 11% African descent as recently as 1970, at which point the percentage of Anglo-Europeans began dropping to the current 64%, all in service to this “nation of immigrants” Ellis Island-schmaltz. I don’t see how this ends well.

137 Thomas June 22, 2017 at 12:55 pm

Rayward is almost a caricature. Wealthy, white, lives in a protected enclave, immune to his preferred policies. Driven by hatred for the victims of his preferred policies, and projects his hatred on to his victims.

138 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 1:01 pm

That’s probably two-thirds of MR commenters.

I don’t know about Tyler, but Bryan Caplan lives in a neighborhood with a $500K entry fee.

139 Hazel Meade June 22, 2017 at 3:30 pm

If by “entry fee” you mean “cost of buying a home” , that’s pretty typical for Northern Virginia.

140 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 3:51 pm

Prices discriminate so we don’t have to.

141 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 3:58 pm

I guess the A-G wants all home prices to be the same in his approved countries of Whitenia, Blackistan, Hispania, and Westasia.

142 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 4:27 pm

The question of why houses in white/Asian school districts cost more has eluded the greatest economic minds in academe. Of course, their wives figured it out a long time ago.

143 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 5:58 pm

Again, A-G, I recognize your point. So will different housing prices be allowed in the Whites only country you advocate for? Don’t want price discrimination once we get the races separated again, right?

144 Thomas Taylor June 22, 2017 at 1:14 pm

“Driven by hatred for the victims of his preferred policies, and projects his hatred on to his victims.”
It is funy how the far-right keeps betting in the self-victimization while it keeps preying on innocent people.

145 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 1:45 pm

Yeah Thomas is a whiny bugger.

146 The Anti-Gnostic June 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm

“while it keeps preying on innocent people.”

What the hell are you talking about? The alt-right pyramid marketing scams? The alt-right lynchings? Making Ossoff supporters cry?

147 Thomas June 22, 2017 at 3:00 pm

Preying on the sick and those possessing female genitalia by not forcing others to pay for their accupuncture. Preying on Mexican citizens by not permitting them to enter this country at taxpayer expense. Preying on minorities by not further legislating a white tax.

He might state it another way, but I guarantee that Thomas Taylor believes at least one of these things is victimization. Of course, the left is fundamentally the result of a failure to understand the difference between action and inaction, force and the absence of force. Just listen to Chomsky and you’ll find out that the left is broadly a group of people who share a belief that collateral damage is equivalent to intentional terrorism.

148 Thomas Taylor June 22, 2017 at 5:51 pm

“Preying on minorities by not further legislating a white tax.”
Yep, the white tax. As real as #whitegenocide
Oh, teenagers, their MTV, their videogames and their hashtags
“Just listen to Chomsky and you’ll find out that the left is broadly a group of people who share a belief that collateral damage is equivalent to intentional terrorism.”
Yep, “we” didn’t have any intention of messing Iraq (even as the then-president lied again and again to get his war) or Afghanistan.

149 Thomas June 23, 2017 at 8:00 pm

He proves my point! 🙂

I am surprised that he is disavowing TNC, BLM, and any other actor calling for reparations.

150 Thor June 22, 2017 at 3:17 pm

I only object to his incoherent writing. He’s like Mulp but with run-on sentences. I’m practically his friend.

151 Viking1 June 22, 2017 at 5:13 pm

I allays thought “populism” was a euphemism for “the outcome of democracy was not what I wanted”.

152 Miguel Madeira June 22, 2017 at 12:45 pm

If anything, I think the alt-right has more force in mainland Europe than in US; the election of Trump was simply a peculiarity of the US political system: a) the bipartidism means that the alt-right and the classical right are in the same party (unlike the FN and the Republicans in France, the FPO and the OVP in Austria, the People’s Party and the Liberal Party in Denmark, etc. – and in all these cases, the alt-right had more votes than the classical right in some recent election, like Trump had more votes than Cruz in the primaries), facilitating the transfer of votes in the “last round”; and b) the electoral college

153 Butler T. Reynolds June 22, 2017 at 12:48 pm

Trump and Brexit may well have caused the rest of Europe to reconsider and put populist nationalism on hold. However, referring to the professional bureaucracies in these European countries as liberal doesn’t feel right. A less open and less dynamic administrative state does not sound liberal to me, however more desirable to nationalism it may be.

154 Tanturn June 22, 2017 at 2:13 pm

When economists and Brits usedthe word “liberal,” they used to mean classical liberalism. Now they just mean Leftism, using it in the sane way Americans use it.

155 steve June 22, 2017 at 1:51 pm
156 Adam June 22, 2017 at 2:38 pm

Among the most financialized economies – after a financial crisis. Among the weaker social safety nets.

Hm. Seems like those might have more to do with it than “openness.”

Also, I don’t think it’s at all historically accurate to view the current brand of “populism” as something new. One could argue that Europe’s already had it’s dalliance with ethnonationalism and is resisting this round out of experience.

157 dearieme June 22, 2017 at 3:10 pm

“As for Britain, the traditional aristocracy is remarkably weakened”: compared to when? It’s been pretty small beer since the budget crisis of 1909/10 and the Parliament Act of 1911. Do keep up, Cowen.

158 M June 22, 2017 at 5:02 pm

Odd article.

Brexit is not particularly of alt-right populism. It’s well within the mainstream of Conservative politics and skepticism of high modernist utopianism. Cowan himself has posts perhaps not over two years ago mooting that the break up the European Union would be a positive thing.

Trump’s win is also not particularly of alt-right populism. Trump’s core vote was quite simply Republican voters who did not want Hilary Clinton and who were willing to stomach him rather than her, and he finagled his way into position as the Republican nominee using a split field of weak candidates.

The actual size of alt-right populist parties and group is not actually clearly larger in the Anglo world than in among European nations.

The differences here are purely functions of the ability of the electoral system and clever political players to put anti-globalist options on the table, and put the electorate in a situation of stark choice: Trump vs Clinton, Brexit vs the future United States of Europe. In these situations, the mainline, not unpatriotic Anglo electorate has simply naturally plumped for the less repellent choice.

159 JWatts June 22, 2017 at 5:24 pm

+1, good analysis

160 msgkings June 22, 2017 at 6:03 pm

Agreed, I’m amused by the anti-Brexit hysteria. What’s wrong with seeing how it plays out? The markets sure don’t see a Brexit-fueled Armageddon on the way.

161 Heh June 22, 2017 at 9:49 pm

+1

162 Rafael R June 23, 2017 at 7:02 pm

Trump is a typical populist, similar to Peron and Vargas. You can that an innovation? Provides evidence the Anglo-Saxon countries have innovative politics? Really?

The US ceased to produce innovation in politics after the 18th century. They have just followed the rest of the world for the last 200 years: Lincon was trying to hold the union together, essentially transforming the US into a centralized State like the European states. Then the US abolished slavery only decades after all the other Western countries did. In the 20th century, progressives were moving in the direction of continental European welfare measures, same with FDR was just partially mimicking European welfare states policies with the New Deal. Today there are 2 parties in the US: the democrats want to import more European welfare state while the Republicans wish to go back to the 19th century. And just recently the US came up with a Latin American style populist/chauvinist 70 years after the originals.

I don’t see any innovation here.

163 The Anti-Gnostic June 24, 2017 at 12:37 pm

Trump is a departure but like most men he is rooted in his virile past, so we see a lot of “great power conservatism” from the 1980’s when he made his bones. Whoever follows Trump will be a bigger departure. After that things will start getting really innovative as the US transitions to a majority-minority State with nuclear weapons.

Where do you get your political analysis from–National Review, NY Times, Vox, Mother Jones? Maybe you should range more freely.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: