The Guardian view of Europe’s populists: left or right, they are united by a worrying xenophobia

[pampango]

In Europe’s north, insurgent populist parties blame socialism; in the south they blame capitalism. But they all blame foreigners, and that must be wrong and dangerous

With Syriza in power in Athens, and Podemos showing its strength on the streets of Madrid, there is a growing sense that a southern coalition of anti-austerity parties in Europe will overturn the existing dogma of economic discipline, largely upheld by Brussels and the north. There is cause to rejoice in the fact that stringent belt-tightening is now being questioned as the best way to pull Europe out of its doldrums. But the rise of these radical political forces tends also to fragment still further an already fragmented continent.

In northern Europe, they attack the establishment from the right; in the south, from the left. The May 2014 European parliamentary elections were the first sign of a European Union-wide drive towards a populism which is now taking root in domestic politics across the member states, and 2015 will be a year of many general elections in the EU.

Unlike the far-rightwing parties that are flourishing in northern Europe, Syriza and Podemos have steered clear of any anti-immigrant sentiment, and they have seriously toned down any anti-EU language (even if they criticise its policies). It is therefore much healthier for Europe to see such movements capture a general mood of discontent rather than the likes of Ukip or Marine Le Pen or the Sweden Democrats. Syriza and Podemos prefer to channel popular anger against the ruling class, the “casta” in Spanish, which includes centrist parties, left or right, all lumped together in popular opprobrium.

But it would be dangerous and short-sighted not to point out the existing overlap between many anti-establishment movements. Insurgent parties of both left and right draw their conflicting passions from a well of nationalism, and this appears in the way that they apportion blame for the economic catastrophe.

Ideological extremes can meet in cold-blooded ways when it suits their interests. Such was the case when Syriza chose to form a coalition with the extreme-rightwing, nationalistic, anti-immigration and antisemitic Independent Greeks party. It is hard to see how the ideas upheld by such a partner can in any way fit with Syriza’s calls for democratic revival. Parliamentary arithmetic and the need for a broad anti-austerity front may be pleaded in mitigation, but it remains baffling how little criticism for this choice Syriza has received from leftist admirers elsewhere. They should also be disturbed by the support that Marine Le Pen had expressed for Syriza when she attacked “the totalitarianism of the EU and financial markets”.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/01/guardian-view-europe-populists-left-right-united-worrying-xenophobia

All politicians seem to use the 'rally around the flag' sentiment to build support for policies. "Us vs Them" based on nationality is acceptable on both the left and right, though the right plays that card more frequently and to better effect. Europe's history naturally makes many cautious about playing the nationalism card.

The title of the Guardian is a little misleading in that it points out that Syriza and Podemos have "steered clear of any anti-immigrant sentiment, and they have seriously toned down any anti-EU language" and have instead chosen to "channel popular anger against the ruling class".

[Waiting For Everyman]

1. I think it's very simply a growing realization

by the grass roots around the world that no-border globalism is a failed ideology. Legislating an ideology is a secular form of theocracy, and always leads to failure in real world results. We've seen this in the US ever since Reagan. We can believe something all we want, we can base laws on it all we want, that doesn't make it any less false, and thus, less irrelevant to the real world issues that exist. In fact, most of the time it makes those issues much worse.

The left recognizes when the right does this clearly enough, but both sides go blind to the same thing on their own side. Globalism is the left's great blunder, just as the right's is austerity capitalism.

[pampango]

2. I disagree. The 'no-borders' Europe is one of the great liberal achievements of the 20th century.

Widely shared prosperity, the best income equality in the world. 70 years of peace on the continent after 2 devastating wars in the 30 years before that. Bringing back closed borders and hyper nationalism to the continent would be going backwards in time. Most Europeans do not want to do that. Even Syriza does not want to do that. Only the far-right wants that.

The rest of us cannot go back to 1950 when global warming was not a concern, when refugees from WWII were the main source of international immigration, when international travel and communication were limited, when the US produced 50% of the world's products because every other advanced country was recovering from war-time devastation.

Americans will learn (we have no choice) that we are part of the world, not the island that we were in 1950. Liberals will build bridges like we always do. We will let conservatives continue to build walls which is what their fears always lead them to do.

[el_bryanto]

3. I don't know - while Globalism certainly has it's problems

I think those are more likely to be growing pains rather than fatal flaws in the idea. We all live on the same planet - we all live in the same eco-system and we all live in the same economic situation.

Bryant