European Right Wing

[Brenus]

I was thinking about reactions to Trump’s election.
The rise of “populism” is due to the failure of the precedent regimes to address their population’s needs. H. Clinton lost because Obama’s failure. Compare the numbers who voted for Obama first season, then the numbers who voted for her.
What people need is a job, a future for their children. What the elites in France, UK and USA offer is TAFTA, CETA and TINA. And the ones like Sanders in USA, Corbyn in UK and Mélenchon in France are at best ignored and when it is impossible to do so, mocked and caricatured, described under the qualifications of “Populist”, “Marxist” and others by the media in general.
And then comes the moment to blame the voters, and to play emotional: Stop thinking, react. Trump is a racist, xenophobe, misogynistic con-artist. True. But when H Clinton was promising more TAFTA, more CETA, more TINA, he was saying they will have jobs.
When every day is a fight, when tomorrow is uncertain thanks to zero-hours contract, of temp contract renewed every 3 months, when you small salary is freeze for years and no prospect to be improved, when the price to your children to get education is increasing, when all the concern of your “leaders” is to break all form of resistance to money makers, more concern by social fraud than by tax evasions and fraud, to make your situation even more difficult by cutting all social protection, to carry-on like before, for whom will you vote? When “elites” choose to ignore the result of elections, lied deliberately and ignored the reality of daily life for their electors, first reaction is abstention, then vote of “Cocktail Molotov” vote, as described by Michael Moore when the possibility to vote of alternative has been eradicate.
Sanders and Corbyn had it. H Clinton’s supporters and Labour’s elites had de facto prohibited their electorate to vote for the candidate they didn’t want. They are doing the same in France. They tried to prevent these candidates even to reach the place where they can be elected, by rewriting the rules when necessary. Same was done much more brutally in the past. You do know why the Islamists took power in countries following the Arab Spring? Because all other forms of protest labelled as “communist” were repressed in blood by corrupted dictatorships supported and trained by our democracies, leaving the field opened for protest to religious fanatics.
The greatest numbers of voters are abstentionist. This should have been the alarm bell.
So, when stability means no job again, some choose chaos. Death is stable, life is chaos. If chaos means they might have a chance to finally have something, they choose chaos.
I read this: they don’t want to be protected when they lose their job, they want a job. And this simple thing has been ignored by all governments for now 30 years. So the ones, even if there is only a remote chance they keep their promises to do so, are better than the ones who even don’t think to build a future for them. And thanks to the “system” (a term which I will not explain here but it describes a complex interactions of “natural” allies, economic, political and media), all other options have been made out of option, the only one left is the “hand grenade”.