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