Early results suggest that Europe is moving in a much more conservative direction.
It's hard to find adjectives strong enough to describe the losses which left-leaning socialist and labor parties face in the current European elections. To call it a debacle might be understatement. The European left has crashed and burned and the region faces a complete political paradigm shift with some very unexpected results. Never has a dominant political ideology suffered such an overwhelming rebuke and rejection from the voters since the era of revolutions when autocracy was cast out in favor of representative government. The final results are due tonight, but early reports leave only the question of the degree by which the left will be devastated Europe-wide.…
Article comments
26 - Dr Dreadful
I think my buddy's been accused of racism so many times (for opposing quotas) that he doesn't realize that the BNP is racist racist.
He's been taken in. Being horrendously fooled by UK politics seems to be an occupational hazard of being American. (Case in point: the thousands of Irish-Americans who supported the IRA because they thought they were freedom fighters rather than vicious murdering terrorists.) The BNP split from the unabashedly racist National Front in the 1980s, and after a few years of infighting and thuggery decided to become respectable. But, as old JC once said, 'By their deeds you shall know them.'
27 - STM
Baron: "there are also some crazy elements in the European Right that Americans don't have to contend with. I mean, monarchists? Really?"
Baron, you know that I'm a Labor voter, right, and my politics would be way left of what a liberal might understand in America? I'm also a monarchist, I also believe we should be belting up on terrorists and standing up for ourselves.
I realise Americans find it hard to get their heads around this but being a monarchist in the British tradition doesn't mean wanting to be ruled by a King or Queen.
It means quite the opposite, so please persevere and read on.
Britain (and we inherited their system like the Candians) stopped being an absolute monarchy in 1688, when power switched to the elected representatives of the people through Parliament.
(In the unfortunate American experience of monarchy, King George was an abberration ... he meddled illegally in Parliament through his little cliques by setting up intrigues and blocs. It's quite possible there'd have been no revolution but for him, as parliament at the time was leaning towards granting Americans self-government).
A monarch in a British-style constitutional monarchy now assumes only an executive role - a rubber stamp bound by law and convention not to meddle in the affairs of government. They have no power, but can exercise special powers in a crisis if required. That is why, when we have a government crippled by numbers in the upper house, the governor general can sack the government and call a new election. It happened here in the 70s. In the election, a new government was appointed by the people. In effect, the monarch or their representative is bound by law and convention to the will of the people.
They are head of state but not head of government, and the people run the country, through their elected representatives, not the monarch.
Britain was also the first of the modern liberal democracies (despite having a monarch) and is acknowledged as such by historians. Because our experience is different to yours, it doesn't make it worse.
It's a system that's worked UNBROKEN since 1688. I say if something's not broke, don't fix it.
That's why I don't want a republic here. I'd hate to see power cede to someone in an executive position (like a US president) who might not be so bound by law and convention as a monarch.
The difference is between us: the President's administration (often it's an oligarchy, as we have seen, and NOT directly elected) is of major importance in the US and basically runs the country (like an old-style monarch with executive power), even though a prez is directly elected, while the elected government as a whole as expressed through the will of the people runs countries like Australia, Canada and Britain.
All our cabinets and ministers are elected, unlike the US.
Simply, if a party don't get the number of seats required in the house to govern, they don't govern.
So Baron, an understanding of monarchists and the thinking behind it is key here.
I understand it seems like an anachronism, and sometimes I feel the same way, but it works and it works really well.
Basically, today, the monarchs are in service of the people, not the other way around.
They fulfil that role perfectly, despite all their annoying foibles.
28 - Baronius
D - It isn't like he's contributing to them.
We complain sometimes about the difficulties of political labelling, that "liberal" or "conservative" mean different things than they used to. But that's nothing compared to the Atlantic divide. We say "right-wing free market" and you hear "death-camp free market".
29 - Baronius
STM - No offense intended. You'd have to admit that an American monarchist would be outside the mainstream, though.
30 - STM
Yes, Baron, that would be bizarre indeed.
But the truth is Canada, Britain, NZ and Australia aren't that different as societies to the US. Very similar. Same freedoms, same values.
So I contend that had there been no revolution and George Washington had become the first American Prime Minister rather the first prez, America would be near identical to how it is today (possibly just with less guns).
Food for thought ....
31 - STM
Here's a great example of what I'm talking about when I'm talking left, and how different the divide is outside America.
This from Spain's El Mundo daily newspaper:
"The traditional parties of the left should ask themselves why, in the midst of crisis, just when free market theories appear to be most challenged, people continue to prefer liberal recipes."
Note use of the world liberal in there, when considered in opposition to the left.
It gives some indication of where American liberals sit on the political spectrum. That is, from where I sit, not neccessarily to the left.
To me, George Bush was ultra-right. But at least you knew where he stood and what he stood for.
With American liberals, sometimes I just can't tell. It all seems so wishy-washy.
No wonder those on the "right" in America sometimes find liberalism annoying and the preserve of far too many pseudo-intellectuals who prefer navel gazing and fence sitting to actually doing something.
Also, hilariously, in Australia the party of the right is called the Liberal Party.
Yet when you look at their policies, they're about on a par with the Democrats.
32 - STM
Roger: "I only cited it in order to retort"
Sorry, Rog, I did realise that afterwards.
33 - Dave Nalle
With American liberals, sometimes I just can't tell. It all seems so wishy-washy.
This is because America's "liberals" are not actually liberal at all, as illustrated by your observation that many European liberal parties are right-leaning.
Dave
34 - Jordan Richardson
This is because America's "liberals" are not actually liberal at all
Quoted for truth.
Jesus Christ, I can't believe I just did that...
35 - roger nowosielski
You mean "a page from Clavos' book"?
36 - roger nowosielski
Where's The Revolution?
37 - Baronius
STM - The parties are different because all the institutions are different. The unions in 1980's Poland were anti-government. The church governed parts of Italy. The military has always played a role in the politics of France. We can't compare the political parties that developed in response to the wildly different relationships in those countries.
Frankly, I'm surprised the EU works as well as it does.
38 - Dr Dreadful
Frankly, I'm surprised the EU works as well as it does.
I'm not. It's been run by the Germans for decades. (The French think they run it, and the Germans have seen no reason to disabuse them of that notion.)
But Germany has been losing its stranglehold a little bit of late, and things consequently seem to be unravelling.
39 - Dr Dreadful
Compared to some European countries, British politics is blissfully simple.
The Italian national pastime, for example, is to strive to make politics as unmanageably complicated as possible, in spite of numerous efforts to simplify it.
Irish politics consists of several parties, all with exactly the same general philosophy, trying to convince the electorate and themselves that they're different.
German politics constantly has one eye on the past. It's relatively stable, but they're constantly watching themselves, terrified of relapsing.
French politics is just unfathomable.
40 - Baronius
National politics has a way of conforming to the old stereotypes - but those stereotypes originaly evolved from the cultures, so it makes sense.
Italian politics has always been contentious. No other culture would have produced The Prince and The Divine Comedy. French culture leans toward the airy, theoretical, and pretentious. And dare I say that complaining and fighting are Irish mainstays?
The EU is still green. Its first real test has been the financial crisis. I'm kinda surprised that they rallied around Iceland. They could have just as easily thrown up barriers and sunk the whole project. But in these election results we may be seeing the consequences of their policy decision.
41 - Bliffle
Is there a whites-only party in UK that elected an MP?
42 - Baronius
Bliffle, I think I can answer this question. If I'm wrong, I hope our BC Brits will correct me.
The recent election was for local offices and MEP's, Members of the European Parliament. The British National Party (see earlier comments) won two seats. This isn't as fascist as it sounds, because (a) there are 700+ MEP's, (b) the Labour party is in the midst of a Mark Foleyesque collapse, and (c) the real increases were in the Eurosceptic parties. But the BNP votes do indicate an increasing anti-immigration sentiment and a sense that the socially-acceptable British parties have lost touch.
43 - Dr Dreadful
The BNP won three local council seats (in addition to the handful they already held) and two European Parliament seats. The big deal about the European seats is that this is the first time the party has won seats in a national election. They only did so because the Euro elections use proportional representation. They don't have a cat in hell's chance of winning a Westminster seat unless one of their candidates finds a hot-button local issue to campaign on. There are a few current MPs - among them George Galloway, friend of the Senate Committee on Investigations - who won their seats that way.
44 - Baronius
Dread, the Brits have a different relationship between the local and national government, right? So what are the local councils equivalent to (if anything) in the US system? Back in the 1930's, a few US cities elected Socialist Party mayors, but it never became a viable national party. Is that what the BNP is today?
I'll say this: the more the "proper" parties and press unite against the BNP, the more appealing it's going to look to the dissatisfied.
45 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius,
Just like in the US, Britain has different levels of local government (despite the efforts of Margaret Thatcher, who thought some of the levels were redundant and tried to get rid of them).
At the bottom there are local councils of various types, which would be equivalent to city councils over here, although usually with more members. The larger cities are divided into boroughs with their own councils which have similar responsibilities.
At the next level there are county councils (or unitary authorities, which govern large cities and/or amalgamations of neighboring counties) and which try to produce some sort of coherent regional policy.
It can be a bit more complicated than that, but in general there's less overlap than with the American system, so you don't tend to get several different bodies all trying to do the same thing (you won't often, for instance, see a city cop, a sheriff and a state trooper all chasing the same suspect).
At the next level up, obviously there's no equivalent to the State level of government (us not being a federation and all). Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do have devolved assemblies and first ministers, but with far, far less power than the US states and their governors.
As for the BNP, it's becoming alarmingly more viable by the day. Its growing popularity doesn't exist in a vacuum. There was a vigorous fascist party in the UK in the 1930s, led by Oswald Mosley, which could have got close to power had Hitler not decided to put the kybosh on them by going to war. There isn't, at the moment, any obvious equivalent threat that would defuse the BNP's message.
It would be interesting to discuss what led to the decline of socialism in the US and why the party was unable to build on its success in the '30s.
I think it's less a question of the mainstream parties uniting against the BNP than of them defanging it by listening to the public and learning the lessons of the past.
They're harmless enough as a local and regional fringe party. But if the BNP ever came to power nationally, believe me, they would govern with a level of incompetence that would make Brown's and Major's governments look like political masterpieces.
46 - Baronius
From the little that I understand, you'll never see a police officer chase a suspect at all in England. When people don't feel safe, they blame foreigners. (To be honest, I'm not that sure about you). That's Psych 001. So is the fact that throwing eggs at a party leader is going to make your side look like the bullies. I mean, how lousy do you have to be at politics to make the fascists look sympathetic?
47 - Dr Dreadful
Bar,
The primary reason you'll rarely see a British cop chasing a suspect is that they're smarter than their American brethren and thereby able to anticipate the suspect's moves better...
The secondary reason is that British cops are trained to believe that they're not John Wayne (some can take a bit of convincing); as opposed to cops stateside, who are trained to believe that they are.
:-)
48 - Bliffle
No need to chase suspects: radio waves travel faster than cops.
49 - Dr Dreadful
Hush, Bliffle. No need to deprive an American cop of an excuse for a good ol' car chase and shootout. ;-)
50 - Jeannie Danna
Bliffle, I understand you have been commenting on BC for a long time. Do you see people treating each other this way alot?
51 - Jeannie Danna
These people suck.
52 - Jordan Richardson
Bah, we've got your asses all beat. In Canada, we chase our bad guys down on horses. Suck it, monkeys.
53 - Baronius
Jeannie, what treatment are you talking about? Considering we've got liberals, conservatives, a theocrat, a monarchist, and a Canadian commenting here, I think we do a good job of communicating intelligently and peaceably.
54 - Cindy
She's apparently referring to her own behavior Baronius.
55 - Bliffle
I ignore all personal comments on BC. Lately, there seem to be more of them, which compounds the scanning problems of the new format.
The purpose of criminal pursuit should be to panic the criminal into making poor escape choices, like running up a blind alley instead of joining a crowd, which would seem better cover.
56 - STM
Jordan: "Bah, we've got your asses all beat. In Canada, we chase our bad guys down on horses."
Shit eh, the cops mount up on dirty great red kangaroos down here (they stick the flashing lights on the head and the tail), or emus if they can ever round any up.
And instead of shooting people, Aussie cops just knock 'em out with one punch.
57 - STM
But unlike the US, no one gets tried in a kangaroo court :)