2016 presidential elections in Austria

So what you’re saying, Ze K, is that if we reject the views of the Freedom Party, if we oppose and criticise and attack them, that will result in the party gaining popularity and winning more votes; so if what we want is for the Freedom Party to lose popularity and for voters to abandon it, what we should do is stop criticising and attacking its views and instead speak positively of them and acknowledge them as valid.

Yes, it’s easy to see how that makes sense.

Despite the media scandalization process refugees are not as unpopular as people think. The Tories recently reversed a policy on unaccompanied minors because the people were shown to be in favor. Even in Germany it’s closer to a 50-50 policy on a lot of issues. The issue is the strength of opposition and the sudden polarization around the rightist unholy (and not always properly distinguished) unholy trinity of it, immigration, the EU.

If we’re going to draw these analogies then let’s get scientific.
Fact 1: The NSDAP vote correlated with the unemployment rate in Germany.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/chart-german-unemployment-and-nazi-vote-2015-2?op=1?r=US&IR=T
Fact 2: It did not correlate with actual German unemployed. Those people radicalised but they voted KPD. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/50909/134.pdf?sequence=1

The issue is idealism that understands deep reaction as an idea people hold that must be refuted or acknowledged. Trump voters did not suddenly start believing Obama was Muslim in 2008 and about half of republicans have always believed that. Black or working class voters have always been more conservative on many social issues but they can and do back the left comfortably. UKIP voters are not working class no matter what people tell you. So why does it matter to them all of a sudden? Figures like Trump seem disruptive because they are a radical break with the orthodoxy that develops in years of plenty but they are intended to reconcile an ideological crisis caused by economic failure that cannot be done with a system failing on its own terms. However dangerous they seem, the liberal establishment knows it needs a radical bait-and-switch when it is their own position that is at stake.

The conservative power base – of money, corporations – knows they have to run on conservative populism out of fear of left populism. The radical right want to be bound to the system even when they can’t defend it. Any sops to liberal society that the neoliberalism consensus of the ’90s will be gladly ejected if it keeps them together. That certain conservative intellectual class this produced will rail #NeverTrump and no one will listen. The polls will narrow as they are narrowing now and it is not ‘tribalism’, which JQ seems to be using to mean a partisanship with a more nationalist core is not the reason. Much of the media will go along with it.

I guess I make it hard to read because I can hardly bear saying but I think it’s true.

Is it true that 50% of Austrians wanted the right-winger? Have they broken things down as far as turnout goes?

In America, turnout is extremely low in election after election, but especially midterms. So it’s virtually always a mistake to think of the final percentages as equivalent to the population overall. In our midterms, for example, a 35% turnout rate is typical. It would seem that it’s more a reflection of who is inspired to vote (and the effectiveness of machine politics), rather than some accurate snapshot of how the nation feels.

Tons of factors going into that inspiration, or lack there of, certainly. IMO, the lack of a strong, aggressive, no apologies alternative from the left is a huge help for right-wingers. The Dems, for instance, have stuck with the idea that it’s better to be Republican Lite than actually offer a full-throated alternative, which is why, IMO, they keep losing those midterms.

The immigrant problem is Europe must certainly be a huge advantage, politically, for the right, but what would happen if parties on the left there stopped making nice with austerity and neoliberal ideology in general, and actually offered people concrete measures to improve their lives? What if they decided to end the status quo ante, and went all out left-populist, aggressively, without hedging? I just can’t see how a laser focus on the non-rich — the majority — wouldn’t bring them victory after victory. Follow through would be absolutely necessary, of course. Walk the walk, etc. But people want change. It makes too much sense to give them change that helps the quality of their lives considerably, and that’s something the right can’t ever bring. The left can.

Am I the only one who thinks these far right/left labels are increasingly meaningless?There are plenty of things Hofer and his ilk are saying which are frankly, way to the left of the US Democrats. There is a reason after all that the social democratic parties have lost the votes of Europe’s working classes. Perhaps pro-establishment vs anti-establishment is a better characterization (and mirrored quite uncannily by Clinton vs Trump/Sanders).

Watching the slow motion collapse of Europe’s political centre is both terrifying and unsurprising. Recession, austerity, stagnant wages, billions spent on bank bailouts, the brutalist treatment of Greece (or the ongoing money pit that is Greece if you’re a German voter), a million refugees suddenly appearing out of nowhere, cross-border terrorism…I suspect the average voter can only look at all this and conclude the system isn’t working and its time to vote for something new.

@5 Yes, this has to be the argument. Countering it with blaming the people for reacting in such a way is counterproductive. That being said, given Europe’s attitude (I’m only speaking of my own experience here) towards gypsies [1], I sense that there is something underneath it all that might arise in all but the best of times.

[1] How many times did I hear the “they provide no social function” to why they should have been cleared out (deported) from Europe. I wonder if this has ever been studied? The reaction to gypsies and minorities vs how well the economy was doing.

I would like to see the left start thinking seriously about solutions to international inequality and the various crises of troubled countries that don’t involve large-scale immigration. Mass immigration causes a number of social problems, especially for the poor. Instead of bringing large numbers of refugees into European countries, how much would it take to make refugee camps in middle eastern countries decent places for them to live? What can be done toward this goal? How can we help troubled countries develop their capital infrastructure so their people don’t *want* to come to Europe? This dialogue is too absent from the left (I’m sure there are some who engage in it) who rather have an ideological attachment to mass immigration.

@17: The top two candidates actually ran in the runoff election, no? It’s entirely possible that, if 50 percent were willing to go far right in the second round, more than 50 percent could have chosen second preferences that would have put the far right into power if there was preferential voting. In fact, given the closeness of the election, I’d actually bet on it.

derrida derider @17

‘Had the first round been an STV/preferential or similar voting system the top two candidates would undoubtedly have been from the major parties.’

Not a chance.

There is no reason to think that in a preferential/AV/IRV ballot the voters would have allocated their first preferences differently from the way they actually did in the first round of the actual ballot. In that ballot, the candidates of the two major parties got 11% of the votes each, coming fourth and fifth out of the six candidates.

If there had been a full preferential ballot, there are ways it would have been possible that one of those two could have got into the final two — I don’t know enough about Austrian politics to know how likely it would have been, but it is possible — and if one of them had got into the final two I would rate the chance of his going on to win as high. But both of them in the final two? No.

Neville Morley @21

That’s an interesting point. What nobody knows, I suppose — because there’s no way anybody can know for sure — is how the Austrian population would react if a President deviated in such a way, and so widely, from past practice. Were Hofer’s supporters explicitly saying that this was what they wanted?

Guy @12

‘Am I the only one who thinks these far right/left labels are increasingly meaningless?’

Once upon a time, the terms ‘right’ and ‘left’ were useful for explaining/describing some things, but not for others.

Now, by contrast, they are … useful for explaining/describing some things, but not for others.

Yes, there are limits on the useful meaning of the terms, but they haven’t become less meaningful. As you pay more attention, you notice more things, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t there before.

@ John Quiggin

What have far right/nativist parties actually done?

In the UK they haven’t got into power much. The BNP – a genuine far right party – had a councillor or two and a MEP but they have no disbanded. UKIP – a kind of multi-cultural nativist party – has had a number of MEPs and won Thanet Council (a small town in Kent)

What they have been generally is a shambles. They have no cohesion or organisation. UKIP by its nature is a collection of malcontents, golf-club generals and mavericks. They very quickly argue and fall out. If you did one of those Belbin psychology tests you would probably find they were all the same types – Plants and Shapers, and as you need a mix of personality types to make an effective organisation, they generally fail.

I believe the SNP were similar in the 1970’s, until Alex Salmond turned them into a cohesive party machine, but there are people better equipped to comment on the SNP than I on CT.

“the success of both the Green victor and the Trumpian vanquished was a combination of the largely symbolic position of the President and the peculiarities of FPTP elections.”

That misses the fact that nothing close to this outcome ever happened before. Also, the far right candidate got 35% even in the first round and outclassed both main party candidates. Compare that to the French election 2002 when Chirac came out first (and won 80% in the runoff) but the socialist candidate came out behind Le Pen because the left was so divided. That really didn’t need to happen but Austria wasn’t like that.

Regarding presidential powers, Hofer did say during the campaign that people would be surprised how much he could do as president, which many interpreted as a threat. Van der Bellen on the other hand promised to prevent an FPÖ chancellor, which is indeed in his power (the chancellor is not elected). As an aside, the Austrian constitution is from 1920. They didn’t bother to write a new one after 1945.

The question of John Quiggin @ 26 on what the far right has actually done is important. In my own country of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders gave parliamentary support to a right-wing government of the Christian Democrats (at that point dominated by their conservative branch) and the centre-right, Pro-Business VVD party. Their record is clearly on the economic right, supporting big corporations and agribusiness. Once the crisis threatened to hit the budget too severely, Wilders withdrew his support, causing the government to fall. He calculated correctly, that in spite of a short-term hit to his popularity, his votes would grow more in opposition to austerity. He did not prevent budget cuts, he simply refused to take responsibility for them.

Wilders himself originates from the right wing of the VVD party. When he split off from them, his first manifesto was economically very right-wing and pro-market. He quickly discovered there are far more votes in cynical demagogy. He systematically supports policies like health-care, to please the elderly in his base. He claims all budgetary problems can be solved by spending less money on foreign aid, asylum seekers, sustainable energy, coddling muslims, etc.

He will probably lead the largest party by next election, but might not be able to form a majority coalition.

On asylum and immigration, mainstream parties have been making laws tougher and tougher for decades, although not so tough as to deter people, who are fleeing Assad’s torturers, Russian bombs and ISIS executioners, from seeking refuge. The influence of the far-right works via the mainstream on these topics.

What have far right/nativist parties actually done?

We’ll find out when Marine Le Pen becomes President of France next year. Unlike most other European presidents, she will have real power.

David
“So there’s little intolerance for migrants as such, beyond this low-level political noise. But voters for these parties come disproportionately from communities that are actually affected by migration, and they often have very practical complaints and concerns:”

Actually, I don’t think that is in anyway true. Mostly they come from groups that feel disadvantaged in some way, but actually rarely due to migration. Anti-immigrant sentiment I believe is generally strongest where there are fewest immigrants (e.g. Eastern Germany rather than Western Germany).

“The Rahman case judgement is also well worth reading on political corruption in immigrant communities; Tammany Hall in Tower Hamlets.”

For example, Andrew Gilligan being convicted of libel for LYING about corruption in Tower Hamlets. http://londonbangla.com/poplar-town-hall-owner-mujibul-islam-receives-apology-damages-telegraph-libel-case/

And most brazenly of all, his mayoralty was dissolved by an act judicial arrogation unseen since Lord Denning called the innocence of Gerry Conlon an “appalling vista” by dissovling his election through EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL LAW IN IRELAND:

““Time and again in the Irish cases it was stressed that the Catholic voters were men of simple faith, usually much less well educated than the clergy who were influencing them, and men whose natural instinct would be to obey the orders of their priests (even more their bishops). This principle still holds good. In carrying out the assessment a distinction must be made between a sophisticated, highly educated and politically literate community and a community which is traditional, respectful of authority and, possibly, not fully integrated with the other communities living in the same area. As with undue influence in the civil law sphere, it is the character of the person sought to be influenced that is key to whether influence has been applied.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/29/lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-mayor-verdict-undue-spiritual-influence

First of all: “Time and again in the Irish cases it was stressed that the Catholic voters were men of simple faith, usually much less well educated than the clergy who were influencing them, and men whose natural instinct would be to obey the orders of their priests (even more their bishops)” is a DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE JUDGEMENT.

It claims Bengalis cannot be victims of racism because they are NOT A MINORITY IN TOWER HAMLETS: “These official statistics are relevant to the court’s approach to the politics of Tower Hamlets. Whatever may be the position in the rest of London or in the country at large, in Tower Hamlets Muslims in general and Bangladeshis in particular are not in any real sense a ‘minority’: in both instances they are the largest community in comparison to other religious and ethnic groupings. Although, therefore, Mr Rahman and his associates constantly refer to the Bangladeshi community of Tower Hamlets as if it were a small beleaguered ethnic minority in a sea of hostile racial prejudice, the court must look at the reality of the religious and ethnic makeup of the Borough.”

His definition of racism is: “There can be no doubt that to call a man a racist is to make ‘a statement of fact in relation to [his] personal character or conduct’ (s 106). In the multi-racial, multi-cultural society that is 21st century Britain there can be few more damaging statements to make about anyone. To make such a statement about a white candidate in an electoral area that had a majority of BME citizens would be a serious matter indeed.”

“The Bangladeshi community might have thought itself fortunate to have been the recipient of the Mayor’s lavish spending but in the end the benefits were small and temporary and the ill effects long-lasting. It was fool’s gold.”

An APPALLING Vista.

“You are a little put out by this, but when you complain to your local Socialist Party politician, you’re told to stop making racist comments and go away.”

That would be an odd politician. It’s more likely you are given a dollop of bromides couched in managerialist jargon, and go away longing for someone who will actually talk a human language.

Hard to argue with anything in this post – response is as depressing as it is predictable

Peter T @44
Yes, that as well, but the point is that no politician of the Left in Europe would dare to say something like “this is very worrying I’ll make a speech about it.” They would be torn limb from limb by others on the Left if they did so. Case in point, France is convulsed with protests at the moment against a new neoliberal law that would destroy job security, such as it still is. Cunningly, the government has given the proposed law to a female Minister of North African origin, and hinted snidely that any criticism of the so-called “Loi El-Khomri” means that you are a sexist and a racist, and “playing the game of National Front.” This has served to shut up a lot of politicians on the Left, while the extreme right, of course, has taken up the cause.

@TM. Yes, that’s what comes dashing something off quickly on the way out. Yes, the resistance to the LEK comes mainly from the Left, the extreme right has, as you say, not been very active because they don’t need to be. They just sit there and wait for frustrated voters to come their way; The racist/sexist arguments have been made, but in a kind of informal nudge-nudge manner. The idea was not to win the public debate (a hopeless task) but to intimidate members of the PS into voting for the law, and, at a minimum, not speaking out against it. This, together with turning the whole thing into a vote of confidence, has enabled the government to keep the upper hand so far.

An obvious irony regarding Poland is that the tribalists represented Law and Justice play both sides of the street. In Western Europe, where Poles are often seen undesirable migrants accused of taking jobs they stand on their rights as members of the EU and defend free movement, while in Poland itself they want to keep foreigners out and stand for national independence against the dictates of Brussels.

Pete @34

‘The strategy of calling anyone a racist who points out any problem in any immigrant community is incredibly bad for the discourse.’

The strategy of objecting whenever anybody or anything is described as racist, even those actions and statements which are racist, is incredibly bad for the discourse.

Ze K, you’re quoting an article from 2007 and the wrong KaczyÅ„ski. President Lech KaczyÅ„ski died in the plane crash near Smolensk in 2010.

His twin brother JarosÅ‚aw has been the leader of PiS for at least a decade. Recall that PiS first formed its government in September 2005 but lost the parliamentary election in 2007. JarosÅ‚aw served briefly as PM in 2006-7, resigned after the electoral defeat and also lost the 2010 presidential election. Things didn’t look good for him but five years later, PiS won the presidency and a 50%+ majority in the Sejm and the Senate, like no other party before them. Clearly, the guy learned something in the eight years he was in the opposition.

Jarosław does have an idée fixe though, that everyone around is a KGB/SB agent.

Of course Orban is on the far right wing – anyone disputing this is clueless.

John Quiggin asked “What have far right/nativist parties actually done?”

One striking and crucial aspect of the Austria election is the gender gap [link is to terrible site, don’t read comments, but data seems good]: Van Bellen was supported by women and won, Hofer was supported by men and lost.

Far right parties are nativist, but they’re also anti-feminist. In the case of Poland, for instance, one of their goals is draconian restrictions on abortion.

Maybe the results in Austria have less to do with immigration or employment, more about reproductive freedom and other women’s rights.

People get UKIP wrong, and possibly other nativist parties too. It’s not immigrants tat they don’t like, or even immigration as such. Generally what they don’t like is political parties that are so determined to make a success of free movement of people that they deliberately turn a blind eye to criminal activities, undercutting of wages, overcrowding, or other immigration-related issues. And just to stop anyone coming on here and moaning about associating criminal activities with immigration, the point is not that immigrant communities are hot-beds of criminality – criminals come in all shapes, sizes, and nationalities – it is that police refused to investigate crimes because the alleged perpetrators were from immigrant groups.

When followers of Hofer were interviewee on TV they said they wanted someone to stand up for them. That doesn’t seem a particularly outrageous request for someone to make. If we want to get right-wing xenophobic parties elected, then the best way to do it would seem to be to demonise people who just want to be politically represented and make the only parties who stand for the interests of ordinary native populations far-right ones.

Alex K:

For anti-immigrant parties, one of the strong selling points is the regressive and repressive values held by many third-world immigrants.

Yeah, right. Except those parties also generally have a pro-natalist line, and they scorn the anti-feminist values of immigrants mostly to make themselves feel better. I’ve not heard that they actually work to try to help immigrant women find a better life.

If that’s a “strong selling point”, why isn’t it working with women voters?

@69: “If that’s a “strong selling point”, why isn’t it working with women voters?”

In the case of the Front National, because Jean-Marie’s party was obviously a party of grumpy old males. Marine’s party is striving to be different. In 2012, Marine finally received about the same share of the female and male vote at the presidential election. The party as a whole though continues to underperform among females, although 27% (IIRC) of the female vote in the 2015 regional election was not a bad showing at all.

“I’ve not heard that they actually work to try to help immigrant women find a better life.”

To be cynical, many of their voters would prefer immigrants to quietly disappear, so an effort to actually help immigrants may not go well with the core electorate. But even if a nativist party wanted to genuinely help, say, immigrant women, the party would insist that the women break with their religion (if it’s Islam) and their community, which would be perceived as a racist outrage.

Ah yes, “socialism on one country” – remind me how that worked out

The far right has always been anti-feminist and anti-gay, both in Europe and the US. In recent years, there is a new tendency for nativists and racists to justify their anti-immigrant policies with concern precisely over the threat that radical islamism poses to women and gays, and the more general claim that immigrant males from “other cultures” are sexist and threaten “our women”. Most of this is certainly phony and cynical propaganda. Also the discourse about “strangers” threatening “our women” is not new at all, that has always been part of racist rhetoric.

I’m not dismissing the possibility that there might be genuine change in some right wing parties. That some of these parties are or have been led by women (Le Pen, Petry) and openly gay men (Fortuyn), that is new. Still none of these parties that I know of supports same sex marriage or reproductive choice. AfD leader Frauke Petry has stated that a “normal German family” should have three children (in order to ensure the survavl of the nation, “das Ãœberleben des eigenen Volkes, der eigenen Nation sicherzustellen“), and wants to restrict legal abortion.

Dipper @97

‘Generally what they don’t like is political parties that are so determined to make a success of free movement of people that they deliberately turn a blind eye to criminal activities, undercutting of wages, overcrowding, or other immigration-related issues.’

I wouldn’t like political parties to behave that way, either. But do they? outside people’s imaginations?

‘And … the point is … that police refused to investigate crimes because the alleged perpetrators were from immigrant groups.’

Did they? how do you know?

@ J-D – 80

“Did they? how do you know?”

because of this.

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

and the book from the social worker involved.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Broken-Betrayed-Rotherham-scandal-fought-ebook/dp/B012TS109U

81, what is phony is the claim that the nativists are genuinely concerned with women’s and gay rights.

Ze K @86

It’s not my impression that TM @84 was making a point about the use of the term ‘rights’. The idea of the term being copyrighted appears to be your invention and no part of what TM wrote. My impression was that TM was asserting that nativists are not genuinely concerned about women and gays (their rights, their well-being, their concerns, their issues, their problems, whatever).

If TM asserts that nativists are not genuinely concerned about women and gays and you assert that they are, there’s a genuine disagreement; if TM asserts that nativists cannot be genuinely concerned about women and gays and you assert that they could be, there’s a genuine disagreement; but if TM asserts that they aren’t and you assert that they could be, you’re not disagreeing, you’re talking about different things. So when TM writes that they aren’t and you write that they could be, it gives the appearance that you’re trying to make a surreptitious change of subject.

Ze K, I have pointed out that all racists in history, you can name the Nazis, the KKK, whatever, they all used the rhetoric that women needed to be protected from threatening outsiders. When a group that is demonstrably hostile to women’s rights, concerns, however you want to call it, a group that is demonstrably sexist and patriarchal in outlook and policy, justifies racism in terms of “protecting women”, that is obviously phony and cynical. Likewise, when people express outrage at sex crimes committed by foreigners/”others” but the same people are indifferent when the perpetrators are of their own group, I call that phony and cynical.

I suspect you are trolling, since you have chosen to dispute my terminology instead of the arguments.

91, my suspicion that you are trolling is confirmed.

92: “with fertility levels below two per woman, no pension system and no welfare state is sustainable.”

That’s a myth. In any case, with fertility levels above 2, nothing is sustainable. The choice isn’t between popuation growth or no growth, the choice is between a soft landing and a hard landing. Germany is the perfect example of a soft landing, with a population level that has been constant at 80 million plus/minus 2 million for almost fifty years. It’s the quintessential economic and demographic success story. Nativist claims that German women need to get it over with and start breeding more are sexist and racist as well as plain stupid.

Dipper @89

Section 11 of the report also says ‘The Inquiry Team was confident that ethnic issues did not influence professional decision-making in individual cases’ and ‘Frontline staff did not report personal experience of attempts to influence their practice or decision making because of ethnic issues’.

Anne Cryer is quoted as saying that the police found constant excuses not to do anything, but she is not quoted as saying that they refused to investigate because the alleged perpetrators were from immigrant groups.

‘There is still no satisfactory answer as to why so many of Rotherham’s institutions behaved so badly’ according to the review you cited of Jayne Senior’s book, but it also states ‘both of the offical reports state that the council, social services and local police failed to act because the blame was placed on the girls – some as young as 11 – who were thought to be responsible for their own fates’. Are you perhaps not aware that it is a recurrent (although not, I hope, universal) feature of sex crimes cases that victims are blamed (regardless of the race/ethnicity/origin of the perpetrators)? Are you perhaps not aware that it is also a recurrent feature that doubt is cast on whether the victims are likely to stand up as witnesses in court (one of the excuses that Anne Cryer does mention were given to her for inaction) — again, regardless of the race/ethnicity/origin of the perpetrators?

You end up yourself by quoting a report of allegations that corrupt police may have actively protected the perpetrators — I don’t see how you can link that with the perpetrators coming from an immigrant group. Obviously it’s true in this case that the police failed to do their job — that seems to be generally agreed. Also it’s undisputed that the perpetrators in this case came from an immigrant group. But there is a vast difference between ‘the police failed to do their job in this case where the perpetrators came from an immigrant group’ and ‘the police failed to do their job in this case because the perpetrators came from an immigrant group’. Can you really not perceive the difference?

@93: Actually, the replacement level is slightly above 2, usually assumed about 2.1 for developed countries. In the absence of immigration, sub-replacement fertility with unchanging mortality means a continuous population decline. That’s not a disaster in itself. But with a constantly low (or declining) death rate, the percent of the aged in the total population will keep growing.

True, Germany’s population has been more or less stable since about 1970 – thanks to immigration. The post-war baby boom ended in 1970-75: fertility dropped to about 1.5 around 1975 and has not recovered to higher levels since. In the past decade, the annual natural decline has ranged from 150,000-200,000. This is a rough estimate of how much immigration is needed per year to keep the population constant. From this 2015 projection by Germany’s federal statistical office, I understand that with a fertility of 1.4 and annual immigration of 200,000 from 2021 (and a higher number before that), the share of 65+ residents will still grow from 21% in 2013 to 33% in 2060.

The solution to this would be (a combination of) higher productivity, higher immigration, and higher birth rates. One cannot count on productity gains: technology improvements are unpredictable. They tend to happen but can’t be trusted to happen. The side effects of high immigration are well known. This leaves higher fertility. It may not be attainable but it is hardly “stupid.”

There is another dimension at work in Austria.
Clientelism. Historically, jobs in the state bureaucracy and state companies were divided up by the two dominant parties.

The story is similar to many other parts of Europe – as the economy slowed, what this left is an older generation in jobs and power thanks to political influence and a younger generation excluded (largely because of a lack of growth.) And that’s before you factor in the just resentment of the corruption that goes on when things get clientelistic. The Greens and the FPO have both capitalised on resentment about this.

The FPO managed the neat trick of hoovering up votes from 3 constituencies:
1) The traditional far-right (which were the original constituency of the FPO).
2) The “identity voters” stirred up against “Islamic immigration” but who aren’t traditional pan-German far-right.
3) Young people disenchanted with politics who aren’t happy to vote green.

Now, the FPO has been successful before (Haider) so we shouldn’t ignore the fact that Austria just does have a sizeable reactionary vote. But it’s the addition of 2 & 3 that has brought us to this point.

Cat. (2) has to be seen as partly about historical circumstance: the collapse of Syria & Libya and refugee crisis resulting, which allowed some level of hysteria to be whipped up. However, as many others have noted, the failure of the main parties to present any alternative to austerity has fuelled resentments further. And in terms of social and economic class, many of these voters should have been amenable to a left-of-center anti-establishment party, but perhaps the Greens aren’t right for this (largely older, more trad.) demographic.

Cat. (3) These young FPO voters have to be understood as largely center-right. Younger anti-establishment voters largely did vote Green. The key here is that the FPO managed through historical presence as the third party to become the alternative center-right. The lack of a German style FDP has given the FPO an extra boost.

@97: demographic Ponzi schemes fully qualify as stupid.

Alex K @97

It’s true that low birth rates result in an aging population, but the arguments that this is a problem requiring a solution are largely if not entirely spurious. Yes, there is an increase in the fraction of the population made up of the dependent aged, but this does not equate to an increase in the ratio of dependents to workers because of the offsetting decrease in the fraction of the population made up of the dependent young.

@103: In the Destatis scenario with 200k annual immigration post-2020 and 1.4 fertility, the share of the below-20 young only goes down from 18% in 2013 to 16% in 2060 while the percentage of the above-65 old soars from 21% to 33%. (And the share of the really old, 80 and older, will rise from 5% to 13%.) It does not quite work out your way.

@97: a demographic Ponzi scheme would work with 2.5 fertility and current Western European mortality levels. We are not talking about that. With 1.5 fertility, there’s no way to get that Ponzi scheme to work (although it has to be working over there, in the countries sending the immigrants that keep the population constant over here). The best you can hope for is for the birth rate to approach 2, which would alleviate the aging problem over time.

Ze K @107

‘Per my understanding of nativism, immigration per se is not necessarily threatening or undesirable for them (to compensate for low birth rates or whatever); it’s unassimilated immigration (which is usually a result of mass-immigration) that they object to: ethnic enclaves, erosion of social cohesion, this sort of thing. Is this concern really so unreasonable?’

‘Ethnic enclaves’: if people who have migrated from the same place choose to live near each other, it breaks nobody’s legs and picks nobody’s pockets.

‘Erosion of social cohesion’: does this mean something more than ‘When I see and hear so many people around who look and sound different from what I’m used to, it makes me uncomfortable’? If you don’t feel that you cohere with the immigrants, why is that the immigrants’ problem and not yours? There is no good reason why they should be expected to live their lives in a way that you are comfortable with.

If I pass through a neighbourhood and see that the signs on the shops are in a language I don’t know, I may decide not to go into any of those shops, but then, nobody’s trying to force me to go into any of those shops, are they? so I don’t see how it’s any real concern of mine.

Ze K @109

If you don’t want to make the effort to explain your meaning to me (or to anybody), there’s no reason why you should; you don’t need my agreement. On the other hand, that’s no reason why I should desist from trying to explain my meaning.

Social cohesion depends on people feeling that they’re on the same side. To the extent that people in society feel that they’re on the same side, society coheres; to the extent that they don’t, it doesn’t.

One major factor in undermining people’s sense that they’re on the same side, and hence social cohesion, is social inequality. Therefore, if you want to increase social cohesion, one good strategy is to try to reduce social inequality.

@ dax, in neither case is the religious bigotry pleasant, but in the first case, the teacher is not harmed by not getting a handshake; while in the second case, the transgender is harmed by not being able to use a bathroom. It’s a question of whether one’s religious convictions should be honored beyond the point where they harm others.

” the teacher is not harmed by not getting a handshake; while in the second case, the transgender is harmed by not being able to use a bathroom. ”

Of course the teacher is harmed, indeed is harmed almost in the exact way as the transgender is harmed not being able to use a bathroom of their choice.

@Guy, I think you’ve grabbed the wrong end of the stick, which might explain the shuddering. Of course you’re harmed by your example, I should have thought that was obvious from my statement.

@dax, I said both cases were unpleasant bigotry; but harm is relative, and varies by degree, and I don’t think the degrees of harm here are the same, and it strikes me as wrong to redress the harm to the teacher by compelling people to shake her hand against their will.

On the other hand, the transgender person is being prevented from using any bathroom at all – that’s the effect of the legislation, regardless of the claims of those promoting it.

dax: “Forcing the owner to serve the black person seems pretty near equivalent to forcing the boy to shake the teacher’s hand. No?”

In a word, no.

“It’s one of the great mysteries to me that, because the boys are basing their decisions by gender, some people think there’s no big harm. But if the boy refused to shake the hand of a Jew, or a black person, suddenly people see the harm.”

Perhaps this mystery is entirely in your head, since you don’t consider the possibility that some people would not compel anyone to shake hands with anyone against their will.

Suppose a group of people meet. Some shake hands, but some don’t. Some kiss on the cheek, while some don’t. The reasons for the variable behavior are cultural. Who has been harmed? If you didn’t get a handshake, or a kiss on the cheek, from one member of the party, should we compel them to redress that wrong?

dax: “Sorry, now you’re going back and forth too much for me.”

Again, maybe that’s a problem with you. Suppose I simply dislike you, quietly, in my own mind, and so, passively, tend to avoid your company. Are you harmed? Arguably, yes. But are you harmed in a way we should try to redress, by changing the contents of my head?

There’s a spectrum of ‘harm’, right? Human sacrifice is near one end, and social rudeness is at another. Can we agree that there are some levels of harm that, as a matter of law and custom, must be treated as not-harm, because redressing them through coersion is fruitless and actually more harmful than the original harm? Can we not agree on that in principle even if we can’t agree on where to draw that line?

dax: “I think it’s a problem with the way you expressed yourself.”

This notion of yours harms me, but it harms me in a way that can’t practically be redressed, and the harm is slight, so we might as well agree that, as a matter of law and custom, there’s no harm.

dax @113

The whole time I was at school, I was never required to shake hands with a teacher. If Switzerland has a rule that requires students to shake hands with teachers, it’s a bad rule, and should be repealed. Physical contact between students and teachers should not be mandated.

“Similarly, the black person is not harmed, if she can buy ice cream at the next corner. But the society is harmed nevertheless: society’s norms have been violated.”

There are multiple things wrong with this. First, it was this particular society’s norm that black people could not be served in white establishments, so no social norm was being violated. Second, because it was a social norm, it was often not the case that the black person could be served elsewhere. Third, the denial of service at an ice cream parlor was, if anything, a symptom of a broader problem, which was a systemic denial of service of any kind to black people, with the services denied including both commercial and governmental, with the result that the black person was most certainly harmed. Note that the redress requires that service not be denied – getting at the cause of substantial harm – but does not require the server to shake the hand of every customer, because the harm in that case can’t redressed without undue coersion on the part of society.

“You ought to start conforming to the social norms, obviously – or accept the consequences…”

No matter what those social norms are? Frightening.

Marc: “This would be a pretty concrete example of the sort of “social norms” that you appear to find so troubling.”

Are you talking to me? If so, maybe you can point to something I’ve said which justifies your claim that I’m troubled by social norms against harassment?

No, I’m not claiming that anyone is endorsing harassment.

There is a whole string of comments verging on sophistry that appear to be making the claim that there is no such thing as a social norm, or certainly that they are vaguely threatening and suspicious and wrong. I’ve given a concrete example of a social norm that I suspect people would agree on. Treat it as an existence proof.

Seriously, what the devil are the last dozen comments intended to be even establishing?

There has to be a difference between a ‘social norm’ and base prejudice.

The case of the pupils not shaking the hand of the teacher would be OK if you could say that not shaking hands with anyone was a ‘social norm’ in their community/culture or just as an individual preference. However, if the justification is that you refuse to shake hands with a woman (or a black person, or a gay person, etc.), then it is a clear case of discrimination, and as such potentially harmful.

The existence of a ‘social norm’ cannot be the justification for abusing other people’s rights. It is fortunate that those discriminated against have stood up against this and social norms have radically changed.

J-D 103 is right. Demographic doomsday scenarios always neglect to mention that the share of dependent young used to be much higher than it is in our “aging” societies. AlexK respond with a scenario saying that the share of young won’t decline as much as the share of older people increases. That depends on the assumptions of the scenario, of course, but even if it is true, it completely misses the longer view. I’ll rake Japan as an example because I have analyzed that some time ago (http://www.slideshare.net/amenning/the-human-population-challenge, slides 46 ff). Received wisdom among the “more is better” crowd has it that Japan is a basket case of demographic decline. But actually, the working age share is slightly higher than it was in 1950, when 35% of the population were children under 15. (1950: 35% under 15, 60% working age; 2012: 13% under 15, 63% working age; projection for 2050: 10% under 15, 51.5% working age).

Until mid century, the working age share is projected to be 8 percentage points lower than in 1950. That doesn’t sound dramatic at all. Labor productivity will be many times higher than it was in 1950. Furthermore, women labor participation has of course increased and since most people in their 60s and even early 70s are still in good health, many of them will continue to be economically active. There is no plausible scenario in which the demographic development would lead to an actual labor shortage and society will be economically unable to provide for the elderly. There just isn’t.

The data make it clear that the average Japanese worker supported more economic dependents in 1950 than today, yet paradoxically, the demographic doom crowd dream of the 1950s model, when the population pyramid was still shaped like a pyramid. This is not based on rational science but on a totally anachronistic frontier ideology.

Further to 140: I recently read an interview with the German demographer Wilkoszewski who claimed that the Total Dependency Ratio in Europe was currently unfavorable and was projected to decline “even further”. I looked up the numbers and found that the German Total Dependency Ratio is currently close to its most favorable level ever! (http://www.bib-demografie.de/EN/Facts_Figures/Pop_Balance/Figures/a_02_13_quotienten_d_1871_2060.html)

I contacted him and he admitted that I was right. His excuse was that he had meant to refer to the elderly dependency level, not the total dependency level, which he was clearly quoted with in the interview. In any case his statement was unscientific. The doomsayers can get away with it because journalists and politicians are notoriously number averse and the charlatans rarely get called out on their manipulations.

128: “You ought to start conforming to the social norms, obviously – or accept the consequences…”

I was taught in school that conformism is outdated. Now what do I do?

“I was taught in school that conformism is outdated. Now what do I do?”

Shake that teacher’s hand! Quick, before they arrest you…

Ze K, you wrote earlier ‘Per my understanding of nativism, immigration per se is not necessarily threatening or undesirable for them (to compensate for low birth rates or whatever); it’s unassimilated immigration (which is usually a result of mass-immigration) that they object to: ethnic enclaves, erosion of social cohesion, this sort of thing. Is this concern really so unreasonable?’

Do you have any view of your own on that question, on whether those concerns are unreasonable or not? or are you still looking for an answer to it?

150: So you are not a native but you are trying to understand the natives, like an anthropologist? That is awfully generous of you but let me caution: rarely do anthropologists succeed in understanding alien cultures through google searches and online news sources.

Alex K @148 wrote:

‘My opponent said that nativist calls for higher fertility are “sexist and racist as well as plain stupid.” I see no point arguing over what is sexist or racist. I only pointed out that higher fertility was one way to counter the aging of the population.’

and

‘My opponent, if I may rephrase his/her argument, countered that the inevitable aging would not be a disaster. The total dependency ratio (TDR) would not rise significantly because the growing number of the non-working old would be offset of the dwindling number of the non-working young.’

The opponent referred to in that second quote must be me, because I did write those things (although I’ve since acknowledged that I overstated my position). The opponent referred to in the first quote is not me. I didn’t write those things, and I wouldn’t, because I don’t hold those views.

From Ingrid’s OP — “Either way, those of us who see the European radical right-wing parties as dangerous for values such as toleration, solidarity and international cooperation, have an uphill battle to fight…. we should not forget that half of the Austrians prefer a radical right-wing president. Too much of this reminds us of the toxic political climate we had in Europe in the past. And I find it increasingly hard not too worry that there are too many signs of some of that returning.”

On the 23-24 of May the United Nations held the World Humanitarian Summit, as a response to escalating conflict and crisis numbers of displaced persons and refugees.

Our local group that tries to raise awareness and fundraise for refugees called the Prime Minister’s office and Leader of the Opposition’s office, leader of the Greens party as well, and we couldn’t get a response about anyone representing Australia at the Summit.

You can access a list of participants in the Leaders Segment here http://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org and no leaders from Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Canada, or the USA are listed as attending. I think Ireland is the only “Anglo” country who had a leader attend (this is probably not quite the right way to described Ireland, but you know what I mean).

Australia and New Zealand hosted an event as co-chairs of the Pacific Regional Steering Group, “Collaborating for Resilience in the Pacific”. USAid co-hosted an event. And some non-government organisations from these countries participated.

Possibly people who work in the public service in Australia, NZ, the UK, Canada, and USA attended. I can’t find a list. It is very disappointing no leaders attended from these countries though.

@J-D 154: I apologize for misrepresenting your position. I should be more careful in the future.

“1) The traditional far-right (which were the original constituency of the FPO).”

Would not say that. Its “Freiheitlich” (liberty/freedom) right in the name after all. The FPÖ was not that far right before Haider and gay Haider never was traditional far right.

With regards to “anti clientelist” constituency, id say thats broader than just perceived corruption. They get the entire anti corporatist vote, which is in no way limited to alleged corruption, that also includedes people e.g. unhappy with mandatory membership in a Wirtschaftskammer and things like that.