The Unwavering Alt-Right is Wavering
A broad, yet profound analysis on the recent resurgence of the more extreme right and its lack of strength to follow through with its promises.
A phantom wave of nationalism surprised the West in June of 2016, when the UK voted to leave the EU with a vote of 51.9%. A victory by a small margin, but a victory nonetheless that no one was ready for. It was completely unexpected. David Cameron, the Prime-Minister at the time, resigned shortly after and left the wheel of a country that had just lost sight of its tracks.
Months after the referendum, it was, yet again, time for another Anglo-Saxon country to stagger the world. As a child going overboard, envious of the attention his father was getting, it was the presidential elections of the United States that made the front page of every mainstream news media. Donald Trump, for the republicans, won over the democrat Hillary Clinton.
In the space of less than six months, the world was turned upside down. Movements that before were shunned, suddenly started feeling more comfortable and hopeful while the sun was still up. A long forgotten, locked-up rhetoric has made its return after more than 70 years. Under the fear of being lost, forgotten, much of the people in both the UK and US claimed they were taking their country back. They would make things better again, like it was before. Indeed, an oratory very reminiscent of those incendiary times between the world wars.
And that is precisely why this new push the radical right is having will soon be over.
The era between the world wars was characterized by a period of economic recession in times the West found itself balkanized. Every country was the scapegoat for all the problems of one of its neighbors.
Many British that voted remain were interviewed the morning after the vote. It was common to hear about the regained ‘independence’ and ‘sovereignty’. About how great it was to finally have control over their own politics without foreign interference. Trump voters celebrated their regained representation in national decision making. Naively believing that they had conquered their country back from an establishment guilty of forgetting its people. A corrupt government more worried about foreign relations than about their own American people.
And now, a whole semester since Brexit and months after the election, it is easy to confirm how wrong those choices were for those who supported them.
The “Leave” propaganda for Brexit was covered by misinformation and manipulated data, masquerading the European Union (EU) as a great devil. A devil accountable for ruining the National Health Service (NHS), Britain’s public health service, or a devil responsible for stealing jobs by making the UK accept migrants.
Much of the same rhetoric is found in the United States. A president elected with ideas of building a wall between borders. Against immigration, against collapsing the culture of his people. A man who promises to protect American jobs by expelling illegal immigrants.
Both cases very similar, and also recall the political developments of the 20s and 30s. The great difference here is that, with the current technological improvement and development of social media, it is difficult for populist governments to cloud their nation quickly enough to mobilize it and take full control. People are catching up, both the British and the Americans are now understanding the risk they really took. Some have already regretted their decisions.
It became clear that those who defended Brexit and Trump’s campaign team both used a substantial amount of deception over all their claims. They promised unrelated, short-term solutions to problems that will not be fixed by any of them. Instead, the real reforms are put in the back delaying any serious problem solving. There’s no talk about automation, about new strategies and systems of taxing, and quite the opposite, social programs are being cut. Both events are already causing harm to the countries themselves. How much though, is something one ought to wait a few decades to see how deep the scars caused by these developments will run.
And Europe, the next target right radicals wish to reach? It will resist this new wave.
Today one finds the world mostly at peace, where globalization and free trade, despite its shortcomings and collateral damages, have brought the world a time of incomparable prosperity. A prosperity that mostly supports peace. It a system that shows promise, and such is enough to set the modern age apart from the darker times of the 20s and 30s.
Continental Europe still remembers the dark age of the Cold War. How weak and dependent the continent was as a result of the mass destruction provoked by the Second World War. There is absolutely no wish from the majority to return to that state. However, no European country can hope to compete with newer world powers at the same level. Furthermore, the challenges faced nowadays cannot be tackled by solely the nation state,. Nationalists disagree, but quickly their argument fails when taken into consideration: “the nature of the trans-national threats we face. Climate change, international terrorism and the negative consequences of globalization cannot be tackled by individual countries acting independently.”, writes Guy Verhofstadt for The Guardian. [1]
In April of 2015, Die Zeit (German national weekly newspaper) published an interview with Martin Schulz. Currently the chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and candidate this year, 2017, for the German Chancellorship, Martin Schulz reveals an interesting conversation he had with Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China:
“Schulz: Some time ago, I met the Chinese President Xi Jinping . An impressive man! Depth, profound knowledge of European history and literature. He has clarified with clear words that he sees in us a continent that remains far below its possibilities. He argued that the 21st century is a century of world regions. We Chinese are a world region; Our Indian neighbors are a world region. Southeast Asia wants to create a common currency, it will also become a world region. Latin America, with Mexico and Brazil, becomes a world region; And the US is a world region anyway. And you, Europe? You can be a world region, but you have to decide.” [2]
This mentality had some strength in 2015, but after Brexit, Trump’s threats to end NATO and his comments against the EU and Russia’s meddling on West’s politics, the nations of Europe have, mostly, woken up to this reality.
Three is the number of major presidential elections happening this year: Netherlands in March, France in April, and Germany in September. In March, Netherland’s radicals represented by Geert Wilders, though gaining a few more seats, failed to live up to their expectations. With great part from his donations coming from outside the country, Wilders has failed to convince his own people that they need his leadership. Victory, instead, went to the current Dutch Prime-Minister, Mark Rutte. The people of the Netherlands did not fall to the populist promises of the radical right party Part for Freedom (PVV).
In September, there’s little chance of the German radical right party to gain any support. The party in question, Alternative for Germany (AfD), has failed to gather any momentum in a country that still today lives with the ghosts of their fascist past. From all polls that have been out this year, it is clear the top two contenders for Germany’s Chancellorship are the current chancellor Angela Merkel and Martin Schulz. Both are known for their pro-EU stances. However, it is Schulz who has been gaining momentum ever since he started running, and between the two he’s the one who believes the most in European project. The people of Germany are being attracted to a candidate with a stronger and more ambitious view for the European project.
The same is happening in France. With their election in April, the presidential campaigns are already at full steam. The two top contenders according to polls after the first major presidential debate, happened on 20th of March, are Le Pen, the radical right and Macron, the surprise candidate of this election. Both are dancing around 25%, as of March 23rd according to The Telegraph, and little is expected for the following weeks. [3]
Macron is the phenomenon of this run. Launching himself for the first time for elected office, he left his position last year as Hollande’s Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs to run for presidency. With a rhetoric of “being neither left nor right”, he aims for a compromise between the protecting the social state and market-friendly deregulation. Part of his program is a strong pro-EU stance, combined with an ambition to strengthen Franco-German ties. The rising star in France, just like in Germany, is a man who sees cooperation as the solution.
Both are exactly the opposite of what happened in the Brexit referendum and the American election. Even France, the EU country with the highest chance of electing a radical right president, is expected to repel it. Despite the current 25% for Le Pen, French elections are very different from those in America. A candidate rarely obtains more than 50% of the votes, and so the election goes to a run-off between the first and second place candidates.
Although much of the center and left is divided right now, the fear of Le Pen and the presence of an ambitious, rejuvenating center candidate are expected to decide the outcome of this election. Even if Macron fails into making the second round, the other possible options do not include any radical characters, offering a “safe” option to Le Pen, though some, undeniably, will be making a compromise to avoid Le Pen.
To give some substance to these claims of this “Le Pen or not Le Pen”, in 2002, Le Pen’s father managed to reach the second round of the presidential elections. In the first round, Jacques Chirac obtained 19.88%, while Jean-Marie Le Pen obtained 16.86%. Indeed, little margin between both men. In the second round, Le Pen’s score only went up to 17.79%, while Chirac got 82.21% of the vote.
But why? Why is the radical right’s resurrected wave failing to gain hold on continental Europe?
Profound changes have characterized the last two decades. Connectivity and liberty of movement reached new heights and work matrices have been deeply altered by technological developments. The shocks from all these shifts have caused in western society a series of effects, many of them still being discovered: from the exponential concentration of wealth to the impoverishment of suburban areas, many of those directly dependent, previously, on labor industry. The problems highlighted in the past months by Brexit and the rise of the ‘Alt-Right’ are still being understood, and some time is needed to fully capture the newer dilemmas globalization has brought. Yet, action must be taken as to not press the populations into making rash decisions like some have done in the UK and in the US.
One aspect that sets apart continental Europe from the UK and the US are the existing safety nets for workers from all classes and backgrounds. The concept of social state, demonized in the US, has well entrenched itself into many European governments and has successfully protected many of its citizens. Even when it failed to perform optimally, it was enough to dissuade most people from supporting far right parties. It sends a clear message “the state has not forgotten about you”.
During Brexit, with an increasingly problematic health care service, UKIP and supporters pushed much of its problems to the EU, as if it had anything to do with how the UK administers its own public health care.
US suffers from a chronic problem of corruption, monopolies, and conniving laws that support those issues. Much of it, for example, served to divide supporters of the Democratic Party between Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton, the latter accused of associating herself to many, in the words of Bernie Sander, “big money” companies, some from the pharmaceutic monopolies. It is important to point out that much of this is based on little palpable evidence, such as Hilary being the candidate with the most “big pharma” donations as told by CNBC. [4]
Both countries are also dealing with a decrease in the generation of jobs from industry. American industry, in fact, is at an all-time high, a conundrum that has taken the attention of Forbes [5]. The American industrial output has grown according to data tracked from the Federal Reserve’s Industrial Production Index. [6]
Despite globalization, despite China and Mexico, the American industry has grown overall. It suffered with the crisis in 2008 and the consequent recession, but it has gotten back on its feet and has even surpassed its previous peak:
The dilemma Americans are dealing now with is that jobs have not followed this trend, according to the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. [7]:
Industry is simply not employing workers like it used to, and none of its problems can be tracked back to foreign entities, be it institutions, by treaties or to other nations. No concrete solutions have been put forward by Trump and nothing of real substance was said by those who cheered for “Leave” during Brexit. The UK is still having problems to cope with their new reality, with the danger of an independent Scotland and with the Pound Sterling threatening to fall lower. [8]
Thus, any of the following surges by the radical right will have little power by themselves on the next elections this year. They have little to offer that can be considered prudent policy solutions. Furthermore, the choices of the UK and US not only have done little until now to prove they are the right path, they have done much to show how risky and unthoughtful they are. The surge of this radical right, however, is a danger that cannot be taken lightly despite
Although Germany remains confident in that front, France has increasing worries of Russian meddling. Their current election is already covered by scandals, and Le Pen’s base is one of the most peculiar kind. The kind who denies all opposition and arguments thanks to their anti-establishment obsession. Nothing their opponents say will ever be taken seriously by the majority of those who truly believe in radicals such as Le Pen.
In this way, as it was with Trump, the radical right has a certain immunity to scandals and rumors. However, their rivals, from the right to the left of the political spectrum, are vulnerable to this sort of offensive. They try, as should decent politicians, to prove based on their credentials that they are capable and that they can be trusted with such an important post such as the presidency. Something Trump has never done.
Notes:
[1] Verhofstadt, Guy. 2017. “Those Who Believe In A United Europe Must Stand Up And Be Counted | Guy Verhofstadt”. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/24/60-anniversary-european-union-stand-up-be-counted?CMP=fb_gu.
[2] Krupa, and Ulrich. 2017. “Martin Schulz: “Wenn Wir Das Schaffen, Wird Europa Eine Weltmacht””. ZEIT ONLINE. http://www.zeit.de/2015/12/martin-schulz-europaeische-union-nationalstaat-weltmacht.
[3] Henry Samuel,. 2017. “Marine Le Pen And Emmanuel Macron Still Lead Polls After First French Presidential Election Debate”. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/marine-le-pen-emmanuel-macron-still-lead-polls-firstfrench-presidential/.
[4] Tirrell, Meg, and Leanne Miller. 2017. “Despite Her Rhetoric, Big Pharma Likes Hillary”. CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/despite-her-rhetoric-big-pharma-likes-hillary.html.
[5] “Forbes Welcome”. 2017. Forbes.Com. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/16/youre-not-going-to-believe-this-but-us-manufacturing-is-now-bigger-than-ever-before/#30cef208578d.
[6] “Industrial Production — 100 Year Historical Chart”. 2017. Macrotrends.Net. http://www.macrotrends.net/2583/industrial-production-historical-chart.
[7] “All Employees: Manufacturing”. 2017. Fred.Stlouisfed.Org. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP.
[8] Rodionova, Zlata. 2017. “The Pound Is Going To Take A Huge Hit, According To Deutsche Bank”. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pound-sterling-latest-drop-15-per-cent-2017-deutsche-bank-city-london-brexit-eu-a7647571.html.
