Finland votes: Social Democrats take the win as Finns Party (far-right) support collapses
-
The trump effect worldwide.
The Screw Trump effect worldwide
-
Under the Far Right government in Finland, homelessness increased.
Now, maybe Finland can get back to having real public options available for housing without asking if anyone 'deserves' to have a roof over their heads.
The Far Right, no matter the country, always succeed in turning everything good about civilization into shit exclusively for themselves. If we ever have another national election in the United States, I don't think the Far Right fascists will be able to win anything.
(and that, admittedly, is an incredibly hopeful view)
It's almost like everything all the time always gets worse under any type of far right governance.
And yet people keep falling for it.
-
I still somewhat struggle to explain to myself why he won.
I've considered it being a protest vote, not one with a clear goal or particular signal in mind, but just as a F you to whomever was in power, but that doesn't explain why people worship him.
I've considered it being a result of conspiracy theories and his ability to use those to his advantage by occasionally partial recognizing them and playing along with the story, but that doesn't explain why over half the country would vote for him.
I've considered it being a consequence of Moscow trying to destabilize the US by supporting a candidate that is easily bought or manipulated. Although there definitely has been some interference, believing it to be effective to an extent of swaying the elections seems almost like wishful thinking at this point.
I'm still not entirely sure what it was.
Maybe you're right and it's really that simple.It could be a bit of them all; his base isn't large enough on its own but, together with those who wanted to protest vote and those looking for relief from the economy and those who hated the idea of voting for a black woman, they may've all been enough to get him over the finish line.
-
I still somewhat struggle to explain to myself why he won.
I've considered it being a protest vote, not one with a clear goal or particular signal in mind, but just as a F you to whomever was in power, but that doesn't explain why people worship him.
I've considered it being a result of conspiracy theories and his ability to use those to his advantage by occasionally partial recognizing them and playing along with the story, but that doesn't explain why over half the country would vote for him.
I've considered it being a consequence of Moscow trying to destabilize the US by supporting a candidate that is easily bought or manipulated. Although there definitely has been some interference, believing it to be effective to an extent of swaying the elections seems almost like wishful thinking at this point.
I'm still not entirely sure what it was.
Maybe you're right and it's really that simple.There's also that Biden basically sabotaged the democrat campaign by stepping down only at the last minute, and then proceeding to pressure Kamala to not distance her campaign from the Biden campaign
-
It's almost like everything all the time always gets worse under any type of far right governance.
And yet people keep falling for it.
Unburdened by any attachment to reality, they can paint a very appealing rhetorical picture.
Fascism did really well the last time around until Hitler got to do stuff, too.
-
Trump has won again, despite how he acted last time.
He did weirdly less than he could have in his first term. Most Americans did not directly suffer the way they and the rest of the world are now.
It's also a two-party system, so it's not super easy just to vote out one ideology.
-
Trump's base used to be the democrat base. Blue collar workers getting screwed by corporations. Democrats are polling so low because their actions led to this group being overlooked.
Even being lied to feels good after you've been taken for granted / ignored. At least you feel seen.
maybe you should consider why. its not because people miss cheney or care about the border. but running candidates like 'nothing will change' and 'I cant think of anything different i'd do' might not be a good strategy.
-
I still somewhat struggle to explain to myself why he won.
I've considered it being a protest vote, not one with a clear goal or particular signal in mind, but just as a F you to whomever was in power, but that doesn't explain why people worship him.
I've considered it being a result of conspiracy theories and his ability to use those to his advantage by occasionally partial recognizing them and playing along with the story, but that doesn't explain why over half the country would vote for him.
I've considered it being a consequence of Moscow trying to destabilize the US by supporting a candidate that is easily bought or manipulated. Although there definitely has been some interference, believing it to be effective to an extent of swaying the elections seems almost like wishful thinking at this point.
I'm still not entirely sure what it was.
Maybe you're right and it's really that simple.those are a bunch of rationalizations. working americans have been pissed for decades and things have not improved. its why everything is going to go tits up for the rest of the decade.
-
Unburdened by any attachment to reality, they can paint a very appealing rhetorical picture.
Fascism did really well the last time around until Hitler got to do stuff, too.
I don't get it, why can't people around the world vote in left wing anti-establishment parties when the status quo gets frustrating?
Are the radical left really that unsexy and boring?
-
I don't get it, why can't people around the world vote in left wing anti-establishment parties when the status quo gets frustrating?
Are the radical left really that unsexy and boring?
"for the people" is hard and requires work to solve some very tough problems that were put in our system many many years ago, that requires people to work to better the lives of others without seeing immidiate betterment themselves.
"fuck those other people" is a very very easy solution to a problem I may or may not have just made up.
-
I don't get it, why can't people around the world vote in left wing anti-establishment parties when the status quo gets frustrating?
Are the radical left really that unsexy and boring?
The message "we could all share and the owner class might willingly transition to more circular/community-managed economies!" is not as sexy as "we'll get
yoursforfrom you, 'cause we're the best and we know you deserve to feel special!"people like the easy way out when both options sound plausible but one sounds like it probably has less steps and therefore might be easier to achieve (???)
who can really know where mental gymnastics are learned. surely they develop slowly over time, like any type of flexibility...
-
In Germany there's a word for the strategy you're proposing: in der Regierung "entzaubern" - "demystifying" them in government.
As someone has said, the Nazis were lifted into a coalition government which was the last step before their takeover of the country. I agree that this was bad, but it's a bit simple to compare this to the current situation.
A better comparison is Austria. Austria did exactly what you proposed - the establishment conservatives went into coalition with the extremist right, and after one election, they were able to ditch them. Cool. But the effect of this was permanently legitimizing the right. In the last election the FPÖ, a party founded by actual old nazis, won a plurality of votes. It took a grand coalition of three parties to keep them out of government.
What else is there to do? In Germany and Austria, the right is much more extreme than in Finland. Germany is also a lynchpin in european politics, which the right wants to destroy. In Finland, even the right is anti-russia. In Germany, it's the conservatives who traditionally dominate. When they compete with the extremist right, they're not on the other side of the political spectrum, just a little to the center. In Finland, when the social democrats point out the mistakes of the right, they're more believable and persuasive, because they're actually markedly different from the party they're criticizing.
There is another way to combat the right. When the center holds, and is able to agree on certain principles, they can "quarantine" the right. If they don't, they'll be unable to compete with other democratic parties, and have to compete only with the right. If they do quarantine, they can ignore the right, while focusing on their actual bread-and-butter issues while avoiding being pulled into a bullshit spiral. This is the current strategy of the german democratic parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, Linke). It remains to be seen if the strategy will survive the next four years. If it doesn't, I prophesy dark trouble for germany.
The Austrians did elect the FPO back. Did they forget about their incompetency?
I think something more is at play here. Maybe tiktok? Russian interference? Not sure.
I also think it may be because the root problem is not being solved. Late stage capitalism - housing crisis, unemployment and such.
The far right point to immigrants and blames them for it, but the establishment parties also do very little, too late, to solve the issues well either. Then the election cycle comes and people want a reset. A vicious cycle.
I feel like this calls for radical shift in how society operates, doesn't it (just openly balling)?
I am not saying communist revolution. But I also think we've spent too much time kissing rich asses in the name of "we are benefiting from this, keep doing it". Now that economies don't grow as fast anymore, the "trickle down" effect isn't working and people are getting poorer and angrier.
The rich don't care as long as they can make short term profit, so they keep supporting whoever will help them with that.
There needs to be a change. Or at least the greens, the left need to get some balls, strong leaders and implement some kind of FDResque or clement atleesque policies.
This was a weird rant...
-
The message "we could all share and the owner class might willingly transition to more circular/community-managed economies!" is not as sexy as "we'll get
yoursforfrom you, 'cause we're the best and we know you deserve to feel special!"people like the easy way out when both options sound plausible but one sounds like it probably has less steps and therefore might be easier to achieve (???)
who can really know where mental gymnastics are learned. surely they develop slowly over time, like any type of flexibility...
Hear me out.
Even left radicalism is kind of about - "Fuck those people" thinking. Instead of immigrants it's the rich.
I want to know why this doesn't seem as appealing as "I hate brown/muslim/black/even more than me poor people".
I think it's because of propoganda. The rich can pay for expensive ads and redirect anger. The facist target of the day can't do this.
-
The Austrians did elect the FPO back. Did they forget about their incompetency?
I think something more is at play here. Maybe tiktok? Russian interference? Not sure.
I also think it may be because the root problem is not being solved. Late stage capitalism - housing crisis, unemployment and such.
The far right point to immigrants and blames them for it, but the establishment parties also do very little, too late, to solve the issues well either. Then the election cycle comes and people want a reset. A vicious cycle.
I feel like this calls for radical shift in how society operates, doesn't it (just openly balling)?
I am not saying communist revolution. But I also think we've spent too much time kissing rich asses in the name of "we are benefiting from this, keep doing it". Now that economies don't grow as fast anymore, the "trickle down" effect isn't working and people are getting poorer and angrier.
The rich don't care as long as they can make short term profit, so they keep supporting whoever will help them with that.
There needs to be a change. Or at least the greens, the left need to get some balls, strong leaders and implement some kind of FDResque or clement atleesque policies.
This was a weird rant...
all i can say is i agree
-
"for the people" is hard and requires work to solve some very tough problems that were put in our system many many years ago, that requires people to work to better the lives of others without seeing immidiate betterment themselves.
"fuck those other people" is a very very easy solution to a problem I may or may not have just made up.
Honestly, I feel like the far left skips over the hard and complicated far too much as well, although that's not why they're polling behind.
-
I don't get it, why can't people around the world vote in left wing anti-establishment parties when the status quo gets frustrating?
Are the radical left really that unsexy and boring?
Yeah. Once upon a time both were feared as massive threats to the established order, which was then still pretty empire-y. Now, there's broad consensus that actually Africans are people too and that it's good when there's social mobility. You'd expect classlessness and international siblinghood to be easier to sell, but apparently not so.
Maybe it's just the memory of the Cold War? Young people go left just as much as right everywhere that I've heard of. On this side of the Atlantic there's also very little youth support for the far right, although it's demographically evenly distributed in western Europe.
Is the message “for the people” not as sexy as “kill those who don’t look like us?”
I'm really not good at the sales part, but I think if you want to hit the monkey brain you go for "eat the rich".
