2008 Financial Crisis Caused Far-Right Uprising?

[maz]

The Financial Crisis Is Still Empowering Far-Right Populists

he 2008 financial crisis was devastating to the world economy. Just how devastating is something economists still argue over. It is not easy to add up the costs of bank bailouts, a lost decade of economic growth, spiking public debt, grinding austerity, and surging inequality.

But the biggest cost of the crisis might be not economic but political: the populist wave that has swept over the world in the last decade, upending political systems, empowering extremists, and making governance more difficult. Financial crises regularly lead to political polarization and populism, but the recent populist surge has lasted longer than those that followed earlier crises—and done more damage.

RISE OF THE RIGHT

The crash in 2008 and the subsequent eurozone sovereign debt crisis dealt a severe blow to political systems in the West. Crisis fighting became the new normal. Long-standing two-party systems in France and Spain were swept away. Populist far-right forces emerged from the fringes, sometimes achieving major electoral victories.

In 2015, we published a study that compiled data on nearly 100 financial crises and more than 800 national elections in 20 democracies since 1870. We found that far-right parties are the biggest beneficiaries of financial crashes. After a crisis, the share of the vote going to right-wing parties increases by more than 30 percent. We also found that government majorities tend to shrink and governing becomes difficult as more parties and antiestablishment groups get into legislatures. These effects turn up in the wake of financial crises but, crucially, not in normal economic downturns.

Why are financial crises so disruptive? To start with, they are manmade disasters. People blame elites for failing to prevent them. It's often not hard to find policy failures and cronyism among the rich and powerful, so trust in the political system erodes. This opens the door to political entrepreneurs who try to set "the people" against the "ruling class."

The tendency to blame elites after financial crises might suggest that far-left parties would benefit as much as far-right ones. But that doesn't happen.

Our research shows that the far left's vote share stays about the same in the aftermath of a crisis. It seems that when social groups fear decline and a loss of wealth, they turn to right-wing parties that promise stability and law and order. In the 1930s, for example, it was the German petit-bourgeoisie that enabled Hitler's rise to power. Similarly, the election of U.S. President Donald Trump was decided by the middle and working classes.

Right-wing populists are much more willing to exploit cultural cleavages and blame economic problems on foreigners and those who supposedly put the interests of a global elite above those of their fellow citizens. As British Prime Minister Theresa May put it last year, "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere." The left, by contrast, has traditionally taken an internationalist outlook and usually avoids crude rhetoric against foreigners and minorities. People want to attribute blame, and the right is willing to present scapegoats: immigrants, China, or the European Union. The names change but the playbook remains the same.

THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT

Our historical data show that most political upheavals after financial crises have been temporary. After five years, voting patterns usually return to their pre-crisis status quo, fractionalization within parliaments decreases, and the far right loses its momentum.

[yankeedoodle]

The Financial Crisis Is Still Empowering Far-Right Populists

he 2008 financial crisis was devastating to the world economy. Just how devastating is something economists still argue over. It is not easy to add up the costs of bank bailouts, a lost decade of economic growth, spiking public debt, grinding austerity, and surging inequality.

But the biggest cost of the crisis might be not economic but political: the populist wave that has swept over the world in the last decade, upending political systems, empowering extremists, and making governance more difficult. Financial crises regularly lead to political polarization and populism, but the recent populist surge has lasted longer than those that followed earlier crises—and done more damage.

RISE OF THE RIGHT

The crash in 2008 and the subsequent eurozone sovereign debt crisis dealt a severe blow to political systems in the West. Crisis fighting became the new normal. Long-standing two-party systems in France and Spain were swept away. Populist far-right forces emerged from the fringes, sometimes achieving major electoral victories.

In 2015, we published a study that compiled data on nearly 100 financial crises and more than 800 national elections in 20 democracies since 1870. We found that far-right parties are the biggest beneficiaries of financial crashes. After a crisis, the share of the vote going to right-wing parties increases by more than 30 percent. We also found that government majorities tend to shrink and governing becomes difficult as more parties and antiestablishment groups get into legislatures. These effects turn up in the wake of financial crises but, crucially, not in normal economic downturns.

Why are financial crises so disruptive? To start with, they are manmade disasters. People blame elites for failing to prevent them. It's often not hard to find policy failures and cronyism among the rich and powerful, so trust in the political system erodes. This opens the door to political entrepreneurs who try to set "the people" against the "ruling class."

The tendency to blame elites after financial crises might suggest that far-left parties would benefit as much as far-right ones. But that doesn't happen.

Our research shows that the far left's vote share stays about the same in the aftermath of a crisis. It seems that when social groups fear decline and a loss of wealth, they turn to right-wing parties that promise stability and law and order. In the 1930s, for example, it was the German petit-bourgeoisie that enabled Hitler's rise to power. Similarly, the election of U.S. President Donald Trump was decided by the middle and working classes.

Right-wing populists are much more willing to exploit cultural cleavages and blame economic problems on foreigners and those who supposedly put the interests of a global elite above those of their fellow citizens. As British Prime Minister Theresa May put it last year, "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere." The left, by contrast, has traditionally taken an internationalist outlook and usually avoids crude rhetoric against foreigners and minorities. People want to attribute blame, and the right is willing to present scapegoats: immigrants, China, or the European Union. The names change but the playbook remains the same.

THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT

Our historical data show that most political upheavals after financial crises have been temporary. After five years, voting patterns usually return to their pre-crisis status quo, fractionalization within parliaments decreases, and the far right loses its momentum.

What's different about this time is that it is being fueled by zionist jews, who run all these "right-wing" and "alt" groups.

Anybody who lived through the "left-wing" and "hippy" era of the 1960's will remember that, at the time, the blame was put on the communists, communists, of course, being primarily jews.

In the 1960's, the jews were in Russia, so the "communist" jews were creating trouble to benefit Russia.

In the 2010's, the jews are now in Israhell, and are no longer "communist," but "zionist," and they are creating trouble to benefit Israhell.

All of the "hard-right" and "alt-tards" and "Trump-tards" and whatever these fucking idiots call themselves are being controlled and used by zionist jews for the benefit of Israhell.

Simultaneously, Israhell is driving refugees into Europe, and elsewhere, thereby creating strife in those countries, and, at the same time, they are creating these reactionary right-wing groups.

Their goal is to paralyze the world with internal strife - goy against goy - while Israhell relentlessly expands, and nobody gives a damn what they are doing.

So, this "right-wing" thing is not a normal reaction to an economic crisis, it is a created and funded and promoted plot against the world by zionist jews.

And, it's worse now, because, whereas in the 1960's - and, continually today -  you could charge somebody or some organization as being "communist," whereas now, you cannot use the term "zionist."   

The jews are now much stronger, and have more control over the terminology.  You cannot even identify the enemy.  They have created the "anti-semite" charge, which they are gradually morphing into the "anti-zionist" charge.