Sounds rather similar to the Scandinavian right-wingers (the Danish Fremskridtspartiet, the Norwegian Fremskrittspartiet and the Swedish Folkpartiet). Although those parties have had their share of ideological libertarians, they’ve used more of a xenophobic, anti-immigration (by darker-skinned people, especially Moslems) populist rhetoric lately. In Norway, they threw out most of their libertarian representatives in the early 1990s, cultivating their ill-defined populist rhetoric along lines not dissimilar to that of the Dutch Pim Fortuyn List, the Belgian Vlaams Belang, the French Front National and the Freedom Party of Austria.
Easy. That’s because the far right wants to turn back the clock to the Good Old Days, and England, unlike Ireland, had Good Old Days. 
In the UK, in the late 1970’s, the National Front surged in public support. They were defeated by various factors, including mobilization of youth against them, and the (typical far right) in fighting. But the most important was the cooption of their anti-immigrant message by Margaret Thatcher. As the Tories moved away from this view, the far right crawled out from under the fridge again, and became more popular.
As people have said, the same pattern can be seen in the US. There’s no need for a separate far right grouping when the Republican party embraces the racists and they form a significant grouping within that party.
I think these things just go in multi-generational cycles. There’s certainly nothing intrinsic to the culture that says that European parties should be more progressive, on average, than Americans.
I mean, if you ask my mother whether Europeans are more enlightened than Americans she’d laugh in your face. She was imprisoned in Bergen-Belsen.
Do you think a system where the American voters could re-direct would be influential here in the States?
Say independents make up 15-20% of the total population, if they really wanted their voices heard they could vote their minds with the knowledge that whomever changed their platform to suit their needs go that percentage.
Granted the electoral college would need to go bye bye.
It’s also worth asking: how do you define “Far right”? I ask seriously, because the media often use simplistic labels for complicated politicians with complicated combinations of views.
When Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was murdered several years ago, American media outlets invariably called him a “right wing” or “far right” politician. But Fortuyn was an openly gay Marxist! What made him a “right wing” politician in the American media’s eyes? Why, the fact that he was hostile to Muslim immigrants. Aparently, if you don’t embrace the concept of open borders, you’re “far right.”
But wait… Fortuyn wasn’t hostile to immigrants because of their skin color. He was hostile because he believed (with some justice) that the freedom gays like himself enjoy in the Netherlands would be destroyed if Muslims ever became a potent political force there!
Many people are quick to assume that racism is the ONLY possible explanation for anyone to be hostile to Middle Eastern immigrants. That’s not the case.
Let’s look at France’s leading “far right” politician, Monsieur LePen. You probably THINK you know his stance on immigration from Africa and the Middle East. But what are his OTHER policies? Does he favor dismantling France’s generous welfare state? Building up France’s armed forces? Do you know? Does it matter? Couldn’t a man be an ardent socialist and trade unionist, and oppose immigration for reasons of economic self-interest? Is a socialist who believes Arab immigrants will drive down his wages a “right winger”?
According to Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Wikipedia entry:
That seems pretty conservative for even the U.S. When you add to that his aforementioned history of xenophobia and anti-Semitism, that would push him past even Pat Buchanan and into the zone occupied by the (fortunately) mostly-forgotten David Duke.
FWIW, Fortuyn certainly wasn’t espousing Marxist politics by the time he started his own party. As far as I can judge, he was a bit more leftist (and probably a lot more “libertarian”) than Wilders, though.
True to a point. What’s definitely is true is that you don’t have to be a rightists or racist to think that the slowly growing influence of Islam in Europe is on balance probably not a good thing.
On the other hand, I see Wilders as an almost purely opportunistic politician running on a platform of fear, which is why I’m not surprised he’s running on an anti-Islam, pro-gay*, anti-“left wing”**, yet very pro-social security in the broad sense (including something close to universal health care), pro-business, anti-“scroungers” platform. Because while some of those positions can clash, they tick pretty much all of the fear boxes of the Dutch general public.
- While there may be many people here who don’t particularly feel comfortable around gay people, there are many more - probably even with some overlap between the groups - who feel offended that gay people might feel personally insecure living in this country.
** Wilders’ definition of “left wing” is always vague. But at least it appears to include stuff like lenience in the judicial system, subsidies to the arts & students, international monetary aid, military aid, and the EU.
Out of edit window:
What I do want to say in favor of Fortuyn (and I never agreed with the guy much), is that he was clearly a thinker and someone with at least a much more comprehensive - and probably more socially acceptable - view of what the challenges and opportunities of the Netherlands were at the time than Wilders will ever show.
In any case, I think what we’ve seen in the Netherlands in the last decade or so - as in the US and the UK - is that the quality of “leftist” rhetoric has been going down while the effectiveness of right-wing fear mongering has risen, especially since 9/11.
Not really, I follow enough of American politics to say without exagerating that Le Pen would be along the likes of Palin and Gingrich, and the Tea Partiers if he was suddenly transfered to the States.
I have to disagree. An American equivalent of Le Pen, while sharing similar views with Palin and Gingrich on non-racial matters, would also be the most open race-baiter in mainstream American politics since the heyday of George Wallace. (Although he would have to be a bit more subtle than Wallace was.)
The Swedish Democrats’ candidates were majority immigrant in one election (Iraqi Christians) at that so I highly doubt the label “racist” fits them.
I’m sorry is this an attempt at a woosh? Could it be because I mistakenly wrote Svenska instead of Sverige?
Because believe me, Sverige Demokratarna are racist. Really quite racist.
The far right in Europe seems to be the conservative base of the GOP. So they are just integrated into the major party here.
On the subject of Le Pen and the National Front, the views are no different than the views of a conservative republican in the US.
The only real difference is the state giving money to mothers to stay at home. That’d never pass in the US (that and protetionism might get some resistance from conservatives). Everything else (independence from international groups, law and order, anti-abortion, anti-minority rights, anti-immigration) is a common GOP position here.
I didn’t say anything about Parliament. The BNP has had a few dozen councillors elected in Britain, a feat completely unparalleled in Ireland.
Cite, please? Unless you provide a credible cite that Sverigedemokraterna “were majority immigrant in one election”, I’ll have to conclude that you don’t have an inkling of a clue of what you’re yapping about. Because, as amanset says: Sverigedemokratarna are really quite racist.
ETA: There are other possible reasons for your statement, but if I were to suggest those, I’d be breaking the forum rules
Realistically: it picks up the fringe element. That’s not to downplay the threat of European “Far-Rightism” (“Militant-Nationalism”?), but, yeah. To most of the French, Le Pen is their…well, I was gonna say that God-Hates-Fags guy, but Le Pen is both milder than that, and has far more respect.
Hmm…
Is it a dick answer to say that I’m simply not too worried? That, for example, I believe that France will tolerate this to a POINT…but will never allow itself to succumb to cheap, racist nationalism? (I’m not making a silly sarcastic point, there – thats straight-up).
Basically, when push comes to shove, I feel that Europeans are well aware of the obvious comparison – Hitler – and will back down from truly dick actions. Call it a kind of faith. That said, we (meaning, non-dick citizenry) need to remain AWAKE, and AWARE. As M. Fife would say, when it becomes a problem, you need to nip it in the bud.
There are thousands of local councillors elected every couple of years in elections where turnouts are miniscule. And the BNP have 24 at this moment. Big deal.
Sorry but no one except Le Pen would start insinuating rumors on one Presidential candidate or even President about his foragna origins. In the US, it was quicker to ask who wouldnt do that in the Republican party. I stand by my words. You either have a faulty assessment of how racism behaves in Europe and France, or how it manifests itself in the US.
“Where there a bees there is honey, and where there are Jews there is money”
The man who said that sat in the Irish Dail until 1987, and his son still sits there now.
Let’s not be too hasty to judge.
We aren’t as bad as Britain, but really that has more to do with with SF squatting on that particular demographic.