This sometimes causes American conservatives to believe they must have a lot in common with right-wing groups in Europe, and to have some automatic sympathy with them. Well, they have some things in common with them, certainly. But they often have bizarre mythologies of their origins - pagan revivals in Scandinavia and New-Agey druids in England come to mind - and adopt customs with little grounding in history.
I recall discussing a Romanian election with friends from there years ago, when they shook their heads in frustration, because the choice was between a literal communist, a literal fascist, and a third candidate dedicated solely to the rights of the Hungarian minority there. We throw the words communist and fascist around too easily in America. They still have the real deal there, not only in universities and small publishing groups as here, but in their legislatures and town councils. There are mayors deeply concerned about the influence of Jews in places where no Jews have lived for decades. They've got some crazy, violent folks on the right in Europe. We shouldn't lose sight of that.
And yet, much of the criticism of the European right seems to be taking the worst possible interpretation of their actions (as in the US and Canada), coupled with a complete denial that there is any danger from the left at all - even when it is occurring as they speak. So...I think it is interesting to read this Harper's essay on Hungarian ultranationalists and try to navigate the facts versus the tone. Aren't many of the actions at these festivals he mutters so darkly about fairly similar to a Renn Faire? The anger expressed at the concerts of the rock band Karpatia - is it that different from the Fish Cheer from Country Joe at Woodstock?
Gábor Klaniczay, a professor of medieval studies at the university, told me that Fidesz’s attack on gender studies and the revival of Turanism were of a piece: both promise a return to an imaginary, idealized past. “This type of right-wing populism wants to undo everything certain types of twentieth-century progressive thinking achieved,” he explained. "The Hunnic past—martial, autocratic, and patriarchal—stands in clear opposition to contemporary liberalism."
I'm sorry, did he say that Autocratic is in clear opposition to contemporary liberalism? Is promising a return to an imaginary, idealised past very different from promising a creation of an imaginary, idealised future? Maybe it's a bit crazy and poorly supported, but how does it compare to transgenderism or affording the Green New Deal?
Read and enjoy.
*Interestingly, we do see echoes of that among violent terrorists called right-wing in the US frequently. One finds a demand for universal health care or universal basic income, or environmental concerns looming large in their manifestos and writings.
6 comments:
How many of the old controversies in our history map neatly into modern left and right? For that matter, how well do the debates of the '60s map into 2019 "left" and "right"? Although "right-wing" seems to be an amorphous term of abuse these days, so maybe any comparison is impossible to define well.
Assistant Village Idiot: "Right-wing" has a different meaning in Europe than it does in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
The term has a somewhat different connotation, but a similar denotation of those who advocate for a more hierarchical society.
Assistant Village Idiot: This is why it has always sounded less strange to Americans that Nazism had strong elements of left-wing ideas (because it does)
Nazism co-opted some of the language of the left as a form of populist propaganda, but not the practice, which was of a highly regimented and hierarchical society with an all-powerful leader above all.
Assistant Village Idiot: I'm sorry, did he say that Autocratic is in clear opposition to contemporary liberalism?
Liberalism is clearly meant to refer to post-WWII liberalism, diverse and tolerant, nations working together for mutual benefit, that is, a more egalitarian international order. Autocratic generally refers to a system with a single all-powerful leader, hence, on the extreme political right.
Assistant Village Idiot: Is promising a return to an imaginary, idealised past very different from promising a creation of an imaginary, idealised future?
Idealization refers to the ideological extremes. While imaginary and unattainable goals lead to perverse results, they are quite different goals; hierarchical vs. egalitarian.
@ Zachriel - Conservatives in America cannot be said to be advocating for a more hierarchical society, unless you torture the meaning of the word. You don't really understand conservatism, you just make up convenient definitions.
No, Nazism started as a leftist idea and acquired some conservative ones. You have it backeards.
Liberals calling themselves diverse and tolerant is merely patting themselves on the back. I prefer descriptions based on observed behavior. I am trying to think of the liberals who opposed the executive orders of Obama. I am trying to think which even moderately right-wing president you think was an autocrat. Even Trump doesn't come close to qualifying.
Liberals, with their worship of academics and government, are far more hierarchical. People who live in cities tend to be more hierarchical, as they depend on executive decisions for a more complex society. That's why they like making rules, so that other people have to follow them.
Look, I know that what you are saying is what liberals believe about themselves. But it doesn't mean you have to believe it also.
Assistant Village Idiot: Conservatives in America cannot be said to be advocating for a more hierarchical society
It depends on where on the spectrum they are found. For instance, some conservatives advocate for a more meritocratic society with less in terms of income redistribution or social safety net. Others advocate for continuation of the white male Christian power structure, though not always in those terms.
Assistant Village Idiot: you just make up convenient definitions.
The definition of the left-right spectrum has been around for two centuries, since the French Revolution. Those on the left of the National Assembly advocated for a more egalitarian society. Those on the right advocated for a more hierarchical society.
Assistant Village Idiot: Liberals, with their worship of academics and government, are far more hierarchical.
When you use terms such as "worship", you suggest a caricature of the opposing belief. Reliance on expertise is not an inherently left-right issue, and demonstrable facts should form the basis for everyone's political or philosophical viewpoint.
"Others advocate for continuation of the white male Christian power structure, though not always in those terms." In other words, they don't say that or anything like it, but liberals like to tell themselves that. Not buying it.
If you want to go by older definitions of left and right, then current liberals and progressives do not fit that, and have not for fifty years. Claiming a title does not grant it. It is rather like journalists saying that they are objective because that's what journalists are supposed to be.
Yes, "worship" is a bit strong, but as a few Christian denominations are essentially liberal political organisations, it is not entirely unjustified. Deferring to academics in areas they have no expertise is not far different from "worship," frankly. Demonstrable facts are what liberals deny. Crime is not due to "root causes." Human beings do not have an overriding influence on climate. Gun ownership does not increase violent crime. I could list a half dozen others.
I must return to this overall point: What liberals are supposed to be, because that was the meaning of the word a century ago and is their belief about themselves now, has no value whatsoever. I have been well aware of those stereotypes for decades, having grown up in them. Learning in the 1980s that this was not true, because of my continuing contact with them, is the foundation of my grudging support of conservatives now. They think they are tolerant - they aren't. They think they are kinder and more generous - they aren't.
Assistant Village Idiot: In other words, they don't say that or anything like it, but liberals like to tell themselves that. Not buying it.
The fact is that some people support the status quo, conservatives by definition. There is value in stability. Nonetheless, that status quo includes whites Christians males having greater power.
Assistant Village Idiot: If you want to go by older definitions of left and right, then current liberals and progressives do not fit that, and have not for fifty years.
Liberalism has several flavors, but liberals are generally placed on the political left, including big government liberals who advocate for various social safety net and income redistribution schemes.
Assistant Village Idiot: Demonstrable facts are what liberals deny.
Most everyone has troubles absorbing information that is contrary to their core beliefs.
Post a Comment