Raphael Behr warns against relying on the lessons of the 1930s to deal with the current rise of far-right and nationalist politics (Left, right, Harris, Trump: an era we hardly understand) All Prisoners of Political Nostalgia, November 5). But only by looking back can we avoid repeating those mistakes. Certainly, the 1930s should not be used as a whip to beat current nationalist supporters as deplorable. However, it is very useful to study the sources of their appeal in the 1920s and 1930s and what was successful against them at the time.
Sources say that due to war debt and the 1929 financial crisis (an early version of “there is no other choice”), the Weimar Republic could not afford to deliver real economic benefits to voters. , it is said that the Nazis were enabled by big business and the mainstream. Conservatives are trying to protect themselves from growing support for the far left. Today, we see the same mistakes being repeated across the Western world, but when understanding the results of the US election, the willingness of the tech fraternity to support Donald Trump and the mainstream Republican Party that enabled him What will happen?
Against their appeal, the only successful electoral strategy in the 1930s was Leon Blum’s Popular Front, a far-left/centre-left party in France. There are many lessons for countering the far right, but one example shows why Spain and Portugal have had the most successful European policies in countering the far right. They also suggest that if Keir Starmer’s government fails to deliver tangible economic results and continues to isolate the far left, we can expect a major political breakthrough by reformers in the next UK general election.
Patrick Costello
brussels, belgium
Raphael Behr is quite right to point out the problems of using an “analog” mode for modern digital politics. However, there were two areas of his work that needed further attention. The first is the idea that “self-reinforcing information silos” dominate digital platforms. This is a nod to Eli Pariser’s “filter bubble.” Ironically, this appeals precisely to the vision of modern liberal democracy that Behr warns us about. In other words, extreme views arise because they are not properly challenged. While the filter bubble model is appealing, research shows that the reality is far more complex and less siloed than we would like.
The second area is a somewhat natural conclusion to Behr’s argument, but it is not fully accomplished. The current state of politics is due to the inadequacy of modern liberal democracies to accommodate or relate to capitalism’s current contradictory and self-devouring evolution. It forms much more than the digital platform on which politics takes place.
Professor Tom Grimwood
lancaster
Raphael Behr makes many astute observations, but he is definitely wrong on one fundamental issue. The argument is that the growth of digital over analog political communication, which is plagued by echo chambers, trolls, misinformation and manipulation, is not a technology problem, but a political and economic problem. . This is the result of a failure to regulate the tech giants that command these systems. The deep resentment and anger, exacerbated by unprecedented inequality and resulting in abhorrent outcomes such as Donald Trump’s victory, is not just a reflection of the digital shift.
peter golding
newcastle upon tyne
Behr is experimenting with some pretty big and interesting ideas in a very small space. Perhaps he should have waited 24 hours before writing – I said so. I think the Spanish disaster, whether you see it as a revival of right-wing tropes or not, is a microcosm of the current state of politics and a reality check.
In Valencia, the political model of “what we say is what we say” was confronted with a completely predictable reality. The result is complete catastrophe and unnecessary loss of life. This model has been implemented around the world, and appears to be being implemented on a large scale in Putin’s Russia, Italy, and now the United States. Indeed, it is a truism that the only defense against this crazy magical thinking is the parliamentary democratic process. Vladimir Putin watered it down, and Donald Trump gerrymandered it in full view and engineered his victory. No amount of philosophical or journalistic inquiry can defend us or overturn this.
neil blackshaw
Alnwick, Northumberland
Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it. Selected photos will be featured in our readers’ best photos gallery and in Saturday’s print edition.
