Andrew Stuttaford notes Der Spiegel’s rogues’ gallery of Europe’s 10 Most Dangerous Politicians, and snarks:
Curiously, Europe’s truly dangerous politicians, the architects and operators of the euro, or that curious fellow who is now president of France, don’t rate a mention.
Well said.
Bob Jones says: I have to wonder if Stuttaford actually read the accompanying article, or just looked at the headline and decided to write a little blog about what he wanted ti to say.
It is clear the Der Spiegel is expressing a concern about the rise of “self promoting populism” among some European political leaders that promise to give them votes, but also create new levels of divisiveness and create greater problems – socially, economically, and politically in the future in exchange for the short-term cheap electioneering.
The other side to this story is the context and source. The Germans especially are extremely gun shy when it come to populist leaders who rile up populations to win elections by creating enemies to blame for all of their problem. They have a recent history with a pretty awful outcome still in their collective social memory.
Those who create the Euro weren’t populist it didn’t try to create divisiveness in society for their own cheap benefits.
And by the way Beyng – two names to give you an idea of how a “marginal political figure with no access – and who no one at the time believed would even have access – to the levers of power can indeed be threats to Europe. Ever hear of Adolf Hitler or Mussolini. The German Conservative parties believed right up until he took power and then began throwing them out that he was nothing but a small bug who be forced into a corner and squashed. Never underestimate the threat that a self interested and ambitious populist can have, especially when willing to tell the big lies to get their way.
Simon says: Hitler had captured a third of the vote in the presidential election preceding his elevation to the chancellorship. And the rise of the NSDAP to power would have been impossible but for the fact that a rival totalitarianism, the Communists (with a longer track record of violence up to that point in early 1933), also commanded a third of the German electorate. So the decent parties were trapped between two devils.
None of this is remotely true of the “dangerous” populists of early 21st century Europe. The comparison is foolish.
The president of France has the right idea, but he is a poor strategist. He should review Chris Hanni’s luncheon speech to the South African Chamber of Commerce (probably the only time a secretary general of the Communist Party has been invited to fill such a role). Hanni said, there will need to be a redistribution, but not the kind where you cut up the cow and everyone take a piece home.
Holland hasn’t figured out how to keep the cattle herd increasing for the benefit of everyone. Margaret Thatcher to the contrary notwithstanding, it can be done.
Simon, two things defeated Hitler: Communist determination, and American production. A quaint mix, what?
Ethan C. says: Also worth mentioning is that the truly dangerous figures of the racist far right and left actually get their power and popularity thanks to the failures of centrist parties to address the lower classes’ legitimate concerns over things like unemployment and failed multicultural policies.
For example, when the mainstream parties declare questions about immigration to be verboten, then the workers feel that only the radical parties care about them. So instead of having sensible reform to fix poor policies, you only have establishment entrenchment on one side and radical racism on the other.
Bob Jones says: Simon you are being extremely selective in your history. Yes, Hitler ran second in the 1932 Presidential election, but by then he had moved his fringe populist party from the fringe to a position of acceptance, especially by the larger industrialists, who supported his presidential bid. However, a more apt comparison would be with Hitler and his populist nationalist movement in the early to mid 1920′s. A movement that attempted to gain political capital by railing against failed economic policies, inflation, high unemployment, and a diminished national pride. They were vocal rabble rousers, who engaged in “gang fights” with communists, and never really were competitive in elections, because they were seen as being, well kooky. In fact the NSDAP never achieved greater than double digits in an election until after the financial crash, gaining about 18% in Reichstag elections in 1930. My point (not Der Spiegel’s) is that you cannot underestimate the ability of populists to say anything and propose incredibility dishonest policies in order to garner votes and gain power. The NSDAP is an example of how such a movement, while appearing to be kooky and non-threatening can be elected to power through ambition and saying things people want to hear.
On another note: while the NSDAP battled with the KPD in the streets for membership (they were appealing to the same demographic, often using the same tactics), their true “enemies” were the mainstream parties of the left and center (the SPD and the Zentrum (political Catholicism) – the new governing parties that negotiated the WW1 peace treaty I might add).
If you read the Spiegel article and the captions to the pictures you will see why they consider these individuals to be dangerous. Take #2 the Greek radical who wants to make it illegal to privatize state owned businesses, and who wants to make no concessions to Greece’s creditors. How would that work, what if he were to be elected, what would the result be? Bankruptcy, social unrest, mass emigration – and where do you think the Greeks would want to go when their country fails? When you think that context through, then maybe you might be able to appreciate why the Germans might consider these individuals to be “dangerous”.
Beyng says: “Ever hear of Adolf Hitler or Mussolini. The German Conservative parties believed right up until he took power and then began throwing them out that he was nothing but a small bug who be forced into a corner and squashed.”
Good grief, Bob Jones. No one on that list bears the remotest resemblance to Hitler. Marine Le Pen, even if she were ever likely to be elected, isn’t going to murder who opponents or exterminate religious minorities. Or invade Poland.
“In fact the NSDAP never achieved greater than double digits in an election until after the financial crash…”
It takes a VERY powerful totalitarian grip on power to achieve percentage results greater than double digits in an election. Every vote cast would get a candidate to the very lowest percentage in more that double digits: 100 percent.
While Hitler in the mid-20s was hardly the power he became in the mid-30s, remember that many pipsqueaks hardly worth the press coverage they got have had their moment in the sun due to fears that every one of them could be “another Hitler.” Most faded quickly.
IanH says: “He should review Chris Hanni’s luncheon speech to the South African Chamber of Commerce”
Thankfully, he never got a chance to test his ideas. God Bless Clive Derby-Lewis.
Obviously, marginal political figures who have no access–and likely will never have much access–to the levers of power are the true threats to Europe. Obviously.