All polls predict a more than likely victory for Trump in the next US presidential election and a significant increase in votes for right-wing extremist parties in the European elections. It seems we have entered a populist moment similar to that of 2016, when the tycoon took the presidency and Brexit completely thwarted the European project. The most extraordinary thing, however, is not only that similar phenomena can continue to repeat themselves – with Le Pen at the door, for example – but also that we have not found the necessary tools to counter them. Furthermore, many of these groups' proposals are increasingly gaining influence in conservative parties on the continent and also among some social democrats, as the Danish Socialist Party's turnaround on immigration shows. Or even in left-wing extremist parties, such as the promising German split Die Linke led by Sahra Wagenknecht. An ideological option fades and attempts are made to breathe some life into it by resorting to the dialectical arsenal of its supposedly great opponent. If, as Gramsci noted, the key to political success is the search for hegemony in discourse, there is no doubt that the extreme right is not wrong in its strategy, at least in everything to do with the supposed “migrant invasion” and the supposed ” Migration invasion” has to do with the demonization of established politics.
If this is the case, then, as I have said, it is because there is something missing in attempts to mount a proper defense of what has hitherto been the ideological field supporting the liberal elements of democracy. The strategic success of populism was to present all its rivals as an undifferentiated group, against which they established themselves as the only alternative, as authentic representatives of national interests. The simplicity of their slogans enabled the establishment of a tribal, emotionalized and almost entirely identity-based politics. In view of this, their opponents presented themselves either as mere managers of a complex system or – especially in the versions of the woke left – as defenders of a factional and divisive identitarianism. Let’s face it: in these moments of return of realpolitik, national identity has no rival. This is even more true if the people in front of him also become entangled in particularisms of various kinds and compete with each other to gain a foothold in the electoral market, or if necessary, if his previous rhetorical disgust towards populists is converted into acceptance when they need access received to the government. And the latter only reinforces the idea that in reality they are guided not by the principles in which they so much boast, but by blessed power. Another shift in distrust of democratic politics.
What should be done then? There is no clear solution when the autonomy of the political is restricted everywhere, when we return to Hobbes' security fears and the old consensus about our normative foundations begins to falter. And that is the crucial factor. It is not for nothing that we reject these movements because of their illiberal dimension. But is there anyone there who really defends the necessary survival of the liberal elements of democracy? My impression is that they are increasingly seen as an obstacle rather than the actual budget of a democratic government.
Follow all the information about the United States elections in our weekly newsletter.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.
Subscribe to
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_