Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

[Montmorency]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...democracy.html

The warning signs are flashing red: Democracy is under threat. Across Europe and North America, candidates are more authoritarian, party systems are more volatile, and citizens are more hostile to the norms and institutions of liberal democracy.

These trends have prompted a major debate between those who view political discontent as economic, cultural or generational in origin. But all of these explanations share one basic assumption: The threat is coming from the political extremes.

On the right, ethno-nationalists and libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics; on the left, campus radicals and the so-called antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles. Across the board, the assumption is that radical views go hand in hand with support for authoritarianism, while moderation suggests a more committed approach to the democratic process.

Is it true?

Maybe not. My research suggests that across Europe and North America, centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions and the most supportive of authoritarianism.

N.b. You'll see the terms used "far left" and "far right", but this study relied on surveys with a 10-point self-ranking political scale (as is typical, along with 5-point scales); 1-2 was coded far-left, center was 5-6 was center, 9-10 was far-right. Annoyingly, the article and attached analysis give only a taste of the survey items, and don't say anything about center-left or center-right. This is a working paper, so presumably more will be done with the data, which has one weakness of being recent only up to the early 2010s.

1. Democracy is a "very good" political system. European average: ~50% of far-left and far-right, 42% of center.
US average: ~60% of far left, ~40% of far right, 33% of center.

2. Free and fair elections an "essential feature of democracy. Not as many countries shown, but United States: ~70% of far-left and far right, <45% of center.

3. Civil rights that protect people’s liberty from state oppression an “essential feature of democracy". Not as many countries shown, but United States:~65% of far-left, ~40% of far-right, 25% of center.
(New Zealand for the lols: 80% of far-left, 25% of far-right, 25% of center.)

4. A strong leader who does not have to bother with a legislature is “fairly good” or “very good.” Europe: 35% of far-left, 45% of far-right, 38% of center.
US: 16% of far-left, 28% of far-right, 40% of center.

In the appendix of the article's linked working paper, the analysis is reproduced for "politically-engaged" centrists, who may be a different group than apathetic or confused 'centrists-by-default'. This is the place where the authors offer a look at the center-left and center-right, and the sparseness of what's on offer is frustrating. For example, in America wrt elections the center flanks are closer to the extremes, but in the UK wrt democracy as political system the center flanks are closer to the center than the extremes.


All this would seem to validate leftist accusations since the 1930s that "moderates" are the sine qua non fascism enablers.

One thing to keep in mind about the extremely broad/vague labels and self-labels of "centrist", "moderate", "middle of the road" is that people who think of themselves as not ideologically-bound to one "side" often hold highly eclectic (arguably incoherent) views that may well be radical or extreme, possibly even in a way that disregards the two-dimensional social-economic axes. For example, someone in "the center" might simultaneously believe that government should directly administer and provision healthcare, but eliminate social welfare programs; that gay marriage should be permitted, but women don't belong in the workplace; that the death penalty should be abolished, but unauthorized immigrants be ejected with violence.



(There's some bad juju going on in Dutchland... are they ready to mob the PM and feast on his guts or what?)
@Fragony

[Tuuvi]

It's interesting how both the far-left and the far-right are more committed to democracy than the center. I think this has a lot to do with Neoliberalism, which has come to dominate the political center and can be quite hostile to democracy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's interesting how both the far-left and the far-right are more committed to democracy than the center. I think this has a lot to do with Neoliberalism, which has come to dominate the political center and can be quite hostile to democracy.

Mugwumps want safety and stability. They don't want anyone crusading about anything, but believe that having a third week of vacation would be nice.

And, as Monty noted, there are some who get labeled centrists because the some of their schizoid radical and reactionary views -- and yes, some views directly opposed to others in terms of principle -- more or less zero out.

[Pannonian]

Mugwumps want safety and stability. They don't want anyone crusading about anything, but believe that having a third week of vacation would be nice.

And, as Monty noted, there are some who get labeled centrists because the some of their schizoid radical and reactionary views -- and yes, some views directly opposed to others in terms of principle -- more or less zero out.

I want tomorrow to be reasonably like today. I value socialist ideals, but I see it as the individual's responsibility to see to their end of the equation. I see the state's role to enable the individual to do so. I don't want anything irreversible, and I certainly see nothing good in winning a victory whilst disowning one's responsibility for making one's victory work. I see Russia as a fundamentally hostile opposition to everything that I love about Britain. Not as alien as Islamist fundies, but my instinct is to distrust anything backed by Russia.

In UK political terms, I'm probably closest to early 20th century Labour.

[AE Bravo]

I want tomorrow to be reasonably like today. I value socialist ideals, but I see it as the individual's responsibility to see to their end of the equation. I see the state's role to enable the individual to do so. I don't want anything irreversible, and I certainly see nothing good in winning a victory whilst disowning one's responsibility for making one's victory work. I see Russia as a fundamentally hostile opposition to everything that I love about Britain. Not as alien as Islamist fundies, but my instinct is to distrust anything backed by Russia.

In UK political terms, I'm probably closest to early 20th century Labour.

All the contents of a center-right/neoliberal.

[Pannonian]

All the contents of a center-right/neoliberal.

George Orwell was a centre right neoliberal?

[Montmorency]

I know quite a few people that voted for Obama for change and also voted for Trump for more change. Are those folks facists? I'd say that they are people that think the system is broken and are willing to try almost anything to fix it without needing to cling to our political norms.

On the first point I think we would need to be careful to avoid conflating topics. Are Obama-Trump cross voters in the "center", or in fact comfortably conservative? Most of them who were old enough, before Obama was around, would have been known as Bush voters. So emphasizing the brokenness of the system would better explain a conservative's choice to buy into Obama's rhetoric (hope, change, et. al); buying into Trump's rhetoric would thereafter be a reversion.

I've met quite a few people that are for universal healthcare but little to no social welfare(usually they hate unemployment benefits), don't care what you do in the bedroom but prefer that society promote more conservative gender norms and roles as well as believe that laws should be enforced very strongly but are against capital punishment. The above positions and the ones you made examples are not exclusive. Look at the varying grades of what defines political membership depending on where you are in the country/world. A Republican in California is likely to hold many values similar to a democrat in Nebraska while also holding values that in true red/blue states would make them Republicans/Democrats in Name Only.

I'm not so sure this is a regional or state-by-state stratification, if you drop the issue of parties and think about how people define themselves and where they stand on issues. The phenomenon of Blue Dog Democrats is more a construction of the strategic attitudes of the Democratic establishment than an expression of the attitudes of locals. If you leave it up to the grassroots, one local district could vote for a Bible thumper according to Republican standard per 1990s, yet running as a Democrat; the neighboring district could vote an Internationale-belting DemSoc. This is just the kind of thing that has occurred in Pennsylvania and Virginia over the past few months.

The difference between these centrists and what I would actually call extremists on any side is that the people that believe the above don't usually see someone that doesn't believe their world view as the enemy. A Facist in the sense you describe would actively oppose and oppress speech and ideas they don't like while promoting their own with the backing of violence, bullying (physical, economical, cyber, cultural).

People that think their system is more correct and the only way be it facism or socialism (or really any political -ism) and therefore think the ends justify the means to impose their system are the more dangerous ones.

Isn't that the challenge raised by this article's analysis, and by history? A small group of ideologues can't win power alone. It needs to convince the great masses "in the middle" to let them seize power, whether in the name of security, prosperity, revenge...

People with unformed, incoherent, or fickle beliefs could be dangerous in their own right.

All I see is that centrist people in an oligarchy don't believe in the "the system" that everyone falsely calls democracy, whereas the problem in less-corrupted countries (Europe) is actually smaller. Of course in a working democracy, the extremes are more likely to want something different because they hate any sort of common solution.

How do you explain the center almost always, on almost every topic, have less support for these democratic ideals than extremists? Are extremists just that idealistic, disconnected from reality? What does it mean if centrists care more about security and results over institutions or "freedom"?

Keep in mind that the authors haven't developed their full results for the center-right and center-left.

Also, it probably depends on the definition of fascist and far-right.

Based on self-definition in surveys. I guess if someone defines themselves as 1-2, or 9-10, on a ten-point scale, they probably aren't "wrong".

I want tomorrow to be reasonably like today. I value socialist ideals, but I see it as the individual's responsibility to see to their end of the equation. I see the state's role to enable the individual to do so. I don't want anything irreversible, and I certainly see nothing good in winning a victory whilst disowning one's responsibility for making one's victory work. I see Russia as a fundamentally hostile opposition to everything that I love about Britain. Not as alien as Islamist fundies, but my instinct is to distrust anything backed by Russia.

In UK political terms, I'm probably closest to early 20th century Labour.

China is the real end-boss. If Russia softens us up a bit, they can hardly complain. Xi Jinping's loudly proclaimed policy for China and the world is the "community of common destiny", which sounds great on paper but in practice must be a Chinese mercantilist empire into every corner of the world.

As it stands, I don't believe there is hope for international socialism unless many individuals can be convinced they want to organize and agitate for it, then permitted by pseudo-vanguard governments to engage in radical democracy (to avoid capture by business/military/other powerful figures). Yet how do you get to that stage? But that's another thread.

[Pannonian]

China is the real end-boss. If Russia softens us up a bit, they can hardly complain. Xi Jinping's loudly proclaimed policy for China and the world is the "community of common destiny", which sounds great on paper but in practice must be a Chinese mercantilist empire into every corner of the world.

As it stands, I don't believe there is hope for international socialism unless many individuals can be convinced they want to organize and agitate for it, then permitted by pseudo-vanguard governments to engage in radical democracy (to avoid capture by business/military/other powerful figures). Yet how do you get to that stage? But that's another thread.

I don't believe in international socialism. I believe in individual rights and the right of the individual not be imposed on by others. On an international level, that means national rights, the right of one nation not to be imposed on by others. Except, at all levels, where agreed on between the parties involved. Therefore I believe in individuals, and states, keeping to the agreements they've previously made, until such a time as a new agreement is made. And individuals, and states, doing their best within their current ability. I believe less in natural rights than in responsibilities, between individuals and individuals, between individuals and their state, and between state and their individuals. I don't aim for a utopian end state. I aim for improving the lot of myself and others, bit by bit, day by day. I don't expect miracles. I don't believe in people who promise miracles.

[spmetla]

On the first point I think we would need to be careful to avoid conflating topics. Are Obama-Trump cross voters in the "center", or in fact comfortably conservative? Most of them who were old enough, before Obama was around, would have been known as Bush voters. So emphasizing the brokenness of the system would better explain a conservative's choice to buy into Obama's rhetoric (hope, change, et. al); buying into Trump's rhetoric would thereafter be a reversion.

I wouldn't say that those folks are necessarily conservative. People with no real interest or desire to understand government, economics, or politics are more easily swayed by good rhetoric from both sides. These are the same people that wanted Bernie Sanders and ended up voting for Trump instead of Hillary. They are extremely dissatisfied with the status quo and willing to try anything new to 'fix' it whatever that means to them.
By and large those people that could vote for Obama, Sanders, and Trump do not support him anymore. They feel tricked by Trump just like they think Obama tricked them as well.

People with unformed, incoherent, or fickle beliefs could be dangerous in their own right.

I absolutely agree, that however doesn't make them more fascist, just more easily manipulated. Fascists have more strings to pull on when it comes to manipulating peoples opinions, they can side with the Church or Mosque when they want, they use ethno-nationalism to create a them versus us situation. This is why I believe that most socialist movements have succeeded through coercion and not through the ballot box.

Isn't that the challenge raised by this article's analysis, and by history? A small group of ideologues can't win power alone. It needs to convince the great masses "in the middle" to let them seize power, whether in the name of security, prosperity, revenge...

I fully agree with that part of the article, the extremist Utopian societies have never succeeded in attaining power without control of the center. The Nazis used the democratic system and the fears and street fights with communists/bolshevists to sieze power.
The Soviets seized power by taking advantage of the turmoil in Russia following the collapse of the Tsarist state. Every communist guerrilla in Africa, Asia, and South America maintained their position by coercion of the middle of society while attacking the conservative parts.

How do you explain the center almost always, on almost every topic, have less support for these democratic ideals than extremists? Are extremists just that idealistic, disconnected from reality?

Usually because they are extremely dissatisfied with the slowness of change and inefficiency of democracies. The checks and balances that ensure we don't get one party rule or dictatorship are also inhibitors of 'progress' however one defines that.
The people you describe as fascist should better be described as extremely dissatisfied.

What does it mean if centrists care more about security and results over institutions or "freedom"?

That's a common acceptance. People will put up with the legacies of Mao and Stalin because of the positive changes they made in destroying what were very rural agricultural and still somewhat feudal societies. The same happens on the right, Mussolini made the trains run on time, the Nazis ended the street fighting and insecurity of post WWI Germany. They'll accept a strong man who can get things done but they generally don't want that to be a permanent system because historically people usually go from a benevolent dictator to somesort of complete incompetent. The Roman experiment of empire would probably have failed much sooner if there hadn't been a young Augustus to take up Caesers populist cause.

As it stands, I don't believe there is hope for international socialism unless many individuals can be convinced they want to organize and agitate for it, then permitted by pseudo-vanguard governments to engage in radical democracy (to avoid capture by business/military/other powerful figures). Yet how do you get to that stage? But that's another thread.

I personally am opposed to 'international socialism'. If it were for just one State like the Scandinavian countries did in the 30s to the 60s people could get more behind it. That was a more conservative form of socialism though without what modern nationalist decry which is the influx of immigrants and the move away from conservative norms like the Church. You'd get more support for socialism if it were just for taking care of your community and country but so long as the trend tends to be to let in more immigrants without the public support for it to happen it will lead to more nationalist gains.

I think the underlying motive for the current open borders advocates are really to try and undermine the pillars of fascism and nationalism which are race and religion. If done slowly overtime it could work but it's usually tried at a pace that's too fast for comfort for the average joe which drives them into the arms of nationalist movements that say they will protect them from the other.
There's also the fallacy with the muslim immigration into Europe specifically that by and large these immigrants are more conservative than the natives of the their new country just with a culture and religion that is currently at odds with christians and nationalists that can use that fact to further gain support through fear mongering. Britons didn't like massive Hungarian and Polish migration a few years ago, why would we think that a group of even more different immigrant would go over better.

It doesn't help to gain support through the ballot box when there are socialists that actually say their goal is to create a society with no religion or race which plays straight into the hand of extremist nationalists.
The economics require more young workers which is the reason for promoting immigration but the other solution which is the one preferred most closet nationalists is to promote native birthrates and 'family values' which no longer is on the socialist agenda. Not to forget that would also undermine the work of feminism, and other social movements that have fought against having any gender roles/norms in society.

[Gilrandir]

For example, someone in "the center" might simultaneously believe that government should directly administer and provision healthcare, but eliminate social welfare programs; that gay marriage should be permitted, but women don't belong in the workplace; that the death penalty should be abolished, but unauthorized immigrants be ejected with violence.

My boss doesn't like two categories of people - Jews and Ukrainian Nazis. Claims her husband is a Jew, though.

[spmetla]

I know quite a few people that voted for Obama for change and also voted for Trump for more change. Are those folks facists? I'd say that they are people that think the system is broken and are willing to try almost anything to fix it without needing to cling to our political norms.

For example, someone in "the center" might simultaneously believe that government should directly administer and provision healthcare, but eliminate social welfare programs; that gay marriage should be permitted, but women don't belong in the workplace; that the death penalty should be abolished, but unauthorized immigrants be ejected with violence.

I've met quite a few people that are for universal healthcare but little to no social welfare(usually they hate unemployment benefits), don't care what you do in the bedroom but prefer that society promote more conservative gender norms and roles as well as believe that laws should be enforced very strongly but are against capital punishment. The above positions and the ones you made examples are not exclusive. Look at the varying grades of what defines political membership depending on where you are in the country/world. A Republican in California is likely to hold many values similar to a democrat in Nebraska while also holding values that in true red/blue states would make them Republicans/Democrats in Name Only.

The difference between these centrists and what I would actually call extremists on any side is that the people that believe the above don't usually see someone that doesn't believe their world view as the enemy. A Facist in the sense you describe would actively oppose and oppress speech and ideas they don't like while promoting their own with the backing of violence, bullying (physical, economical, cyber, cultural).

People that think their system is more correct and the only way be it facism or socialism (or really any political -ism) and therefore think the ends justify the means to impose their system are the more dangerous ones.

[Crandar]

I think that the results are partly explained by the fact that the center currently identifies with the establishment and the ruling order, while the far-right clowns view themselves as some sort of civil rights activists, oppressed by the offspring of Bezmenov. I would compare it with the famous research in the United States, where Muslims were the most critical against civilian casualties during military operations.

Also, it probably depends on the definition of fascist and far-right. Here the far-right openly cheers for two of our military dictatorships and sings the "Sieg Heil", so I have a feeling that the results would be different. On the other hand, another coup against a democratically elected government is also praised by the mainstream intellectuals or even school books, so maybe I am overly optimistic about the center's fondness of democracy.

However, as Montmorency explained, it's another nail on the coffin of the unscientific horseshoe theory. After all, it's true that fascism and Nazism gained support, at least initially, not from the Prussian aristocrats or the workers in Rhenania, but from the impoverished middle class. We are talking about politically very immature people, willing to take authoritarian solutions (suspension of human rights, election of a powerful Messiah and etc.), in order to regain their former status.

[Husar]

1. Democracy is a "very good" political system. European average: ~50% of far-left and far-right, 42% of center.
US average: ~60% of far left, ~40% of far right, 33% of center.

2. Free and fair elections an "essential feature of democracy. Not as many countries shown, but United States: ~70% of far-left and far right, <45% of center.

3. Civil rights that protect people’s liberty from state oppression an “essential feature of democracy". Not as many countries shown, but United States:~65% of far-left, ~40% of far-right, 25% of center.
(New Zealand for the lols: 80% of far-left, 25% of far-right, 25% of center.)

4. A strong leader who does not have to bother with a legislature is “fairly good” or “very good.” Europe: 35% of far-left, 45% of far-right, 38% of center.
US: 16% of far-left, 28% of far-right, 40% of center.

All I see is that centrist people in an oligarchy don't believe in the "the system" that everyone falsely calls democracy, whereas the problem in less-corrupted countries (Europe) is actually smaller. Of course in a working democracy, the extremes are more likely to want something different because they hate any sort of common solution.