The changing political cleavage structures of Western democracies
February 26, 2024 1:41 AM Subscribe
The causes of populism are at the heart of the most significant political and social science debates. One narrative contends that economic globalization resulted in real suffering among less-educated working-class voters, catalyzing populism. Another narrative contends that populism is an adverse reaction to cultural progressivism and that economic factors are not relevant or only relevant symbolically through perceptions of loss of cultural status. Even though the evidence suggests that the generational change argument suggested by the canonical book of Norris and Inglehart does not hold empirically, the cultural narrative nevertheless seems to be particularly influential. from The Populist Backlash Against Globalization: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence [Cambridge University]
Racism obviously makes one economically anxious.
posted by nofundy at 3:01 AM on February 26 [9 favorites]
posted by nofundy at 3:01 AM on February 26 [9 favorites]
The card dealership owners and mid-level bank managers are a big part of the problem, though. It's not just bitter, ill-informed coal miners.
It's people who do cowboy cosplay who have the time and resources to attack the Capitol. Actual rural working-class people share in the collective delusion and moral failing, but they can't afford a plane ticket to DC, and can't take a week off for criming.
posted by gimonca at 3:18 AM on February 26 [30 favorites]
It's people who do cowboy cosplay who have the time and resources to attack the Capitol. Actual rural working-class people share in the collective delusion and moral failing, but they can't afford a plane ticket to DC, and can't take a week off for criming.
posted by gimonca at 3:18 AM on February 26 [30 favorites]
“Populism” is what the US corporate media calls fascism - has this also infected academic economics writing?
posted by ryanshepard at 5:07 AM on February 26 [11 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 5:07 AM on February 26 [11 favorites]
s/card dealership/car dealership/ ...sorry, missed the edit window.
posted by gimonca at 5:15 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]
posted by gimonca at 5:15 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]
One narrative contends that economic globalization resulted in real suffering among less-educated working-class voters, catalyzing populism. Another narrative contends that populism is an adverse reaction to cultural progressivism and that economic factors are not relevant or only relevant symbolically through perceptions of loss of cultural status.
This is a clear ¿Por qué no los dos? situation.
Also, from the abstract:
the causal association between economic insecurity and populism remains significant
posted by grumpybear69 at 5:44 AM on February 26 [3 favorites]
This is a clear ¿Por qué no los dos? situation.
Also, from the abstract:
the causal association between economic insecurity and populism remains significant
posted by grumpybear69 at 5:44 AM on February 26 [3 favorites]
s/card dealership/car dealership/ ...sorry, missed the edit window.
Everyone always blames the card dealers when they get a bad hand.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:58 AM on February 26 [17 favorites]
Everyone always blames the card dealers when they get a bad hand.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:58 AM on February 26 [17 favorites]
Systematic reviews are tough, and I'd be cautious to say there's a clear casual link. Selection bias is a thing.
posted by blendor at 6:00 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]
posted by blendor at 6:00 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]
A lot of the comments here are, as usual, answered in the paper (although possibly not to everyone’s satisfaction). If i’m reading the conclusion correctly, they suggest that different people react to different pressures, and that economic precariousness is the major pressure for lower-income people while cultural issues are the major pressure for higher-income people. The authors seemed to think that there is a lot more work to be done and that these studies are difficult to do well and difficult to compare.
Assuming the authors are right, the study suggests that right-wing populism is a product of multiple factors and no one solution is going to deal with the problem. I suspect that the large number of economically desperate people who align themselves with the Right give cover and encouragement to the “Car Dealership class” who are emboldened to try light insurrection (although they are more deterred by the threat of criminal and civil penalties).
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:30 AM on February 26 [22 favorites]
Assuming the authors are right, the study suggests that right-wing populism is a product of multiple factors and no one solution is going to deal with the problem. I suspect that the large number of economically desperate people who align themselves with the Right give cover and encouragement to the “Car Dealership class” who are emboldened to try light insurrection (although they are more deterred by the threat of criminal and civil penalties).
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:30 AM on February 26 [22 favorites]
The full quote from the abstract is more informative in that respect:
We tested for publication bias by conducting a funnel-plot asymmetry test and a density discontinuity test of the distribution of t-statistics. We found significant evidence of publication bias; however, the causal association between economic insecurity and populism remains significant after controlling for it.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:31 AM on February 26 [8 favorites]
We tested for publication bias by conducting a funnel-plot asymmetry test and a density discontinuity test of the distribution of t-statistics. We found significant evidence of publication bias; however, the causal association between economic insecurity and populism remains significant after controlling for it.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:31 AM on February 26 [8 favorites]
Ah thanks grumpybear69, I skimmed admittedly and missed that.
posted by blendor at 6:36 AM on February 26 [2 favorites]
posted by blendor at 6:36 AM on February 26 [2 favorites]
A lot of the comments here are, as usual, answered in the paper (although possibly not to everyone’s satisfaction). If i’m reading the conclusion correctly, they suggest that different people react to different pressures, and that economic precariousness is the major pressure for lower-income people while cultural issues are the major pressure for higher-income people. The authors seemed to think that there is a lot more work to be done and that these studies are difficult to do well and difficult to compare.
I read an article the other day about the phenomenon of support for right wing populists in areas that have suffered economic and population declines. It might have been posted here as an FPP? It talked about how you get in a cycle of disinvestment (like, there are fewer students so you close schools, then the local road repair units are consolidated to one location further away with less staff, and so on) and population decline (younger people leaving for more opportunities) and how that can create an outcome of people being receptive to what the right wing populists are offering.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:37 AM on February 26 [7 favorites]
I read an article the other day about the phenomenon of support for right wing populists in areas that have suffered economic and population declines. It might have been posted here as an FPP? It talked about how you get in a cycle of disinvestment (like, there are fewer students so you close schools, then the local road repair units are consolidated to one location further away with less staff, and so on) and population decline (younger people leaving for more opportunities) and how that can create an outcome of people being receptive to what the right wing populists are offering.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:37 AM on February 26 [7 favorites]
"As Americans enter the third year of the pandemic, most workers just aren't into their jobs, with nearly three-fourths saying they're either not engaged or are actively disengaged at work"
www.gallup.com/workplace/468233/employee-engagement-needs-rebound-2023.aspx
I can see Trumpism as an attractive bomb for people to reach for to throw at the neoliberals.
But looking at the differences of opinion I have with e.g. my seditious BIL, I think the divide goes much deeper/wider than just economic desperation.
"Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
posted by torokunai at 6:45 AM on February 26 [5 favorites]
www.gallup.com/workplace/468233/employee-engagement-needs-rebound-2023.aspx
I can see Trumpism as an attractive bomb for people to reach for to throw at the neoliberals.
But looking at the differences of opinion I have with e.g. my seditious BIL, I think the divide goes much deeper/wider than just economic desperation.
"Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
posted by torokunai at 6:45 AM on February 26 [5 favorites]
The article doesn’t touch on this, but economic precarity can cause people to lean on other social networks, like churches, and with the white Evangelicals going whole hog for fascism, it’s not surprising that people who otherwise might not care much get dragged into culture war bullshit. If you are working and feel generally respected and safe, you tend to be more generous with the way other people live and aren’t lured as easily into self-defeating zero-sum conflicts with people for whom you’d be better off showing class solidarity.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:13 AM on February 26 [13 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:13 AM on February 26 [13 favorites]
Because the car dealership guys sure have that solidarity, it seems.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:14 AM on February 26 [4 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:14 AM on February 26 [4 favorites]
economic precarity can cause people to lean on other social networks, like churches
I have no doubt some of the global forces driving inflation have this deliberate goal in mind. "Worse is better". It's still globalization, but under secretive upper tier private ownership as opposed to intergovernmental agreement.
Humans are the New Oil and the Internet was a gusher.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:39 AM on February 26 [8 favorites]
I have no doubt some of the global forces driving inflation have this deliberate goal in mind. "Worse is better". It's still globalization, but under secretive upper tier private ownership as opposed to intergovernmental agreement.
Humans are the New Oil and the Internet was a gusher.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:39 AM on February 26 [8 favorites]
If i’m reading the conclusion correctly, they suggest that different people react to different pressures, and that economic precariousness is the major pressure for lower-income people while cultural issues are the major pressure for higher-income people.
I will probably never get time to read the paper (I do have to work), but this summary, at least to me, seems like the obvious common-sense answer. There is absolutely worsening conditions, a growing wealth gap and a world that feels like it's approaching Gilded Age 2.0. And most mainstream politicians (particularly in the US, but it's true of centrist European politicians as well) don't want to seriously do anything about it. Is it really that surprising that people in that situation want to blow up the system?
This also tracks with my personal experience, people have a lot of complex reasons for voting the way they do, you can't easily categorize them. But of course people are terrible at nuance and prefer soundbites and easy explanations.
posted by photo guy at 7:59 AM on February 26 [4 favorites]
I will probably never get time to read the paper (I do have to work), but this summary, at least to me, seems like the obvious common-sense answer. There is absolutely worsening conditions, a growing wealth gap and a world that feels like it's approaching Gilded Age 2.0. And most mainstream politicians (particularly in the US, but it's true of centrist European politicians as well) don't want to seriously do anything about it. Is it really that surprising that people in that situation want to blow up the system?
This also tracks with my personal experience, people have a lot of complex reasons for voting the way they do, you can't easily categorize them. But of course people are terrible at nuance and prefer soundbites and easy explanations.
posted by photo guy at 7:59 AM on February 26 [4 favorites]
people who are smarter and/or more well-read than I, wasn't it at the root of economic theory in the late 18th/early 19th century: strong economies need lots of poor desperate people, vs. fewer and relatively well-off people? I believe England considered itself favourably situated in comparison to France, taking the latter view: smaller populace, more homeowners, better diet on average, = better economy. The counter argument being, the more people who are desperate enough will work for anything and also contribute to the inevitable body count of the wars you'll be fighting because economy (among other motivations for wars).
how are we doing now? I don't think we lack for people, and most of the other living creatures sharing the planet would likely agree with at least that much
posted by elkevelvet at 8:25 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]
how are we doing now? I don't think we lack for people, and most of the other living creatures sharing the planet would likely agree with at least that much
posted by elkevelvet at 8:25 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]
Systematic reviews are tough, and I'd be cautious to say there's a clear casual link. Selection bias is a thing.
A number of the works reviewed use experimental methods, where its very easy to estimate a causal effect. I guarantee you these five social scientists know what selection bias is.
The article doesn’t touch on this, but economic precarity can cause people to lean on other social networks, like churches, and with the white Evangelicals going whole hog for fascism, it’s not surprising that people who otherwise might not care much get dragged into culture war bullshit. If you are working and feel generally respected and safe, you tend to be more generous with the way other people live and aren’t lured as easily into self-defeating zero-sum conflicts with people for whom you’d be better off showing class solidarity.
On my phone but if the authors don't cite it I'm sure they are familiar with it, but theres a paper in Comparative Political Studies showing how pub closures increased support for the far-right in Britain. Collapsing social networks led to more men becoming alienated and radicalized.
'“Populism” is what the US corporate media calls fascism - has this also infected academic economics writing?'
What do you mean by these?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:01 AM on February 26 [4 favorites]
Economic and social precarity pushes people towards more extreme political ideologies for sure.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:33 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:33 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]
Because the car dealership guys sure have that solidarity, it seems.
In my experience, they've had years of training throwing their weight around on the HOA boards of upper middle class tract mansion suburbs
posted by thivaia at 10:06 AM on February 26 [4 favorites]
On my phone but if the authors don't cite it I'm sure they are familiar with it, but theres a paper in Comparative Political Studies showing how pub closures increased support for the far-right in Britain. Collapsing social networks led to more men becoming alienated and radicalized.
I think I found it: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/108991/
This is actually a really interesting idea, and I think could certainly apply to the US where third places have been on the decline for decades now (and has definitely accelerated in recent years).
posted by photo guy at 10:14 AM on February 26 [7 favorites]
I think I found it: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/108991/
This is actually a really interesting idea, and I think could certainly apply to the US where third places have been on the decline for decades now (and has definitely accelerated in recent years).
posted by photo guy at 10:14 AM on February 26 [7 favorites]
'“Populism” is what the US corporate media calls fascism - has this also infected academic economics writing?'
What do you mean by these?
Back in the day Populism is what the news media called The New Deal and left leaning policies, or what those folks now being called populists by the news media, call socialism or communism.
posted by evilDoug at 10:44 AM on February 26 [3 favorites]
What do you mean by these?
Back in the day Populism is what the news media called The New Deal and left leaning policies, or what those folks now being called populists by the news media, call socialism or communism.
posted by evilDoug at 10:44 AM on February 26 [3 favorites]
Populism is a social phenomenon and not an ideology with an outline to build on, but yet it has its "blind" supporters, in the sense that they believe it can do no wrong. This allows it to function as a Trojan horse.
posted by Brian B. at 10:46 AM on February 26 [2 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 10:46 AM on February 26 [2 favorites]
Philosophy Tube did a great video touching on this a few days ago.
posted by idb at 10:51 AM on February 26 [3 favorites]
posted by idb at 10:51 AM on February 26 [3 favorites]
> “Populism” is what the US corporate media calls fascism - has this also infected academic economics writing?
Wow at lot of stabs at this with nobody really getting it right.
"Populism" is a recurring US thing where the working have-nots get really pissed off at the haves, and get their attention redirected to shiny objects to distract them. Nativism and anti-immigrant fervor are recurring themes. The New Deal was not "Populist." The term originated as a description of the platform of the People's Party in the 1890s but the lineaments are visible in the politics of the American or Know-Nothing party of the 1850s, and of the Jacksonians before them.
"Populism" is not remotely like "fascism," unless you mean to say that "hate-mongering === fascism," which is not helpful. Populism is definitely whites-only though.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:56 AM on February 26 [6 favorites]
Wow at lot of stabs at this with nobody really getting it right.
"Populism" is a recurring US thing where the working have-nots get really pissed off at the haves, and get their attention redirected to shiny objects to distract them. Nativism and anti-immigrant fervor are recurring themes. The New Deal was not "Populist." The term originated as a description of the platform of the People's Party in the 1890s but the lineaments are visible in the politics of the American or Know-Nothing party of the 1850s, and of the Jacksonians before them.
"Populism" is not remotely like "fascism," unless you mean to say that "hate-mongering === fascism," which is not helpful. Populism is definitely whites-only though.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:56 AM on February 26 [6 favorites]
Know-Nothings were proto-fascist tho, Catholics taking the role of the Jews for the Nazis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing#Violence
Heh, I didn't know Millard Fillmore joined that party. Figures.
posted by torokunai at 11:16 AM on February 26 [4 favorites]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing#Violence
Heh, I didn't know Millard Fillmore joined that party. Figures.
posted by torokunai at 11:16 AM on February 26 [4 favorites]
"Populism" is a recurring US thing where the working have-nots get really pissed off at the haves, and get their attention redirected to shiny objects to distract them.
Totes.
Another version, where the have-a-littles and the have-somes get pissed off and the have-mores tell them to blame the have-nothings, has been a driving force in the Republican Party for 60 years. The difference being that for most of our lives, economic populism on the right was (barely) contained by the Chamber of Commerce people who understood that immigration was good for business. And of course that dam has burst.
I get that a lot of people really hate “let’s understand Maga voters” discourse and think it’s a deliberate distraction and that many center-left people who engage in it are useful idiots for neoliberalism. Yes. Understood. 4/5 agree.
And I totally agree that actual Nazis are absolutely using the more-respectable-sounding euphemism “right wing populism” to launder their hate. No doubt at all. 5/5.
But it looks like some plurality of maga voters really did seem to come to the movement from a place that is more accurately described as economic populism than authoritarianism or ethno-nationalism, even if they were ultimately captured by a bat-shit right-wing cultural war narrative.
Are they still persuadable? Can they be led back to the light? Probably not. Probably a fool’s errand.
But they might somehow be persuaded to say home.
That’s 80% of the reason why I want to understand them better. In the vain hope of splitting their coalition somehow, tbd*. (The other 20% is the development of better prevention and containment strategies, assuming - naively?- that there is some sort of shared future for us all in this country).
Calling out fascism, with accompanying nazi-punching whenever necessary, is vital and I heartily support it. But I believe it’s reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to influencing American elections. I would like to have some new tools.
* have mercy on me, I’m just a bozo who bangs nails for a living
posted by ducky l'orange at 12:55 PM on February 26 [10 favorites]
Totes.
Another version, where the have-a-littles and the have-somes get pissed off and the have-mores tell them to blame the have-nothings, has been a driving force in the Republican Party for 60 years. The difference being that for most of our lives, economic populism on the right was (barely) contained by the Chamber of Commerce people who understood that immigration was good for business. And of course that dam has burst.
I get that a lot of people really hate “let’s understand Maga voters” discourse and think it’s a deliberate distraction and that many center-left people who engage in it are useful idiots for neoliberalism. Yes. Understood. 4/5 agree.
And I totally agree that actual Nazis are absolutely using the more-respectable-sounding euphemism “right wing populism” to launder their hate. No doubt at all. 5/5.
But it looks like some plurality of maga voters really did seem to come to the movement from a place that is more accurately described as economic populism than authoritarianism or ethno-nationalism, even if they were ultimately captured by a bat-shit right-wing cultural war narrative.
Are they still persuadable? Can they be led back to the light? Probably not. Probably a fool’s errand.
But they might somehow be persuaded to say home.
That’s 80% of the reason why I want to understand them better. In the vain hope of splitting their coalition somehow, tbd*. (The other 20% is the development of better prevention and containment strategies, assuming - naively?- that there is some sort of shared future for us all in this country).
Calling out fascism, with accompanying nazi-punching whenever necessary, is vital and I heartily support it. But I believe it’s reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to influencing American elections. I would like to have some new tools.
* have mercy on me, I’m just a bozo who bangs nails for a living
posted by ducky l'orange at 12:55 PM on February 26 [10 favorites]
I am only halfway through the paper, so I won't comment on the results. But something to remember is that they are looking at "economic uncertainty", not actual economic deprivation. One can feel very economically uncertain while still be relatively high-income. Downturns in income count just as much as actually low income. I seem to remember this being one of the theories about the French revolution - it wasn't that the French working classes were that much worse off than other European lower sorts, but that things had been getting better and then worse - but the expectations had already been raised.
That said, the authors of the study have looked mostly at economic shocks. But even the "winners" in a system can feel very uncertain when their positions feel either precarious and/or they don't see any path for their children to obtain similar lifestyles. This sort of uncertainty/stress is what drives a lot of the "opportunity hoarding" that goes on.
posted by jb at 1:45 PM on February 26 [5 favorites]
That said, the authors of the study have looked mostly at economic shocks. But even the "winners" in a system can feel very uncertain when their positions feel either precarious and/or they don't see any path for their children to obtain similar lifestyles. This sort of uncertainty/stress is what drives a lot of the "opportunity hoarding" that goes on.
posted by jb at 1:45 PM on February 26 [5 favorites]
The authors are using "populism" as a technical political science term that is absolutely not just American nor is it just right-wing.
The authors define what they mean by "populism" in the article: "
The authors define what they mean by "populism" in the article: "
The most conventional approach in the literature identifies populism as a ‘thin-centred ideology’ that frames the fundamental political cleavage between the elite and the pure people (Mudde2007). The strengths of this approach are that it is agnostic about the causes and the specific policy content of populism; is broad enough to capture a wide range of the phenomenon, such as left- and right-wing; inclusionary or exclusionary populism; and specific enough to exclude non-populism. Despite the ubiquity of this definition, empirical researchers often include parties influenced by the notion of anti-establishment politics, a term closely related to populism (Barr2009; Mudde; Mudde2007). Our aim is not to clarify the concept of populism or decide between different approaches but to capture a wide variety of populist outcomes to reflect the heterogeneity of the literature. Thus, our definition includes the radical left, the radical right, and historical precedents of populism, such as fascism in Europe or Latin-American import-substitution populism, such as Peronism (Guriev and Papaioannou2022, 11–13).posted by jb at 1:53 PM on February 26 [11 favorites]
We started from a ‘nearest neighbor’ systematic review and extracted the search string from Hunger and Paxton (Hunger and Paxton2022), whose search strategy relied on the word stem ‘populis*’. In addition to populism, we included keywords that cover anti-establishment politics and different versions of the radical right and the radical left to cover different valances of populism, even if the word populism is not mentioned in the abstract or title.
In this thread: A whole lot of people apparently using "fascist" as a shorthand for "ugly political shit I don't like."
For these people, please consider consulting the canonical reference for "is it fascism?" To the extent that the thing you hate does not meet the 14 criteria, it is not fascism. Which does not mean it's not evil! But "fascism" means something more specific than "evil."
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:06 PM on February 26 [4 favorites]
For these people, please consider consulting the canonical reference for "is it fascism?" To the extent that the thing you hate does not meet the 14 criteria, it is not fascism. Which does not mean it's not evil! But "fascism" means something more specific than "evil."
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:06 PM on February 26 [4 favorites]
Hard agree. Populism=fascism=far right is, among other things, anti scientific.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:07 PM on February 26 [7 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:07 PM on February 26 [7 favorites]
Let me state my priors so that other commenters can judge where I'm coming from, before judging my "take" after reading the study. (Yes, I did RTFA.)
Like many of you, I do roll my eyes at New York Times and other legacy media who use "economic anxiety" to whitewash racism as a basis for support for Donald Trump. I don't know if there are many people like this on Metafilter right now (in other words, excuse me if I'm strawmanning), but I could imagine that some "class not race" leftist might view me as an identity politics neoliberal, because I don't think you can explain Trumpism with economic determinist models.
But after all throat-clearing, I have to say that this article is very convincing to me & I'm generally someone who comes from the other side of the debate.
Here's some scattered thoughts.
1. The dependent variable is "populism," regardless of whether it is left-wing (e.g., Spain's Podemos, Greece's Syriza, or Italy's 5 Star Movement) or right-wing & regardless of what country it comes from (including studies about US, UK, Austria, Italy, Germany, Poland, Brazil, Sweden, Hungary, as well as regional studies on the EU, Western Europe, and Easter Europe).
2. I've looked at their literature review methodology & there isn't anything in the text of the article that suggests that they have "stacked" the deck. In addition, the authors looked for results in the "grey literature" (i.e., Ph.D. dissertations & other unpublished works), and they saw the same relationships in the "grey" research that they found in the published papers. They also used standard methods for quantifying publication bias & they found that, even when publication bias is accounted for, the effect of economic insecurity on increased support for populism is robust.
3. The summary found links between economic insecurity & populism in 36 out of the 36 studies they reviewed. As the authors summarize, "A recurring effect is that economic shocks and economic insecurity explain around one-third of recent surges in populism." But that's about as strong as it gets. Economic security accounts for one-third of the variation in the dependent variable, but that means two-thirds of the variation in populism is unaccounted for, which leaves a lot of room for race, gender, and immigration as potential explanatory variables.
4. The authors themselves take a "Why not both?" approach to economics & culture as potential explanatory variables:
Colantone and Stanig (2018a) argue that scepticism towards liberal values and liberal democracy is a political manifestation of distress driven by economic insecurity. Of course, the existence of such mediation, where economic insecurity is the primary cause, does not mean that cultural factors are not important; they can be independent primary causes, too. It means that juxtaposing economy and culture is less productive than exploring their interactions.
This article is definitely written for an academic audience & if you were to try to make this more digestible for the lay public, you would probably have to go into an explanation of the ecological fallacy. The basic idea behind the ecological fallacy is that you can find correlations at a population level (e.g., areas in the South with high Black population were more likely have high vote shares for hard-core segregationists), but you have to be very careful about how you extrapolate from those population-level correlations to individual-level behavior (e.g., Black people weren't the ones voting for the segregationists).
If I had to explain what is going on here, I'd call it the "Hillbilly Elegy" hypothesis. J.D. Vance, who wrote Hillbilly Elegy, is a corporate lawyer who became a venture capitalist & then later a U.S. Senator. He does not personally suffer from economic insecurity, but through his family connections in Ohio, he is socially connected to other people who suffer from deindustrialization, mass layoffs, competition from global imports and other forms of economic insecurity. The social base of Trumpism may be car dealers and local bank managers, but that doesn't mean that their community hasn't been exposed to the corrosive effects of economic insecurity. The problem is that these petit bourgeois local businessman come up with a bad solution for how to deal with that economic insecurity that's based in racism, nativism, xenophobia, and other forms of reactionary cultural authoritarianism.
posted by jonp72 at 2:14 PM on February 26 [12 favorites]
Like many of you, I do roll my eyes at New York Times and other legacy media who use "economic anxiety" to whitewash racism as a basis for support for Donald Trump. I don't know if there are many people like this on Metafilter right now (in other words, excuse me if I'm strawmanning), but I could imagine that some "class not race" leftist might view me as an identity politics neoliberal, because I don't think you can explain Trumpism with economic determinist models.
But after all throat-clearing, I have to say that this article is very convincing to me & I'm generally someone who comes from the other side of the debate.
Here's some scattered thoughts.
1. The dependent variable is "populism," regardless of whether it is left-wing (e.g., Spain's Podemos, Greece's Syriza, or Italy's 5 Star Movement) or right-wing & regardless of what country it comes from (including studies about US, UK, Austria, Italy, Germany, Poland, Brazil, Sweden, Hungary, as well as regional studies on the EU, Western Europe, and Easter Europe).
2. I've looked at their literature review methodology & there isn't anything in the text of the article that suggests that they have "stacked" the deck. In addition, the authors looked for results in the "grey literature" (i.e., Ph.D. dissertations & other unpublished works), and they saw the same relationships in the "grey" research that they found in the published papers. They also used standard methods for quantifying publication bias & they found that, even when publication bias is accounted for, the effect of economic insecurity on increased support for populism is robust.
3. The summary found links between economic insecurity & populism in 36 out of the 36 studies they reviewed. As the authors summarize, "A recurring effect is that economic shocks and economic insecurity explain around one-third of recent surges in populism." But that's about as strong as it gets. Economic security accounts for one-third of the variation in the dependent variable, but that means two-thirds of the variation in populism is unaccounted for, which leaves a lot of room for race, gender, and immigration as potential explanatory variables.
4. The authors themselves take a "Why not both?" approach to economics & culture as potential explanatory variables:
Colantone and Stanig (2018a) argue that scepticism towards liberal values and liberal democracy is a political manifestation of distress driven by economic insecurity. Of course, the existence of such mediation, where economic insecurity is the primary cause, does not mean that cultural factors are not important; they can be independent primary causes, too. It means that juxtaposing economy and culture is less productive than exploring their interactions.
This article is definitely written for an academic audience & if you were to try to make this more digestible for the lay public, you would probably have to go into an explanation of the ecological fallacy. The basic idea behind the ecological fallacy is that you can find correlations at a population level (e.g., areas in the South with high Black population were more likely have high vote shares for hard-core segregationists), but you have to be very careful about how you extrapolate from those population-level correlations to individual-level behavior (e.g., Black people weren't the ones voting for the segregationists).
If I had to explain what is going on here, I'd call it the "Hillbilly Elegy" hypothesis. J.D. Vance, who wrote Hillbilly Elegy, is a corporate lawyer who became a venture capitalist & then later a U.S. Senator. He does not personally suffer from economic insecurity, but through his family connections in Ohio, he is socially connected to other people who suffer from deindustrialization, mass layoffs, competition from global imports and other forms of economic insecurity. The social base of Trumpism may be car dealers and local bank managers, but that doesn't mean that their community hasn't been exposed to the corrosive effects of economic insecurity. The problem is that these petit bourgeois local businessman come up with a bad solution for how to deal with that economic insecurity that's based in racism, nativism, xenophobia, and other forms of reactionary cultural authoritarianism.
posted by jonp72 at 2:14 PM on February 26 [12 favorites]
The article doesn’t touch on this, but economic precarity can cause people to lean on other social networks, like churches, and with the white Evangelicals going whole hog for fascism, it’s not surprising that people who otherwise might not care much get dragged into culture war bullshit.
The authors just barely touch on this by referring to these political and para-political institutions pretty bloodlessly as "political supply." The basic idea is that, if there are institutions that provide countervailing forces that can help people deal with their economic insecurity without leading them down the path of right-wing populism, then right-wing populists will be less politically successful. For example, the article cites a study about how Italians exposed to global trade competition would shift away from right-wing parties if there was a left-of-center party like the 5 Star Movement to provide an alternative channel for their grievances. In another study cited in the article, white people in the U.S. exposed to deindustrialization were more likely to vote for Trump, but non-white people who were exposed to deindustrialization were more likely to vote for the Democrats. I suspect that's partially due to cultural institutions that tie non-white voters to the Democratic Party (e.g., the Black church, some Spanish-language cultural spaces).
posted by jonp72 at 2:30 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
The authors just barely touch on this by referring to these political and para-political institutions pretty bloodlessly as "political supply." The basic idea is that, if there are institutions that provide countervailing forces that can help people deal with their economic insecurity without leading them down the path of right-wing populism, then right-wing populists will be less politically successful. For example, the article cites a study about how Italians exposed to global trade competition would shift away from right-wing parties if there was a left-of-center party like the 5 Star Movement to provide an alternative channel for their grievances. In another study cited in the article, white people in the U.S. exposed to deindustrialization were more likely to vote for Trump, but non-white people who were exposed to deindustrialization were more likely to vote for the Democrats. I suspect that's partially due to cultural institutions that tie non-white voters to the Democratic Party (e.g., the Black church, some Spanish-language cultural spaces).
posted by jonp72 at 2:30 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
Side note, @AardvarkCheeselog, Eco is clear there that something does not have to meet all 14 (often contradictory) criteria--or, as he calls them, features: " it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it."
posted by girandole at 2:56 PM on February 26 [8 favorites]
posted by girandole at 2:56 PM on February 26 [8 favorites]
Fulfilled Popularism is like when in Civ the government goes away and you're in political limbo.
Fascism is when the fascists make their move, e.g. France 1793 (Committee of Public Safety), the October Revolution in 1917 I guess, 1933's Machtergreifung . . .
posted by torokunai at 3:14 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
Fascism is when the fascists make their move, e.g. France 1793 (Committee of Public Safety), the October Revolution in 1917 I guess, 1933's Machtergreifung . . .
posted by torokunai at 3:14 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
I suspect that's partially due to cultural institutions that tie non-white voters to the Democratic Party (e.g., the Black church, some Spanish-language cultural spaces).
It's been known for a long time that (roughly lawless) 3rd spaces are prime spots for revolution and organizing politically - that's why they barely exist anymore, at least in the US. That's why people protest in the highway instead of the town square. So IMO the disappearance of the politically neutral leads to certain outcomes that are known. That's actually my major problem with this study. They admit to finding 30% (at best) the causes of rising populism, but the individual causes that create that 30% are widely varied, and (I think) not rated.
Making comments about 'economic insecurity' when it's opposite 'economic security' is a serious abstract, is also kind of weakly defined. So sure you can say that whites are concerned about 'economic insecurity' because they know a guy who knows a guy experiencing it, even if they are not experiencing it themselves, as that's a way humans show empathy.
So IMO, it's kind of weak and overstated.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:37 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
It's been known for a long time that (roughly lawless) 3rd spaces are prime spots for revolution and organizing politically - that's why they barely exist anymore, at least in the US. That's why people protest in the highway instead of the town square. So IMO the disappearance of the politically neutral leads to certain outcomes that are known. That's actually my major problem with this study. They admit to finding 30% (at best) the causes of rising populism, but the individual causes that create that 30% are widely varied, and (I think) not rated.
Making comments about 'economic insecurity' when it's opposite 'economic security' is a serious abstract, is also kind of weakly defined. So sure you can say that whites are concerned about 'economic insecurity' because they know a guy who knows a guy experiencing it, even if they are not experiencing it themselves, as that's a way humans show empathy.
So IMO, it's kind of weak and overstated.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:37 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
Something in common with all things terrible is cultism. To define cultism one only needs four basic elements: A charismatic leader, a black and white worldview, a group elitism, irrational beliefs that lead to double binds. Cultism is best understood as falling in line from gaining group acceptance, not by reasoned conversion. The tendency to see rational choices behind what could plausibly be group panic says more about the optimistic bias of an otherwise objective observer.
posted by Brian B. at 3:55 PM on February 26 [2 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 3:55 PM on February 26 [2 favorites]
Asmodee should be upset...
Such blatant AH art ripoffs. Expect that one of these will be the next expansion's cover...
Would have been cooler with the old HPL covers from back in the day, Took me from switching from DDG to Google to even get this to appear.
These were the books I remember, and still have somewhere but can't find them...
posted by Windopaene at 4:00 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
Such blatant AH art ripoffs. Expect that one of these will be the next expansion's cover...
Would have been cooler with the old HPL covers from back in the day, Took me from switching from DDG to Google to even get this to appear.
.%20Tales%20of%20the%20Cthulhu%20Mythos%20V.1.%20Ballantine%2073.%20John%20Holmes..jpeg){kind=link}
These were the books I remember, and still have somewhere but can't find them...
posted by Windopaene at 4:00 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
>A charismatic leader, a black and white worldview, a group elitism, irrational beliefs that lead to double binds
weird thing about QAnon is the leadership has been decentralized – self-executing – as it were, i.e. it collects narcissists who circle-jerk themselves
posted by torokunai at 4:10 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
weird thing about QAnon is the leadership has been decentralized – self-executing – as it were, i.e. it collects narcissists who circle-jerk themselves
posted by torokunai at 4:10 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
's been known for a long time that (roughly lawless) 3rd spaces are prime spots for revolution and organizing politically - that's why they barely exist anymore, at least in the US
I’m really having a hard time detecting genuine satire lately.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:00 PM on February 26 [4 favorites]
I’m really having a hard time detecting genuine satire lately.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:00 PM on February 26 [4 favorites]
Something in common with all things terrible is cultism. To define cultism one only needs four basic elements: A charismatic leader, a black and white worldview, a group elitism, irrational beliefs that lead to double binds. Cultism is best understood as falling in line from gaining group acceptance, not by reasoned conversion. The tendency to see rational choices behind what could plausibly be group panic says more about the optimistic bias of an otherwise objective observer
Christ. This is not a necessary or sufficient condition of populism or fascism. Also “my political beliefs are the result of FACTS and LOGIC, theirs are from irrational crazy” is at best cringe and definitely foolish.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:40 PM on February 26 [4 favorites]
This is not a necessary or sufficient condition of populism or fascism
Neither is well defined, which is probably why I didn't mention them. I don't see them as ideological, yet somehow you read them between the lines.
posted by Brian B. at 6:04 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
Neither is well defined, which is probably why I didn't mention them. I don't see them as ideological, yet somehow you read them between the lines.
posted by Brian B. at 6:04 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
We’re discussing a paper that has a pretty clear definition of the former.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:27 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:27 PM on February 26 [3 favorites]
We’re discussing a paper that has a pretty clear definition of the former.
No, we're presently discussing my post which you quoted.
posted by Brian B. at 6:29 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
No, we're presently discussing my post which you quoted.
posted by Brian B. at 6:29 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]
One could take an experimentalist approach: fix things and see if populism gets better.
I think it depends on what implications you take from this paper, because the paper defines threats to economic security very broadly. The paper cites a few articles where austerity increases support for populism, whereas redistribution reduces supports for it, but the most common causal factor among the papers reviewed was exposure to imports from global trade.
In the United States, a lot of the left-of-center toolkit for economic policy is focused on either deficit-funded stimulus or redistribution from the rich to the poor and middle classes. But those two approaches don't really do address the whole of what "security" is, as it is defined by this paper. Threats to economic security covered in the paper included globalization of trade, labor market uncertainty (e.g., the tech layoff wave of 2023), housing demand shock, foreign currency shocks, and bank failure. Stimulus and redistribution can move money around, but it doesn't necessarily make people more secure if you lose your job or your house after you get your stimulus check. This suggests to me that neoliberalism is ill-suited for fighting against populism & left-of-center economic policy might need to do more interventions in the direction of full employment or drastically increasing housing supply, just for the sake of preserving democracy from right-wing authoritarian movements.
These implications also suggest to me that NAFTA, Bill Clinton's China trade bill, and the TARP bailout, which bailed out banks but not homeowners, should now be viewed as unforced errors on the Democratic Party's part.
According to the paper's authors,
The United States offers an opposite example. Here, the Democrats benefited from the discontent of trade victims during the presidential elections before 2012. However, since 2012, Republicans have become more successful in attracting the victims of trade shocks, leading to Trump's 2016 victory (Autor et al. 2020; Che et al. 2016).
posted by jonp72 at 9:19 PM on February 26 [6 favorites]
I think it depends on what implications you take from this paper, because the paper defines threats to economic security very broadly. The paper cites a few articles where austerity increases support for populism, whereas redistribution reduces supports for it, but the most common causal factor among the papers reviewed was exposure to imports from global trade.
In the United States, a lot of the left-of-center toolkit for economic policy is focused on either deficit-funded stimulus or redistribution from the rich to the poor and middle classes. But those two approaches don't really do address the whole of what "security" is, as it is defined by this paper. Threats to economic security covered in the paper included globalization of trade, labor market uncertainty (e.g., the tech layoff wave of 2023), housing demand shock, foreign currency shocks, and bank failure. Stimulus and redistribution can move money around, but it doesn't necessarily make people more secure if you lose your job or your house after you get your stimulus check. This suggests to me that neoliberalism is ill-suited for fighting against populism & left-of-center economic policy might need to do more interventions in the direction of full employment or drastically increasing housing supply, just for the sake of preserving democracy from right-wing authoritarian movements.
These implications also suggest to me that NAFTA, Bill Clinton's China trade bill, and the TARP bailout, which bailed out banks but not homeowners, should now be viewed as unforced errors on the Democratic Party's part.
According to the paper's authors,
The United States offers an opposite example. Here, the Democrats benefited from the discontent of trade victims during the presidential elections before 2012. However, since 2012, Republicans have become more successful in attracting the victims of trade shocks, leading to Trump's 2016 victory (Autor et al. 2020; Che et al. 2016).
posted by jonp72 at 9:19 PM on February 26 [6 favorites]
This is from an abstract of a research paper that was cited in the article:
Has rising import competition contributed to the polarization of U.S. politics? Analyzing outcomes from the 2002 and 2010 congressional elections and the 2000, 2008, and 2016 presidential elections, we detect an ideological realignment that is centered in trade-exposed local labor markets and that commences prior to the divisive 2016 U.S. presidential election. Exploiting the exogenous component of rising trade with China and classifying legislator ideologies by congressional voting records, we find strong evidence that congressional districts exposed to larger increases in import penetration disproportionately removed moderate representatives from office in the 2000s. Trade-exposed districts with an initial majority white population or initially in Republican hands became substantially more likely to elect a conservative Republican, while trade-exposed districts with an initial majority-minority population or initially in Democratic hands also become more likely to elect a liberal Democrat. In presidential elections, counties with greater trade exposure shifted towards the Republican candidate. We interpret these results as supporting a political economy literature that connects adverse economic conditions to support for nativist or extreme politicians.
posted by jonp72 at 9:21 PM on February 26 [2 favorites]
Has rising import competition contributed to the polarization of U.S. politics? Analyzing outcomes from the 2002 and 2010 congressional elections and the 2000, 2008, and 2016 presidential elections, we detect an ideological realignment that is centered in trade-exposed local labor markets and that commences prior to the divisive 2016 U.S. presidential election. Exploiting the exogenous component of rising trade with China and classifying legislator ideologies by congressional voting records, we find strong evidence that congressional districts exposed to larger increases in import penetration disproportionately removed moderate representatives from office in the 2000s. Trade-exposed districts with an initial majority white population or initially in Republican hands became substantially more likely to elect a conservative Republican, while trade-exposed districts with an initial majority-minority population or initially in Democratic hands also become more likely to elect a liberal Democrat. In presidential elections, counties with greater trade exposure shifted towards the Republican candidate. We interpret these results as supporting a political economy literature that connects adverse economic conditions to support for nativist or extreme politicians.
posted by jonp72 at 9:21 PM on February 26 [2 favorites]
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP
without the pandemic, Trump probably would have won reelection in a walk, I would say like Bush did in '04, but Kerry just needed Ohio to swing that election.
posted by torokunai at 7:17 AM on February 27
without the pandemic, Trump probably would have won reelection in a walk, I would say like Bush did in '04, but Kerry just needed Ohio to swing that election.
posted by torokunai at 7:17 AM on February 27
a political economy literature that connects adverse economic conditions to support for nativist or extreme politicians
For authoritarians, Worse is Better.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:11 AM on February 27
For authoritarians, Worse is Better.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:11 AM on February 27
These implications also suggest to me that NAFTA, Bill Clinton's China trade bill, and the TARP bailout, which bailed out banks but not homeowners, should now be viewed as unforced errors on the Democratic Party's part.
Well one would look at it that way, because the negative effects of populism/nationalism are completely discounted. IE: we have two strong and recent indicators against it, in the 2011 Texas Blackout and the 2023 US baby food shortage. Weird how those changes didn't effect populism's popularity, nor drive people towards globalism, nor cause any electoral losses. Frozen dead people still elected Ted Cruz and starving babies that we literally suspended trade laws to feed.. Sure. Whatever.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:20 AM on February 27
Well one would look at it that way, because the negative effects of populism/nationalism are completely discounted. IE: we have two strong and recent indicators against it, in the 2011 Texas Blackout and the 2023 US baby food shortage. Weird how those changes didn't effect populism's popularity, nor drive people towards globalism, nor cause any electoral losses. Frozen dead people still elected Ted Cruz and starving babies that we literally suspended trade laws to feed.. Sure. Whatever.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:20 AM on February 27
Hey is there a paper you're referencing about the 2011 texas blackout on voting that we don't know about or are you going on pure vibes here?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:26 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:26 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
unforced errors on the Democratic Party's part
Sorry, you're unacquainted, let me introduce you to the Democratic Party...
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:41 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
Sorry, you're unacquainted, let me introduce you to the Democratic Party...
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:41 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
Well one would look at it that way, because the negative effects of populism/nationalism are completely discounted. IE: we have two strong and recent indicators against it, in the 2011 Texas Blackout and the 2023 US baby food shortage.
I'm definitely not here to defend populism, but I would point out that you're listing two rather isolated incidents (one of which was absolutely horrible but still) which unfortunately washed out of the news cycle very, very quickly. That baby food shortage last year? I had totally forgotten about it, and odds are good that a lot of people who don't have babies aren't even aware it was a thing. Meanwhile globalism and neoliberal policy has been going on for many, many decades, is a worldwide phenomenon that even the most news-adverse person is going to be well aware of, and it's pretty apparent to even the least-educated (fairly or not) that its rise happens to coincide with a marked degradation in living standards and massive increase in class inequality that is virtually universal outside of upper-middle class bubbles.
I think this is once again a case of Metafilter forgetting that the vast majority of humanity does not have the time or inclination to obsessively follow news and politics, they are too busy trying to put food on the table and pay the bills.
Also what we are discussing is an academic study - do you have an opposing study that has corresponding data? Because you seem to be making a lot of wide sweeping generalizations in this thread that aren't backed up by empirical data, feels like you're looking for validation of your opinion vs following the data.
posted by photo guy at 11:46 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
I'm definitely not here to defend populism, but I would point out that you're listing two rather isolated incidents (one of which was absolutely horrible but still) which unfortunately washed out of the news cycle very, very quickly. That baby food shortage last year? I had totally forgotten about it, and odds are good that a lot of people who don't have babies aren't even aware it was a thing. Meanwhile globalism and neoliberal policy has been going on for many, many decades, is a worldwide phenomenon that even the most news-adverse person is going to be well aware of, and it's pretty apparent to even the least-educated (fairly or not) that its rise happens to coincide with a marked degradation in living standards and massive increase in class inequality that is virtually universal outside of upper-middle class bubbles.
I think this is once again a case of Metafilter forgetting that the vast majority of humanity does not have the time or inclination to obsessively follow news and politics, they are too busy trying to put food on the table and pay the bills.
Also what we are discussing is an academic study - do you have an opposing study that has corresponding data? Because you seem to be making a lot of wide sweeping generalizations in this thread that aren't backed up by empirical data, feels like you're looking for validation of your opinion vs following the data.
posted by photo guy at 11:46 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
I'm straight up saying the data is bad. Just because someone did a study doesn't mean that it's outcome is correct. That's the metafilter problem - that a lot of data analysts are absolute hacks.
like this statement is 100% false, but you think it's correct because of 'vibes'.
"is a worldwide phenomenon that even the most news-adverse person is going to be well aware of, and it's pretty apparent to even the least-educated (fairly or not) that its rise happens to coincide with a marked degradation in living standards and massive increase in class inequality that is virtually universal outside of upper-middle class bubbles."
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:40 PM on February 27
like this statement is 100% false, but you think it's correct because of 'vibes'.
"is a worldwide phenomenon that even the most news-adverse person is going to be well aware of, and it's pretty apparent to even the least-educated (fairly or not) that its rise happens to coincide with a marked degradation in living standards and massive increase in class inequality that is virtually universal outside of upper-middle class bubbles."
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:40 PM on February 27
What data is bad? This is a meta analysis, not one study. Which study has bad data?Who is hack? The authors of the paper? Or me, someone else who has published on this topic and has a PhD? What’s hackish about the analysis?
If you’re going respond to a papers conclusion with “nah” you better be 1) an expert in the topic 2) have a critique of the research methods or 3) a better study finding different results. You can’t just shake your head and say “this is hack bullshit”.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:42 PM on February 27 [2 favorites]
If you’re going respond to a papers conclusion with “nah” you better be 1) an expert in the topic 2) have a critique of the research methods or 3) a better study finding different results. You can’t just shake your head and say “this is hack bullshit”.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:42 PM on February 27 [2 favorites]
This is another reason that Putin sucks. After WW2, Western elites understood that the returning soldiers expected the government to make their sacrifices worthwhile. The soldiers had lived through the
Depression, when the governments claimed there was no money for relief. Then a war started and all of a sudden the governments found billions of dollars to burn. That expectation had the force of a threat because Stalin was happy to exploit and manipulate the veterans' expectation that, this time, money would be found for investing in their futures. Western elites were forced to share with ordinary people. Sadly for the Western middle class, the Soviet alternative lost its credibility (I am not arguing that the Soviets were a good alternative), and Western elites have patiently removed the protections and supports of ordinary people over time. Putin is once more applying Russian pressure on the West, but this time to the benefit of elites.
posted by SnowRottie at 7:02 PM on February 27
Depression, when the governments claimed there was no money for relief. Then a war started and all of a sudden the governments found billions of dollars to burn. That expectation had the force of a threat because Stalin was happy to exploit and manipulate the veterans' expectation that, this time, money would be found for investing in their futures. Western elites were forced to share with ordinary people. Sadly for the Western middle class, the Soviet alternative lost its credibility (I am not arguing that the Soviets were a good alternative), and Western elites have patiently removed the protections and supports of ordinary people over time. Putin is once more applying Russian pressure on the West, but this time to the benefit of elites.
posted by SnowRottie at 7:02 PM on February 27
like this statement is 100% false, but you think it's correct because of 'vibes'.
What the hell? No I think it's correct because there's empirical evidence proving it. You would've found it yourself with 10 seconds of Googling:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality
If you don't want to dive into the details, just look at anything mentioning Gini coefficient, which is a universally-accepted measure of wealth inequality and is really, really uncontroversial: the higher the number, the worse inequality is. In the US in particular, the Gini coefficient has doubled since the 1980s, as shown in the first link.
Again, I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you trolling? Because it's very weird that you keep disregarding pretty uncontroversial data just to maintain your own preconceived notions.
posted by photo guy at 9:58 PM on February 27
What the hell? No I think it's correct because there's empirical evidence proving it. You would've found it yourself with 10 seconds of Googling:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality
If you don't want to dive into the details, just look at anything mentioning Gini coefficient, which is a universally-accepted measure of wealth inequality and is really, really uncontroversial: the higher the number, the worse inequality is. In the US in particular, the Gini coefficient has doubled since the 1980s, as shown in the first link.
Again, I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you trolling? Because it's very weird that you keep disregarding pretty uncontroversial data just to maintain your own preconceived notions.
posted by photo guy at 9:58 PM on February 27
« Older Non-binary Oklahoma student dies after school... | What Australia's climate was like 350,000 years... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by constraint at 2:25 AM on February 26 [35 favorites]