Is Political Arrogance dragging Europe to the Right?

[Husar]

Not quite. You may for instance be of the opinion that either capitalism or socialism should be implemented regardless of outcome, as your preferred ideology is morally good in and of itself.

Similarly, different people may think differently on what compromises are acceptable and which ones are not despite agreeing on many or most fundamental principles, and different political parties could represent different compromises.

With the first thing we're back to idiot plebs, which was my point, that the plebs vote for something without actually knowing whether it will help or not. If they think their ideology is good just because it's their ideology, then that is exactly what they do.

As for the second part, that has nothing to do with right or wrong, it's about different interests and preferences. Some interests can still be morally wrong if the moral goal is to let everyone have a good life, i.e. the supposed goal of most western democracies and economic systems.

No. If you prefer pizza over hamburger, it's not necessarily because you fear hamburgers.

It is, you fear that the hamburger will not make you as happy as the pizza.
You also forgot to mention that you demonstrate on the streets about the hamburgerization of pizza places just because some pizza places put a single hamburger on a menu with 50 options.

Different people can vote for the same party despite having very different world views. Some might vote AfD because they fear Islamisation, some because they worry about crime or immigration in general, but not so much about Islam. Some might vote for it because they consider it the lesser of many evils.

A lot of 'mights' there, mate. And the numbers disagree with you:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/w...-14415882.html

The voters say themselves that immigration is an important reason for them to vote AfD, there's no reason for you to make BS-reasons up when they freely admit that this is why they vote AfD...

The primary purpose of what I wrote was to illustrate how different models are capable of explaining the phenomenon that people from places with many immigrants are less sceptical of immigration than people from places with few or no immigrants. It simply does not have to mean that people from the first group are better informed on the consequences of immigration.

A weak but relevant analogue is that one could expect to find fewer people sceptical of coal mining and its consequences in a city were coal mining employs many or most people, compared to a city that does not benefit from coal mining in an way.

You're basically saying that the guy who screams from a distance that you should pour lots of water into the burning oil might know more about fire than the firefighter who has been close to a lot of fires.
Of course this 'might' be the case, but all evidence says you're wrong, how about that?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/19/wo...st-immigrants/
You tell me how likely it is that they become strangers in their own country, i.e. actually know what they're talking about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sebast...b_9829578.html
If you think they know more about immigration, prove that immigration is indeed fundamentally flawed.

Or you might just be using what ifs that have nothing to do with reality because you have no real point to make and may not know enough about the AfD despite living further away from it than I do. Shocking...