Populism, Nationalism and Globalisation: The New Far Right?

[pampango]

Populism is defined as a political doctrine that represents the interests of ordinary people, especially in a struggle against a privileged elite. It is a potent political catalyst harnessed by leaders to increase their circles of influence by channeling the broad support of a society’s population, often by blurring people’s perceptions of their own interests with the interests of the nation-state they identify with. This fusion of populism and nationalism is behind the creation of many contemporary far right movements in Europe, in East Asia, and in the United States.

Europe’s right-wing extremism problem was hauled out of the shadows by Anders Behring Breivik’s shocking attack in July 2011 which killed 77 people. While many government agencies still hide behind the “lone wolves” theory, a 2012 Europol report concludes that the “threat of violent right-wing extremism has reached new levels in Europe and should not be underestimated”. Another report by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in the Hague adds that least 249 have been killed in far-right violence in Europe since 1990, compared with 263 victims of jihadist extremism.

Europe’s far right parties have made significant election gains in the last few years. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Front won 18% of first round votes in the presidential election this year, Greece’s Golden Dawn party won parliamentary seats for the first time, and Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party was third largest in the Netherlands until this month’s election. These parties exist Europe-wide and spout localised variations of rhetoric that is anti-immigration, eurosceptic and islamophobic.

Populism and nationalism can lead to inflammatory social consequences even if introduced apart from each other. In tandem, they can cause major disturbances within a country’s political and social sphere. Furthermore, there are suggestions that the global financial crisis has aggravated Europe’s xenophobic tendencies ... The questions that need to be asked are whether widely-accepted government rhetoric about the failure of multiculturalism has created a favorable environment for nationalism and right-wing extremism, and also whether xenophobia is a tragic element of modern global society and a problem more fundamental than the current economic downturn.

http://www.fairobserver.com/360theme/populism-nationalism-and-globalisation-%E2%80%93-new-far-right

While many of us suspected this, I had never seen the report showing that there really were almost as many deaths from right-wing violence from Islamic terrorists. That does not seem to change the focus of most national security systems.

One question the article raises: Can populism and nationalism go together without xenophobia? On the right - probably not. On the left?

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[Zalatix]

2. Remember that Pew poll you kept posting? Yeah, Pew has recently shown its true, biased colors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021496747

Globalization is being opposed across the spectrum. What you're looking at is not, at its core, xenophobia - it's called OUR COUNTRY'S WORKERS ARE PEOPLE, TOO.

Remember that.

[theKed]

3. The article's real question

(at leasr from the excerpt) ought to be "can nationalism exist without xenophobia?"

Let me explain. At the very top, it defines Populism, a definition devoid of left/right ideology. Populism/Elitism is a seperate axis than Liberalism/Conservatism, itself split between social and fiscal indexes. Nationalism is a form of Social Conservatism - the "Us and Them" ideology taken to its limit. In certain circumstances Fiscal Liberalism and Social Conservatism can coexist: the German National Socialist party ("Nazis&quot , though Fiscal and Social Conservatism tend to go hand in hand, likewise Fiscal/Social Liberalism.

So, *can* Nationalism exist without Xenophobia? Not really. It's an inherently exclusionary ideology, defining "Us" as everyone belonging to the nation and "Them" as anyone else. Its possible to have a broad enough sense of nationality to include more than one ethnicity, though this arrangement is necessarily unstable; without a prominent outside element to unify the diverse peoples of a nation, the groups within will begin to split and go against each other. In any event, there is always an "Us" and a "Them".

The third axis is Fiscal Liberalism/Conservatism. Popularly this is seen as Communism vs Capitalism, with Socialism being somewhere on the left side of that spectrum. For the sake of clarity, I'll use Communist/Capitalist for fiscal descriptors, Liberal/Conservative for social, and Elitist/Populist.

I'm getting off on a bit of a rant, here, so I'll cut short.

[Zalatix]

4. By that definition how is ANY nation with borders not inherently "nationalist"?

If you really want to put an end to nationalism, which you define as "us vs them", you ultimately have to open your borders and get rid of such concepts as immigration.

Captain Picard might go for that but even the European Union doesn't open their borders to people outside the EU.

As long as globalization solely exists to impoverish Peter to enrich Paul, Peter's family will fight for their interests. Anything else is suicide. People can complain about that and call it xenophobia but it is the fundamental law of nature. Fight for your interests or die, there's no universe beyond that.

[HiPointDem]

5. i think their way of analysing what's happening is dumb.

"As social mobility increases, nationalism and right-wing extremist groups worldwide are gaining popular support."

What? "Social mobility" is increasing? And that's creating nationalism? Where is that happening? In large swaths of the world, social mobility is *decreasing*, and that's where we're seeing the right-wing extremism -- e.g. greece.

"Populism is defined as a political doctrine that represents the interests of ordinary people, especially in a struggle against a privileged elite."

What? How is 'populism' then different from socialism, communism, democracy, etc? Definition is pretty meaningless.

It is a potent political catalyst harnessed by leaders to increase their circles of influence by channeling the broad support of a society’s population, often by blurring people’s perceptions of their own interests with the interests of the nation-state they identify with.

What? Populism, which supposedly represents the interests of ordinary people, is harnessed by leaders to increase their power and commingled with nationalism? I think they've said it in this opaque & rather vague way because they can't say it straight: Right-wing 'populism' is sponsored by capitalists in periods of capitalist crisis. One of its aims is to divert people from attacking capital by getting them to see sacrificial scapegoats as the cause for social ills.

populism is kind of a bullshit word, because it can mean both a politics that actually represents the interests of the masses & a politics used by elites to control the masses. May as well just call things by their true names: socialism and fascism.

"The questions that need to be asked are whether widely-accepted government rhetoric about the failure of multiculturalism has created a favorable environment for nationalism and right-wing extremism, and also whether xenophobia is a tragic element of modern global society and a problem more fundamental than the current economic downturn."

No, that's not the question at all. It's a diversion from the real questions, and it's bullshit. Xenophobia is obviously *not* a necessary (yet sorrowfully, 'tragic') element of 'global society' (& when was society not 'global' in terms of trade, migration, intermingling, etc?). Xenophobia is created, often artificially, in situations of resource competition.

For example, bringing in a quarter-million people on work visas every year in an environment of 10% unemployment increases competition for jobs and reduces wages -- and is a good way to *create* xenophobia -- whereas bringing in the same people in an expanding economy doesn't.

For example, pointing the finger at evil japanese auto manufacturers when you're laying off auto workers is a good way to *create* xenophobia -- while diverting people's attention from the folks in power who set up the artificial 'competiton' in the first place -- as a tool to control wages, as a way of exporting capital to more profitable venues, etc.