Why Are Young Eastern Europeans So Right-Wing?

[Marshall2.0]

Why Are Young Eastern Europeans So Right-Wing?
By Martin Horicka
At least since the French revolution, young people have traditionally been more left-leaning than their parents. It hasn't changed over the past few decades, and there is little reason to think it's going to reverse any time soon. The fact that older people are more conservative and younger people tend to be more liberal is also in line with existing research and scientific literature. In Western Europe and throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, this theory hasn't been challenged for a long time, and despite some of its shortcomings (youths seem to be more liberal on social issues than economic ones), it still works today.

But what if we look into Central and Eastern Europe?


As unbelievable as it may sound, here it's completely different – the situation is exactly the opposite. Evidence suggests that the right has been steadily gaining momentum over the last few years. It even looks as though conservative parties will soon have a monopoly on the political power. To some extent, we can already see this happening in Orbán's Hungary and Kaczyński's Poland.

More surprising must be the observation that, unlike in the United States or Britain, right-wingers draw their strength especially from young voters. How is it even possible? The short answer is – as usual – the most obvious one. Countries where communist regimes had lasted for as long as four decades and left a permanent mark on local population possess different experiences and understanding of the world affairs from those of their western counterparts. They have, for example, good knowledge of what socialism is and how extreme some left-wing policies can actually be in real life.

The longer answer is a little more complicated and requires deeper comprehension of the post-communist mentality. It's true that socialism has distorted the thinking of eastern and central Europeans, as many E.U. officials often find in Brussels. Members of the Visegrad Group, they say, are all just naïve fools who do not understand the obvious benefits of tolerance and multiculturalism – but it's really not the case. Even here we like Indian cuisine. We also know how the left-wing totalitarianism looks.

Right-wing youth

This mysterious phenomenon can be observed in virtually every country that has undergone such development. Hungary is the brightest example. In the April parliamentary elections, the ruling Fidesz party, led by prime minister Viktor Orbán, gained support from 38% of voters in the 18-29 age group. Yes, it's less than the total number (which stands at 49%), but we have to understand that even though Fidesz is nominally a conservative and right-wing party, it's still mainly a movement of one egoistic politician without any clear (or at least honest) ideology. And remember, Fidesz was a proud liberal party in the '90s.

This kind of ideological uncertainty is not at all present in Jobbik, the second strongest party in the Hungarian parliament, usually described as far-right or ultranationalist. It received 31% of votes among young people. According to a 2015 poll, Jobbik is also the most popular party among university students.

Similar numbers are available from other countries of Visegrad Group. According to the Slovak Institute for Public Affairs, up to one third of teenagers in the smallest Central European country support the People's Party – Our Slovakia, which is commonly referred to as neo-Nazi. (Its leader, Marian Kotleba, a great admirer of the right-wing authoritarian first Slovak republic, gives to poor Slovak families checks for 1,488 euros.)

The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party in Poland also enjoys growing popularity among youths. In the last election, almost 26% (less than overall but still many) of voters under 29 cast their ballots for this conservative and heavily Christian party of Jarosław Kaczyński.

Second place (with 20% of young people) went for the Kukiz'15, an anti-establishment and euroskeptic movement created by rocker Paweł Kukiz, and third place with 16% went for a right-wing libertarian party called Liberty, whose leader is Polish MEP Janusz Korwin-Mikke. He is well known for an international audience because of his infamous television interview with Piers Morgan, which went viral on YouTube.

"Of course women must earn less than men because they are weaker, they are smaller, they are less intelligent," said Korwin-Mikke, with a roughish smile, to the shocked hosts of Good Morning Britain. He was immediately branded as "the most sexist man in politics." Mr. Piers Morgan went even farther and called him on live television "a horrendous sexist pig."

It's obvious that the popularity of someone like Korwin-Mikke is much bigger among young men. But his party enjoys steady support among young women, too.

The traditional role of the right-wing and left-wing parties in some eastern European countries is not as clear as it should be. In the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Romania, the left is often perceived as conservative, anti-immigrant, and euroskeptic. It's a unique and specific paradox: social democrats are sometimes more on the right than Christian democrats.

As political scientists Martin Eiermann, Yascha Mounk, and Limor Goultchin of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change have shown, populist parties (mainly right-wing) are on the rise in Central and Eastern Europe. While in 2000, populists took an average of 9.2% of the national vote, their popularity has since more than tripled to 31.6% in 2017.

Beyond politics

Ironically, Stalinist regimes in Europe had besides many horrible effects on population also some positive ones. Socialism is hampering technological progress and limiting human potential – that's a well known fact. Nobody, however, seems to think that it also slowed social progress.

While left-wing movements have pushed in the West the left's social agenda, the communists and their unchanging dogma froze Eastern European societies permanently in the old, more conservative past. Despite the official state ideology of Marxism-Leninism, the population remained traditionally oriented. Therefore, eastern and central Europeans had shielded themselves in an unprecedented way from malign progressivism of the New Left. As a result of this, post-socialist countries entered the new millennium more resilient against the ubiquitous offensive of the modern Marxists.

Germany is the epitome of ideological disparities between West and East. The eastern Germans are different from their western colleagues not only in terms of economic prosperity, but also on the level of political preferences. The former GDR is now the stronghold of the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany, which is, according to the latest survey, the most popular party here – with the support of almost 25% of local citizens (country average is just below 17%).


For people in Eastern Europe and especially in the Visegrad Group, the pressure from the E.U. officials on Poland and Hungary is a clear attack on post-communist countries, despite the fact that there may be a lot of truth in their allegations. The Sargentini report criticizing the state of liberal democracy in Hungary, the theatrical approval of which triggered a wave of emotional reactions all over the European Union, punishes a country where more and more young people are planning to vote for the right. It will doubtless add fuel to the populist fire.

"Hungary shall continue to defend its borders, stop illegal immigration and defend its rights – against you, too, if necessary," said Viktor Orbán to MEPs in the European Parliament. He meant it – as long as the majority of young people in Hungary agree with him.

If we want to keep our dream of a united Old World alive, we should be careful. With this kind of attitude toward eastern members of the Union, Europe could easily fall into two hostile parts again and hide its ideological differences behind a new Iron Curtain – although, from the perspective of the left-right political spectrum, this time in reverse.

[friendly fred]

I think the right wing Eastern Europeans have the right to their sincerely held beliefs, among them that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[dilbert firestorm]

+1

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

I think the right wing Eastern Europeans have the right to their sincerely held beliefs, among them that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Perhaps it's because they've been invaded so many times they cherish the privileges they have enjoyed between invasions.

The USA is entering into one of those "invasion phases" for the first time, so let's see how it works out for the "invaders" and those in this country who wish to dilute the voting-RESIDENT base with those who don't share our values, but want to share our wealth with the help of the indigenous losing groups!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Perhaps it's because they've been invaded so many times they cherish the privileges they have enjoyed between invasions.

The USA is entering into one of those "invasion phases" for the first time, so let's see how it works out for the "invaders" and those in this country who wish to dilute the voting-RESIDENT base with those who don't share our values, but want to share our wealth with the help of the indigenous losing groups!

I wouldn't say its' the first time.



we've haven't been invaded since 1812.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I wouldn't say its' the first time.



we've haven't been invaded since 1812.

I'd have to go back and review "the history," but it is my recollection that the Baby U.S. started "invading" Canada to attack the Brits and began some blockade running associated with the Brits' war with the French .... until the Brits could focus more "attention" on the embryonic U.S. Right or wrong the U.S. stirred up the shit!

The 1812 conflict grew out of economic stressers on the U.S.

Right now the "occupying force" is estimated at about 20+ million and marches to invade our borders are on the way and being organized.

The decades long conflict in which we find ourselves today is also based on "economic stressers," which is exactly why there exists an "occupying force" and more are on their way. The Democrats used to oppose the invasion, and Bill Clinton was the outspoken leader on the invasion ... all the way through Obaminable's years.

Like the early 1800's politics drove the struggle.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

We had an earlier invasion from the east. FDR responded like any good totalitarian democrat and interned the Japanese (whether they were born here or not) in camps.

[LexusLover]

Pearl Harbor? If so, then 911 was an "invasion"!

We have around 20+ million illegal aliens in this country.

How many uninsureds were supposed to be covered by ObaminableCare after the "volunteers" were deducted?

I keep posting that Pelosi wanted ObaminableCare to shore up the failing California retirement program regarding medical supplement, which was going broke while they tried to pay ridiculous annuities. Finklestein does too now! More uninsureds on the way!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Pearl Harbor? If so, then 911 was an "invasion"!

We have around 20+ million illegal aliens in this country.

How many uninsureds were supposed to be covered by ObaminableCare after the "volunteers" were deducted?

I keep posting that Pelosi wanted ObaminableCare to shore up the failing California retirement program regarding medical supplement, which was going broke while they tried to pay ridiculous annuities. Finklestein does too now! More uninsureds on the way!

Where did you come up with that number, LL? There might be 20 million immigrants in the US, but your claim of “20+ million illegal aliens” is false.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I wouldn't say its' the first time.

we've haven't been invaded since 1812.

The Japanese invaded and occupied parts of the Aleutians in Alaska. Granted, Alaska wasn't a state at the time, but it was a U.S. territory ... just like Wake and Guam which were also invaded and occupied. The Philippines were a U.S. protectorate: they also were invaded and occupied by the Japanese.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'd have to go back and review "the history," but it is my recollection that the Baby U.S. started "invading" Canada to attack the Brits and began some blockade running associated with the Brits' war with the French .... until the Brits could focus more "attention" on the embryonic U.S. Right or wrong the U.S. stirred up the shit!

The 1812 conflict grew out of economic stressers on the U.S.

Right now the "occupying force" is estimated at about 20+ million and marches to invade our borders are on the way and being organized.

The decades long conflict in which we find ourselves today is also based on "economic stressers," which is exactly why there exists an "occupying force" and more are on their way. The Democrats used to oppose the invasion, and Bill Clinton was the outspoken leader on the invasion ... all the way through Obaminable's years.

Like the early 1800's politics drove the struggle.

"Impressment." The "slaves" Francis Scott Key was referring to in the third verse of the "Star Spangled Banner": American men impressed into service aboard British vessels against their will. Both the British and the French were doing it, but the British were doing it more effectively. Then there was the British notion that no neutral nations should conduct trade with their Napoleonic enemy -- Napoleon being a product of the French Revolution (which also gave rise to the concept of "nationalism" which really had not existed before that time and which is now considered "right-wing"). That's what really brought the two countries back into war with each other. And there was that false belief among some Americans that Canada was ripe for the picking, but the Canadians thought otherwise.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Japanese invaded and occupied parts of the Aleutians in Alaska. Granted, Alaska wasn't a state at the time, but it was a U.S. territory ... just like Wake and Guam which were also invaded and occupied. The Philippines were a U.S. protectorate: they also were invaded and occupied by the Japanese.

Interesting, but somewhat ... off point. Generally speaking the continental U.S. was the focus of discussion, particularly based on the point I was trying to make regarding the border being violated and 20 million+ "occupying" the U.S.

I suppose some illegal aliens sneak into Alaska ... from Siberia.

Now you know how threads get "closed"!

[WTF]

Back on topic...

Former eastern european commies are now far right wing loons.

Got it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Back on topic...

Former eastern european commies are now far right wing loons.

Got it.

We are on topic.

The article in the OP started with remarks about the radical notions springing from the French Revolution. The concept of "nationalism" was one of those "radical" concepts from the French Revolution that sprouted wings and flew to the four corners of the earth: including Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam. Ho was never advertised as a "right wing loon".

Yet, it's notable that the mendacious left in this country now trash "nationalism" and mislabel it as a "conservative" idea to be denigrated and ridiculed.

It's fun to expose the hypocrisy of hypocrites.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'd have to go back and review "the history," but it is my recollection that the Baby U.S. started "invading" Canada to attack the Brits and began some blockade running associated with the Brits' war with the French .... until the Brits could focus more "attention" on the embryonic U.S. Right or wrong the U.S. stirred up the shit!

The 1812 conflict grew out of economic stressers on the U.S.

Right now the "occupying force" is estimated at about 20+ million and marches to invade our borders are on the way and being organized.

The decades long conflict in which we find ourselves today is also based on "economic stressers," which is exactly why there exists an "occupying force" and more are on their way. The Democrats used to oppose the invasion, and Bill Clinton was the outspoken leader on the invasion ... all the way through Obaminable's years.

Like the early 1800's politics drove the struggle.

um, British army invaded Washington D.C. and burnt down the capital. <-- was the last time a foreign army occupied mainland U.S.


do note that during wwII, Japan occupied some Aleutian Isles and some pacific islands and the Philippines as they were all U.S. insular territories.

[LexusLover]

As opposed to an "occupation" that has been on going for my life time.

Although a novel, the book Centennial in the chapter "Central Beet" accurately describes the beginnings of the more organized efforts to utilize workers from South of our border to engage in agricultural activities and the suggested (although perhaps offensive to some) basis for importing them rather than relying upon Asian workers.

I also recall the days of Cesar Chavez when he attempted to organize the farm laborers in the Rio Grande Valley in a union and the local farmers' resistance to that effort, which failed.

In those days the Democratic Party had a political strangle-hold on Texas, and to this day dominates the counties along with Texas Southern border.