The two kinds of Left wing movements emerging to combat Right wing populism

[Technocracy Timmy]

I see a certain global trend with left wing movements in western countries that are forming to stop right wing populism and it looks like it comes in two forms. There's obviously overlap between the two groups and few people fall squarely into one category or another, but there does seem to be this current divide on the left. I think the biggest difference between the two groups and why they push for their economic and social platforms (and they are in such stark opposition to the other group's) is due their respective geographic locations.



1. Cosmopolitan neoliberal Capitalists
Examples: Obama, Hillary, Trudeau, Macron, Cory Booker (older examples include Tony Blair and Bill Clinton).

This movement focuses more on maintaining the neoliberal economic consensus from the 80's and 90's while also believing that government intervention can be used to occasionally fill the gaps in where the free market falls short. Their coalitions are usually centered in or around cities, are multiracial, and more likely to be white collar workers. They strongly emphasize openness in trade, immigration, and liberal social values. Their foreign policy usually leans towards interventionist. They are quite flexible when it comes to austerity vs. deficit spending and are fully committed towards incentivizing automation and working with new technology to create new industries in the future. They are more open towards working with the banking sector and see monetary policy as a strong tool that can be used to curb strong economic downturns. They see nationalism as being a mixed bag and want to put the world on a path towards seeing one another as a collective global citizenry. Many within this movement see working class natives within their home countries as being too socially conservative to win over and instead believe that winning over upper income voters with centrist and fiscally sound economic policies is the path to victory.



2. Left wing Populists.
Examples: Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Elizabeth Warren, Podemos in Spain, Syriza, Die Linke in Germany, 5 star movement in Italy.

This movement focuses on redefining the neoliberal economic consensus in favor of much more aggressive governmental action to reduce inequality and to increase opportunity. Their coalitions are usually more spread out but generally cater more to rural working class areas compared to the cosmopolitan capitalists. Their coalitions are more likely to be blue collar and aren't as ethnically diverse. There's a very old school Keynesian mindset to these movements and a strong desire to return to the 1950's-1960's style of leftism. They'e usually more hostile to trade and globalization, and not as solidly liberal in their views on immigration and social issues. They usually lean towards noninterventionist foreign policies. They're strongly opposed to austerity and are concerned about the potential downsides of the automation economy. They have a very powerful disdain towards banks and don't think monetary policy is the best way out of an economic slump. They ultimately see nationalism as a tool in which to protect domestic markets and workers. Many do not think that winning over wealthy voters is the way to go and instead should work to win over working class voters with populist left wing economics in order to win elections.



Similarities:

-Both typically attract large numbers of young people to their movements. Although it seems like the cosmopolitan capitalists do better with the youth when they have a younger candidate at the helm instead of an older candidate (Hillary Clinton) whereas the latter group doesn't need a younger candidate to excite the youth as much (Sanders, Corbyn).

-Both want to aggressively combat climate change.

-Both attack right wing populists for their anti-immigrant and racist views.



Thoughts? Which group is more likely to be the future of Left wing movements down the line? Do they need to reconcile their differences to win or are they inherently irreconcilable? Which group do you believe will be better at combating Right wing populism now or in the long run?

[TheSaint250]

Except for you saying right-wing populists are racist and 100% anti-immigrant, this makes sense.

[heatcharger]

2. Left wing Populists.
Examples: Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Elizabeth Warren, Podemos in Spain, Syriza, Die Linke in Germany, 5 star movement in Italy.

This movement focuses on redefining the neoliberal economic consensus in favor of much more aggressive governmental action to reduce inequality and to increase opportunity. Their coalitions are usually more spread out but generally cater more to rural working class areas compared to the cosmopolitan capitalists. Their coalitions are more likely to be blue collar and aren't as ethnically diverse. There's a very old school Keynesian mindset to these movements and a strong desire to return to the 1950's-1960's style of leftism. They'e usually more hostile to trade and globalization, and not as solidly liberal in their views on immigration and social issues. They usually lean towards noninterventionist foreign policies. They're strongly opposed to austerity and are concerned about the potential downsides of the automation economy. They have a very powerful disdain towards banks and don't think monetary policy is the best way out of an economic slump. They ultimately see nationalism as a tool in which to protect domestic markets and workers. Many do not think that winning over wealthy voters is the way to go and instead should work to win over working class voters with populist left wing economics in order to win elections.

Without looking deep into it, even though Sanders did well in white, non-Southern rural areas, big city cosmopolitans were still the vast majority of his base. Can't comment too much on the examples from other countries. Otherwise, your analysis seems fine to me.

[Technocracy Timmy]

2. Left wing Populists.
Examples: Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Elizabeth Warren, Podemos in Spain, Syriza, Die Linke in Germany, 5 star movement in Italy.

This movement focuses on redefining the neoliberal economic consensus in favor of much more aggressive governmental action to reduce inequality and to increase opportunity. Their coalitions are usually more spread out but generally cater more to rural working class areas compared to the cosmopolitan capitalists. Their coalitions are more likely to be blue collar and aren't as ethnically diverse. There's a very old school Keynesian mindset to these movements and a strong desire to return to the 1950's-1960's style of leftism. They'e usually more hostile to trade and globalization, and not as solidly liberal in their views on immigration and social issues. They usually lean towards noninterventionist foreign policies. They're strongly opposed to austerity and are concerned about the potential downsides of the automation economy. They have a very powerful disdain towards banks and don't think monetary policy is the best way out of an economic slump. They ultimately see nationalism as a tool in which to protect domestic markets and workers. Many do not think that winning over wealthy voters is the way to go and instead should work to win over working class voters with populist left wing economics in order to win elections.

Without looking deep into it, even though Sanders did well in white, non-Southern rural areas, big city cosmopolitans were still the vast majority of his base. Can't comment too much on the examples from other countries. Otherwise, your analysis seems fine to me.

I meant to say that their base is generally more rural and working class when compared to the cosmopolitan capitalist base.

[Santander]

Never listen to anyone who describes Clinton or Obama as "neoliberals".

[Santander]

Reminds me of the Bourbon Democrats vs the William Jennings Bryan Populist faction that finally united in 1912

Those factions were separated by ideology. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are separated mostly on governing philosophy and political strategy.

[Deblano]

Never listen to anyone who describes Clinton or Obama as "neoliberals".

But they were tho.

Obama campaigned for enacting TPP for goodness sakes.

[Santander]

Never listen to anyone who describes Clinton or Obama as "neoliberals".

But they were tho.

Obama campaigned for enacting TPP for goodness sakes.

His signature achievement is imposing some of the most intrusive regulations on the market in recent American history. (Obamacare)

We can pick and choose things here here and there, but overall, he is far closer to an orthodox Keynesian than a neoliberal. As I and many others have said many times before, TPP was not about free trade. The US already trades relatively freely with most countries with economies worth anything. It could actually be argued that the corporatist nature of the TPP would be an impediment to true free trade.

[Famous Mortimer]

Cosmopolitan neo-liberal elites didn't "emerge to challenge right-wing populism". They were around long before right-wing populism was a major issue. Actually, it's the other way around, right-wing populism emerged to challenge them. Meanwhile, cosmopolitan neo-liberals have been the dominant force in Western politics since at least the 80s if not before.

Additionally, left-wing populism is probably too broad to describe the current left-of-neo-liberal scene. That scene itself is divided between identity politics advocates and more materialist leftists.

Melenchon and Sanders are materialists, they are primarily concerned with increasing the living standards of people in their countries. Corbyn and most people on the American left are primarily concerned with increasing the living standards of the global south, regardless of it's cost to their native constituency.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I would argue that left and right populism both attack cosmopolitan neoliberalism. Cosmopolitians and left populists both just dislike right populists more.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm with Mortimer and Chickenhawk. It's assbackwards to say technocratic centrism arose in response to right wing populism. Right wing populism rose in response to it. Look at the politicians you cite. Where was right wing populism in Blair and Clinton's day? Technocratic centrism arose in response to left wing parties consistently losing to mainstream conservatism.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

this is the sort of question that brings rise to endless chicken vs egg debates.

I'm with Mortimer and Chickenhawk. It's assbackwards to say technocratic centrism arose in response to right wing populism. Right wing populism rose in response to it. Look at the politicians you cite. Where was right wing populism in Blair and Clinton's day? Technocratic centrism arose in response to left wing parties consistently losing to mainstream conservatism.

Err, Perot?

[7,052,770]

The labeling is dumb but the long description of #1 is pretty much ideal to me.

[Kingpoleon]

Obama, Hillary, and their ilk deserve a separate category from the greats like Clegg, Macron, and Trudeau.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Okay there's clearly a big fuss over the fact that the first group didn't "emerge" and it does turn into a chicken or egg scenario.

Putting that aside, are these the two main ideological groups from the left that's facing right wing populism? Is it a fairly accurate depiction?

[mieastwick]

Without looking deep into it, even though Sanders did well in white, non-Southern rural areas, big city cosmopolitans were still the vast majority of his base. Can't comment too much on the examples from other countries. Otherwise, your analysis seems fine to me.

The top ten congressional districts in total number of Sanders votes:
1. WI-02 (Madison)
2. VT-AL (self-explanatory)
3. OR-03 (Portland)
4. CA-13 (Oakland)
5. CA-02 (coastal CA; Marin County to border of Oregon)
6. CA-12 (San Francisco)
7. IL-05 (northern Chicago)
8. IL-04 (Chicago Hispanics)
9. IL-09 (Chicago North Side)
10. NH-02 (Dartmouth and New Hampshire rurals)

[BlueSwan]

I don't agree with using the term "neoliberal" for the first group, but otherwise the analysis is pretty spot on and I quite strongly identify with the first group despite being much more concerned about inequality than most in that group. I generally agree with the second group when it comes to equality, but strongly disagree with their methods in obtaining equality.

[All Along The Watchtower]

this is the sort of question that brings rise to endless chicken vs egg debates.

I'm with Mortimer and Chickenhawk. It's assbackwards to say technocratic centrism arose in response to right wing populism. Right wing populism rose in response to it. Look at the politicians you cite. Where was right wing populism in Blair and Clinton's day? Technocratic centrism arose in response to left wing parties consistently losing to mainstream conservatism.

Err, Perot?

And Pat Buchanan, and the militia movement, and...

[All Along The Watchtower]

Also there's certainly a valid argument to be made that "cosmopolitan neoliberal elites" aren't left-wing in any meaningful sense.

Liberal is not a synonym for left-wing folks.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Eh, it could be a lot worse, but, at least in the US, there isn't really much of an economiclly "neoliberal" left anymore. Hillary's platform was quite left even before sanders. I wouldn't call sanders that far to the left of hillary mid-2015 in policy.

[Shadows]

The entire Dem party is neo-liberal. HRC still doesn't support Universal Healthcare, Marijuana decriminalization, is insanely hawkish & pro-war & regime changes, opposes 15$ Minimum wage, doesn't support lifting the cap on social security, didn't support Carbon taxes or fracking moratorium/ban. Not even going into college affordability or Glass Steagal etc

How on earth does HRC not vehemently an uber regressive tax with SS which has cap & thus as a % of income tax pays decreases? Her support of patriot act & hawkish nature of foreign policy are uber neo-liberal !

Atleast if you look at SPD in Germany, Socialists in France, Labour in UK & you compare, Hillary was clearly a very centrist figure.

The whole FDR/Truman Democrats died long back & perhaps someone like Keith Ellison is the only one coming close to that with Bernie (Warren & Merkley to some extent).

[Shadows]

I see a certain global trend with left wing movements in western countries that are forming to stop right wing populism and it looks like it comes in two forms. There's obviously overlap between the two groups and few people fall squarely into one category or another, but there does seem to be this current divide on the left. I think the biggest difference between the two groups and why they push for their economic and social platforms (and they are in such stark opposition to the other group's) is due their respective geographic locations.



1. Cosmopolitan neoliberal Capitalists
Examples: Obama, Hillary, Trudeau, Macron, Cory Booker (older examples include Tony Blair and Bill Clinton).

This movement focuses more on maintaining the neoliberal economic consensus from the 80's and 90's while also believing that government intervention can be used to occasionally fill the gaps in where the free market falls short. Their coalitions are usually centered in or around cities, are multiracial, and more likely to be white collar workers. They strongly emphasize openness in trade, immigration, and liberal social values. Their foreign policy usually leans towards interventionist. They are quite flexible when it comes to austerity vs. deficit spending and are fully committed towards incentivizing automation and working with new technology to create new industries in the future. They are more open towards working with the banking sector and see monetary policy as a strong tool that can be used to curb strong economic downturns. They see nationalism as being a mixed bag and want to put the world on a path towards seeing one another as a collective global citizenry. Many within this movement see working class natives within their home countries as being too socially conservative to win over and instead believe that winning over upper income voters with centrist and fiscally sound economic policies is the path to victory.



2. Left wing Populists.
Examples: Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Elizabeth Warren, Podemos in Spain, Syriza, Die Linke in Germany, 5 star movement in Italy.

This movement focuses on redefining the neoliberal economic consensus in favor of much more aggressive governmental action to reduce inequality and to increase opportunity. Their coalitions are usually more spread out but generally cater more to rural working class areas compared to the cosmopolitan capitalists. Their coalitions are more likely to be blue collar and aren't as ethnically diverse. There's a very old school Keynesian mindset to these movements and a strong desire to return to the 1950's-1960's style of leftism. They'e usually more hostile to trade and globalization, and not as solidly liberal in their views on immigration and social issues. They usually lean towards noninterventionist foreign policies. They're strongly opposed to austerity and are concerned about the potential downsides of the automation economy. They have a very powerful disdain towards banks and don't think monetary policy is the best way out of an economic slump. They ultimately see nationalism as a tool in which to protect domestic markets and workers. Many do not think that winning over wealthy voters is the way to go and instead should work to win over working class voters with populist left wing economics in order to win elections.



Similarities:

-Both typically attract large numbers of young people to their movements. Although it seems like the cosmopolitan capitalists do better with the youth when they have a younger candidate at the helm instead of an older candidate (Hillary Clinton) whereas the latter group doesn't need a younger candidate to excite the youth as much (Sanders, Corbyn).

-Both want to aggressively combat climate change.

-Both attack right wing populists for their anti-immigrant and racist views.



Thoughts? Which group is more likely to be the future of Left wing movements down the line? Do they need to reconcile their differences to win or are they inherently irreconcilable? Which group do you believe will be better at combating Right wing populism now or in the long run?

There's a couple of areas where I disagree. De Linke is very left, have remnants of communist party. I would put Melenchon in this fold too. But there are differences here - A Warren/Sanders is very different from a 100% tax above 0.4M Melenchon!

I don't agree with the social issues, most of them are very strong on social issues & especially strong on environmental issues (Melenchon was imo the most pro-environment guy in France).

The monetary policy argument is also not correct. I think most of them look at it as a combination of monetary & fiscal policy. Fiscal policy has to be a key driver & there is only so much you can do with monetary policy - This should be something which most reasonable people who have studied economics should agree.

I agree with the overall analysis - There are 2 factions - The neoliberal economically moderate left & the New Deal Democrats type - The one's who believe in the post FDR world & the one's who believe in the post Reagan world (both with adjustments).

This is actually a big ideological divide & will take time to reconcile. FDR was in a constant state of war literally with conservative Dems & Truman faced massive opposition too !

[Technocracy Timmy]

So far the first group is performing better globally and here in the United States. We'll see how it plays out in the long run. Ultimately, the nature of our two Party system and how rural areas are represented in our system will require that both of these groups must synthesize their visions to create a winning Democratic coalition moving forward and beyond.