Javier Milei wins Argentina election
Discussion
CivicDuties said:
Yes and Putin was never going to go the full fash and invade Ukraine either, so no problem I'm sure. These people just want to Make Their Country Great Again, what's wrong with that? Right?
Nobody's saying he's "gearing up" to mount an invasion, he's only just gained office, so stop misrepresenting what's being said.
There's this funny thing called the future, and also the past, look at the track record of similar sorts of leaders utterly failing their countries and trying to bury their failure by wrapping it up in a flag and invading somewhere they they think should belong to them when it doesn't. No, never happens that, no need to even take a cursory glance at history.
Jesus, the willful naivety.
So when do you think he will invade? And is he more likely to invade (or indeed more likely to lead to further failure) than the former Economics Minister who presided over run away inflation and attacked Milei for his admiration of Thatcher and his lack of bombast on the Falklands?Nobody's saying he's "gearing up" to mount an invasion, he's only just gained office, so stop misrepresenting what's being said.
There's this funny thing called the future, and also the past, look at the track record of similar sorts of leaders utterly failing their countries and trying to bury their failure by wrapping it up in a flag and invading somewhere they they think should belong to them when it doesn't. No, never happens that, no need to even take a cursory glance at history.
Jesus, the willful naivety.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
hidetheelephants said:
Given he's accompanied by few deputies and even fewer senators he's not going to be doing much of anything other than holding press conferences about how he can't get anything done.
Are you sure? He'll be the Fuhrer of Port Stanley by weekend if mega brain F1GTRUENO is not mistaken. It's your mealy mouthed 'innocent eccentic just trying to do right by his country' description that makes you one.
F1GTRUeno said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It's quite an interesting example of how things are spun.
As for as I can see he is an academic economist with a bit of an eccentric approach to public image, talking about how he's going to solve Argentina's economic problems and playing down the disagreement over the Falklands, and yet he's being presented as this mad "far right" showman gearing up to mount another invasion.
That's because you're an idiot though.As for as I can see he is an academic economist with a bit of an eccentric approach to public image, talking about how he's going to solve Argentina's economic problems and playing down the disagreement over the Falklands, and yet he's being presented as this mad "far right" showman gearing up to mount another invasion.
Vanden Saab said:
RichTT said:
CivicDuties said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
CivicDuties said:
I feel certain that's a great comfort to the people of the Falklands Islands.
Is there anything to suggest that their independence is any more under threat than it was last week?"Mr Milei, 53, said in the debate: "We had a war – that we lost – and now we have to make every effort to recover the islands through diplomatic channels."
I don't see what's controversial about that?
(also, he's not far right)
He's far right. No need to deny it because you might agree with him and don't like the connotations.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Tuesday 21st November 13:28
Are there any PHers thinking "He isnt far right but I am"?
2xChevrons said:
Those things are true, but they're not why he's being called far-right, are they? No one's calling Milei 'far right' because "he is an academic economist with a bit of an eccentric approach to public image, talking about how he's going to solve Argentina's economic problems and playing down the disagreement over the Falklands." (btw I do agree that his statements about the Falklands are pretty moderate and essentially just state both the current political position and the settled national stance of Argentina. Other Argentinian leaders have been far more strident. It's awful clickbait headline-writing by parts of the British media). Plus, practically, Argentina doesn't have the capability to get troops across the Puerto Madero docklands, let alone to the Falklands.
But I suspect the label of 'far-right' gets slapped on because of his position on the left/right economic axis (a self-described anarcho-capitalist, the hardest of hard right economic positions), his social conservatism, his bombastic (to put it mildly) rhetoric about leftists and so on.
I suspect that if, say, Paul Cockshott (Marxist economist) somehow became PM of the UK you wouldn't accept "he's just an academic economist, talking about how he's going to solve the UK's economic problems" as a defence of him not being "far-left".
Put it another way - if it was correct to label Corbyn and McDonnell as "far left", can we accept that it's equally correct to label Milei as "far right"?
I don't think either label is accurate to those cases, but in both I can see why others would apply them, and why those people are more than just theorists talking about radical solutions to problems.
I think libertarianism, and especially anarcho-capitalism is where the prism of left right ceases to be useful. The image presented is one of an ethno nationalist itching to stir up a war and he simply isn’t. He appears to be a moderate social conservative with some radical free market ideas who has no interest in starting another war.But I suspect the label of 'far-right' gets slapped on because of his position on the left/right economic axis (a self-described anarcho-capitalist, the hardest of hard right economic positions), his social conservatism, his bombastic (to put it mildly) rhetoric about leftists and so on.
I suspect that if, say, Paul Cockshott (Marxist economist) somehow became PM of the UK you wouldn't accept "he's just an academic economist, talking about how he's going to solve the UK's economic problems" as a defence of him not being "far-left".
Put it another way - if it was correct to label Corbyn and McDonnell as "far left", can we accept that it's equally correct to label Milei as "far right"?
I don't think either label is accurate to those cases, but in both I can see why others would apply them, and why those people are more than just theorists talking about radical solutions to problems.
Yes it's quite possible that could all go wrong and he could turn into a maniac, but is that any more likely with Milei than it would be with Massa? Or whatever other radical might follow Massa with years more runaway inflation and general incompetence.
I don't know. I don't claim or pretend to know much about the candidates or the politics of that country. I just don't see any basis for calling him far right or for thinking he has designs on the Falklands. Just the usual huffy indignation of the BBC and co not getting the result they wanted.
F1GTRUeno said:
FWIW that's not what I think nor why I called you an idiot.
It's your mealy mouthed 'innocent eccentic just trying to do right by his country' description that makes you one.
I don't really care why you think I'm an idiot. When you can't manage to remain civilised on a casual Internet thread discussing an election 7,000 miles away it counts for absolutely nothing.It's your mealy mouthed 'innocent eccentic just trying to do right by his country' description that makes you one.
2xChevrons said:
Put it another way - if it was correct to label Corbyn and McDonnell as "far left", can we accept that it's equally correct to label Milei as "far right"?
I don't think left and right mean much at all. However left is pretty well defined and right is pretty poorly defined. Corbyn and McDonnell are socialists who believe in a big state. That meets the definition of left however you play it.People debate if Hitler was left or right so categorizing Milei in the absence of a tight definition of "right" isn't going to be simple. Dollarization seems a highly right wing policy to me because you're taking the state out of monetary policy but then you look at the other countries that have done it and they are often very left wing.
In summary left and right wing really have no decent definitions but if you're a Socialist or a Communist you are definately Left wing that's clear. Everyone else.... I have no idea how you tell.
BikeBikeBIke said:
I don't think left and right mean much at all. However left is pretty well defined and right is pretty poorly defined. Corbyn and McDonnell are socialists who believe in a big state. That meets the definition of left however you play it.
People debate if Hitler was left or right so categorizing Milei in the absence of a tight definition of "right" isn't going to be simple. Dollarization seems a highly right wing policy to me because you're taking the state out of monetary policy but then you look at the other countries that have done it and they are often very left wing.
In summary left and right wing really have no decent definitions but if you're a Socialist or a Communist you are definately Left wing that's clear. Everyone else.... I have no idea how you tell.
I don't think they really do! It's pretty clear, by any analysis, that Hitler and his party were right wing. The only people who disagree are other right-wing wierdos who either want to explain away the Third Reich's actions and failure as being because it was socialist or because they have a really simplistic view of the political spectrum where "left wing is when the government does stuff". People debate if Hitler was left or right so categorizing Milei in the absence of a tight definition of "right" isn't going to be simple. Dollarization seems a highly right wing policy to me because you're taking the state out of monetary policy but then you look at the other countries that have done it and they are often very left wing.
In summary left and right wing really have no decent definitions but if you're a Socialist or a Communist you are definately Left wing that's clear. Everyone else.... I have no idea how you tell.
I think your biases or knowledge gaps are showing when you say "left is pretty well defined and right is pretty poorly defined". Ask ten lefties to define 'left wing' and you'll get 15 answers and four new splinter groups as the result. Left/Right always, fundamentally, comes down to hierarchies. Right-wing ideologies seek to promote, maintain and strengthen them (be they social, economic, national, racial, religious or whatever) and left-wing ones seek to reduce, dismantle and level them.
Libertarianism in itself is ideologically secular (you can have both left- and right-wing libertarianism) but anarcho-capitalism is clearly right wing because it is based on capitalism - private property, contracts, individualism, market forces and power imbalances. It is based on a hierarchical society and promotes one: The whole point is that you are free to get and keep whatever you can from the world and there is no force with the explicit right to stop you - only market forces and individual contracts can bind you. Milei's broad approach (as stated - implementation may well be different) is to shrink the government, unleash market forces and empower capital in Argentina. Thus essentially reversing the legacy of Peronism which sought to level the imbalance between workers and capital by binding the worker to the state (and, supposedly, the state to the worker) through corporatism.
Let's cut to the chase. Leaving aside the whole 'far' prefix - if cutting the size, scope and cost of the state, embracing capitalism and market forces, being vehemently anti-leftist and having strong streaks of social conservatism isn't basically right-wing, what is?
Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 21st November 14:26
2xChevrons said:
I don't think they really do! It's pretty clear, by any analysis, that Hitler and his party were right wing. The only people who disagree are other right-wing wierdos who either want to explain away the Third Reich's actions and failure as being because it was socialist or because they have a really simplistic view of the political spectrum where "left wing is when the government does stuff".
Eh? You were being sensible earlier. What analysis?A self proclaimed socialist, atheist, radical reformer who implemented huge state programmes for everything.
Hitler defies categorisation by any normal standards. To suggest he is right wing in the sense that if you continued far enough on a spectrum from Jeremy Corbyn, via Rishi Sunak and Margaret Thatcher then you would eventually end up at Hitler is as ludicrous as suggesting he would be over next to Corbyn.
The whole left - right framework was built around the French revolution and the conflict between the royalists and republicans. It might be broadly applicable to political outlooks in so far as some people lean towards radical reform whole others prioritise tradition and continuity, but that's about all. As a means of categorising your least favourite genocidal maniac it is useless.
What I didnt realize until hearing a few podcasts this morning is how new / weak Milei's political party is.
They had a huge win in the presidential election but have basically no power in the upper or lower houses of representatives, making them reliant on other convservative parties loosely allied to them.
That's not ideal when you are pushing for radical change, and one wrong turn and those alliances start to look pretty fragile.
They had a huge win in the presidential election but have basically no power in the upper or lower houses of representatives, making them reliant on other convservative parties loosely allied to them.
That's not ideal when you are pushing for radical change, and one wrong turn and those alliances start to look pretty fragile.
2xChevrons said:
I don't think they really do! It's pretty clear, by any analysis, that Hitler and his party were right wing. The only people who disagree are other right-wing wierdos who either want to explain away the Third Reich's actions and failure as being because it was socialist or because they have a really simplistic view of the political spectrum where "left wing is when the government does stuff".
I think your biases or knowledge gaps are showing when you say "left is pretty well defined and right is pretty poorly defined". Ask ten lefties to define 'left wing' and you'll get 15 answers and four new splinter groups as the result. Left/Right always, fundamentally, comes down to hierarchies. Right-wing ideologies seek to promote, maintain and strengthen them (be they social, economic, national, racial, religious or whatever) and left-wing ones seek to reduce, dismantle and level them.
Libertarianism in itself is ideologically secular (you can have both left- and right-wing libertarianism) but anarcho-capitalism is clearly right wing because it is based on capitalism - private property, contracts, individualism, market forces and power imbalances. It is based on a hierarchical society and promotes one: The whole point is that you are free to get and keep whatever you can from the world and there is no force with the explicit right to stop you - only market forces and individual contracts can bind you. Milei's broad approach (as stated - implementation may well be different) is to shrink the government, unleash market forces and empower capital in Argentina. Thus essentially reversing the legacy of Peronism which sought to level the imbalance between workers and capital by binding the worker to the state (and, supposedly, the state to the worker) through corporatism.
Let's cut to the chase. Leaving aside the whole 'far' prefix - if cutting the size, scope and cost of the state, embracing capitalism and market forces, being vehemently anti-leftist and having strong streaks of social conservatism isn't basically right-wing, what is?
Well I would argue that Hitler was far right because he was *really* anti communist, and by the definition Milei is right becasie he's anti-communist and anti-socialist.I think your biases or knowledge gaps are showing when you say "left is pretty well defined and right is pretty poorly defined". Ask ten lefties to define 'left wing' and you'll get 15 answers and four new splinter groups as the result. Left/Right always, fundamentally, comes down to hierarchies. Right-wing ideologies seek to promote, maintain and strengthen them (be they social, economic, national, racial, religious or whatever) and left-wing ones seek to reduce, dismantle and level them.
Libertarianism in itself is ideologically secular (you can have both left- and right-wing libertarianism) but anarcho-capitalism is clearly right wing because it is based on capitalism - private property, contracts, individualism, market forces and power imbalances. It is based on a hierarchical society and promotes one: The whole point is that you are free to get and keep whatever you can from the world and there is no force with the explicit right to stop you - only market forces and individual contracts can bind you. Milei's broad approach (as stated - implementation may well be different) is to shrink the government, unleash market forces and empower capital in Argentina. Thus essentially reversing the legacy of Peronism which sought to level the imbalance between workers and capital by binding the worker to the state (and, supposedly, the state to the worker) through corporatism.
Let's cut to the chase. Leaving aside the whole 'far' prefix - if cutting the size, scope and cost of the state, embracing capitalism and market forces, being vehemently anti-leftist and having strong streaks of social conservatism isn't basically right-wing, what is?
Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 21st November 14:26
But other people argue Hitler was left because he claimed to be a socialist and if "total war" isn't "big state" I don't know what is. (Indeed in your own reply you only mentioned one trait of Hitler and it was a left wing one!)
...but then I'm really anti communist as is most of the world and I'm sure you are or you'd have moved to North Korea so are we all far right?
The truth is these words aren't well defined and the traits shift with time. eg EU is as right wing as you can get, it exists for Liberal Economics and free trade yet in recent years being pro EU has become left wing whereas historically the Left opposed it. If you reckon there are nice definitions feel free to link to a nice pair of tight definitions in a highly credible source and we can see at a glance where everyone is.
As I say, if you're a communist/socialist/big state advocate then you're left. Everyone else is pretty well undefined.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
A self proclaimed socialist, atheist, radical reformer who implemented huge state programmes for everything.
A self-proclaimed 'I am not like those Marxist socialists...I am a new sort of national socialist' socialist more like. Atheism isn't really an indicator of political leanings. Neither is radicalism (that's just scope/speed of change).
"Implemented huge state programmes for" some things. And also privatised huge swathes of the Weimar Republic's apparatus and infrastructure (so much so that the term 'privatisation' was coined in its modern sense to describe the economic policies of the Nazi Party in the mid 1930s). Banking, shipyards, railways, mining, utilities, etc. were sold off into private hands. Yes, at the same time the government increased its top-level control and direction of the economy, but the Nazi Party had risen to power quite explicitly with the support of significant parts of the German business community to protect capital, private property, profit and contracts from the threat of socialism. The Third Reich economy turned increasingly into "socialised losses, private profits" as the economical renewal/rearmament programme gathered pace.
And then there's the NSDAP's social conservatism, cultural chauvinism and national traditionalism, from its ethnonationalism to its vigorous and violent enforcement of conventional gender roles and heterosexuality (again, explicitly in reaction to the 'decadent' liberalism of Weimar).
Some of these aren't exclusive to right-wingery (you can have progressive nationalism - Peronism would be a good and appropriate example) and plenty of economic left-wing regimes were/are socially conservative. But some traits are exclusive because are because they are definitional - the belief in hierarchy is one such. And, boy, did the Nazis believe in hierarchies. Big time. Even by the standards of other fascists they were particularly driven by the idea that the strong could - should - dominate the weak and that everything had to come down to a Darwinian struggle for and demonstration of inherent superiority, whether that was big-scale racial genocide or petty factionalism about how to make steel helmets.
Edit:
BikeBikeBIke said:
But other people argue Hitler was left because he claimed to be a socialist and if "total war" isn't "big state" I don't know what is. (Indeed in your own reply you only mentioned one trait of Hitler and it was a left wing one!)
...but then I'm really anti communist as is most of the world and I'm sure you are or you'd have moved to North Korea so are we all far right?
The truth is these words aren't well defined and the traits shift with time. eg EU is as right wing as you can get, it exists for Liberal Economics and free trade yet in recent years being pro EU has become left wing whereas historically the Left opposed it. If you reckon there are nice definitions feel free to link to a nice pair of tight definitions in a highly credible source and we can see at a glance where everyone is.
As I say, if you're a communist/socialist/big state advocate then you're left. Everyone else is pretty well undefined.
"The state doing stuff" isn't a left-wing trait (that is literally my point!). You can have economically libertarian left-wing societies (anarchy) and economically authoritarian right-wing states (Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Stroessner's Paraguay, Pinochet's Chile - all different flavours of economic authoritarianism, all involve a proactive [to put it mildly] state, all right-wing). ...but then I'm really anti communist as is most of the world and I'm sure you are or you'd have moved to North Korea so are we all far right?
The truth is these words aren't well defined and the traits shift with time. eg EU is as right wing as you can get, it exists for Liberal Economics and free trade yet in recent years being pro EU has become left wing whereas historically the Left opposed it. If you reckon there are nice definitions feel free to link to a nice pair of tight definitions in a highly credible source and we can see at a glance where everyone is.
As I say, if you're a communist/socialist/big state advocate then you're left. Everyone else is pretty well undefined.
As a social democrat I am 'anti communist' in that I don't want a communist society. I don't make it a key part of my political platform though, don't think communism is an existential threat and don't rant about "s
t leftards who musn't be given an inch". I don't think you really grasp 'the Left's' views re: the EU. What's happened isn't that The Left (tm) has changed its view on the EU but most European left-wing parties have liberalised and moderated their ideological positions since the late 1980s so they are now more in accord with the EU and its aims. For instance, Jeremy Corbyn has been a stated Eurosceptic consistently since he entered parliament in the early 1980s. It's not that The Left learned to love the EU, it's that that sort of politics has been pushed to the fringes. Similarly, there was always a section of the right that was Eurosceptic on sovereignty/democracy/global trade/imperial legacy grounds, but they were a minority compared to the business-friendly/free trade/post-imperial future/economic liberalism/Western values faction. But in more recent years the balance shifted. Basically the broad political centre likes the EU, always has and probably always will. What happened in the UK in the 2010 was that politics went off-centre.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 21st November 15:12
BikeBikeBIke said:
2xChevrons, the fact you're disputing conventional definitions, offering your own whilst failing to provide a link to a definition demonstrates my point. These terms are *not* well defined.
Have a great day!
I'm not aware I'm disputing anything conventional. Have a great day!
"Hitler was right wing" - pretty conventional
"Libertarian socialism is a left-wing philosophy that seeks to eliminate the state" - pretty conventional.
Maybe I'm over-familiar with tedious political geekery, but to me the 'disputing conventional definitions' stance is the "if the state does something it must be left-wing" one.
2xChevrons said:
A self-proclaimed 'I am not like those Marxist socialists...I am a new sort of national socialist' socialist more like.
Atheism isn't really an indicator of political leanings. Neither is radicalism (that's just scope/speed of change).
"Implemented huge state programmes for" some things. And also privatised huge swathes of the Weimar Republic's apparatus and infrastructure (so much so that the term 'privatisation' was coined in its modern sense to describe the economic policies of the Nazi Party in the mid 1930s). Banking, shipyards, railways, mining, utilities, etc. were sold off into private hands. Yes, at the same time the government increased its top-level control and direction of the economy, but the Nazi Party had risen to power quite explicitly with the support of significant parts of the German business community to protect capital, private property, profit and contracts from the threat of socialism. The Third Reich economy turned increasingly into "socialised losses, private profits" as the economical renewal/rearmament programme gathered pace.
And then there's the NSDAP's social conservatism, cultural chauvinism and national traditionalism, from its ethnonationalism to its vigorous and violent enforcement of conventional gender roles and heterosexuality (again, explicitly in reaction to the 'decadent' liberalism of Weimar).
Some of these aren't exclusive to right-wingery (you can have progressive nationalism - Peronism would be a good and appropriate example) and plenty of economic left-wing regimes were/are socially conservative. But some traits are exclusive because are because they are definitional - the belief in hierarchy is one such. And, boy, did the Nazis believe in hierarchies. Big time. Even by the standards of other fascists they were particularly driven by the idea that the strong could - should - dominate the weak and that everything had to come down to a Darwinian struggle for and demonstration of inherent superiority, whether that was big-scale racial genocide or petty factionalism about how to make steel helmets.
That's where it comes back to definition of terms. I consider myself broadly on the right but most of that is the polar opposite of what I stand for: small government, localism, privacy, small business, incremental change and a duty of the more capable to protect and assist the more vulnerable.Atheism isn't really an indicator of political leanings. Neither is radicalism (that's just scope/speed of change).
"Implemented huge state programmes for" some things. And also privatised huge swathes of the Weimar Republic's apparatus and infrastructure (so much so that the term 'privatisation' was coined in its modern sense to describe the economic policies of the Nazi Party in the mid 1930s). Banking, shipyards, railways, mining, utilities, etc. were sold off into private hands. Yes, at the same time the government increased its top-level control and direction of the economy, but the Nazi Party had risen to power quite explicitly with the support of significant parts of the German business community to protect capital, private property, profit and contracts from the threat of socialism. The Third Reich economy turned increasingly into "socialised losses, private profits" as the economical renewal/rearmament programme gathered pace.
And then there's the NSDAP's social conservatism, cultural chauvinism and national traditionalism, from its ethnonationalism to its vigorous and violent enforcement of conventional gender roles and heterosexuality (again, explicitly in reaction to the 'decadent' liberalism of Weimar).
Some of these aren't exclusive to right-wingery (you can have progressive nationalism - Peronism would be a good and appropriate example) and plenty of economic left-wing regimes were/are socially conservative. But some traits are exclusive because are because they are definitional - the belief in hierarchy is one such. And, boy, did the Nazis believe in hierarchies. Big time. Even by the standards of other fascists they were particularly driven by the idea that the strong could - should - dominate the weak and that everything had to come down to a Darwinian struggle for and demonstration of inherent superiority, whether that was big-scale racial genocide or petty factionalism about how to make steel helmets.
Atheism is an indicator in my book because the proper basis of a well constituted and benign hierarchy can only be a supreme authority which must be far beyond human knowledge or control.
I would see Blair as much more of an heir to the Nazi ideology than someone like Milei.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
CivicDuties said:
Yes and Putin was never going to go the full fash and invade Ukraine either, so no problem I'm sure. These people just want to Make Their Country Great Again, what's wrong with that? Right?
Nobody's saying he's "gearing up" to mount an invasion, he's only just gained office, so stop misrepresenting what's being said.
There's this funny thing called the future, and also the past, look at the track record of similar sorts of leaders utterly failing their countries and trying to bury their failure by wrapping it up in a flag and invading somewhere they they think should belong to them when it doesn't. No, never happens that, no need to even take a cursory glance at history.
Jesus, the willful naivety.
So when do you think he will invade? And is he more likely to invade (or indeed more likely to lead to further failure) than the former Economics Minister who presided over run away inflation and attacked Milei for his admiration of Thatcher and his lack of bombast on the Falklands?Nobody's saying he's "gearing up" to mount an invasion, he's only just gained office, so stop misrepresenting what's being said.
There's this funny thing called the future, and also the past, look at the track record of similar sorts of leaders utterly failing their countries and trying to bury their failure by wrapping it up in a flag and invading somewhere they they think should belong to them when it doesn't. No, never happens that, no need to even take a cursory glance at history.
Jesus, the willful naivety.
What I and others are doing is pointing out that, [b]in the longer run[b], leaders like this tend to end up doing mental things in order to stay in power. In the case of Argentina, an obvious tactic for a wannabe lifetime dictator (which this guy is highly likely to turn out to be, IMHO) would be to sabre rattle about the Falklands. I and others are just saying his election may well turn out to be quite negative for the UK and the Falklands, so we shouldn't be complacent.
Johnson - wahay, let's get Brexit done, haha look at all the leftie tears, hahahaha. Upshot - disastrous Brexit deal, appalling pandemic response, perennial melodramatic crisis in UK governance and Tory psychodrama, Liz Truss and Fishi Rishi arriving with zero mandate and s
tting all over the shop like incontinent seagulls.Trump - nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. Upshot - 6th January insurrection.
Putin - nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. Upshot - full scale invasion of Ukraine and major war on continent of Europe.
Orban - nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. Upshot - siding with Putin on Ukraine and sever electoral gerrymandering.
Bolsonaro - nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. Upshot - increased burning and destruction of the Amazon.
Salman bin Abdulaziz - nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. Upshot - journalist chopped up with saws.
Taliban - let's leave them to it, nothing to see here, none of our business, they said they'll be nice to women this time - upshot, worst abuses of women's rights on the planet.
Milei - time will tell, but are you seeing a pattern?
Right wing voices have a pretty poor record when it comes to their favourites getting in the power seat anywhere.
And before you start with "so what, we're not the world's police", yes I'm abundantly aware of that. I'm not recommending military intervention and regime tactics all over the place. I'm merely pointing out that the handwringing right wing voices in this country are often pitifully poor judges of politicians. I think it's high time the right wing sat down and shut up for a bit.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
That's where it comes back to definition of terms. I consider myself broadly on the right but most of that is the polar opposite of what I stand for: small government, localism, privacy, small business, incremental change and a duty of the more capable to protect and assist the more vulnerable.
And there is nothing that is incorrect in describing that as right-wing. Five of those six I would also count as values I hold myself. But we would express and seek to achieve those goals in different ways. That's where the broad left/right, authoritarian/libertarian, progressive/conservative, localist/globalist plots come in. A single policy, or even many policies, isn't enough to properly define a political project. But the overall socio-economic 'sculpting' it delivers, the direction of travel, the values it espouses and - especially, since it the definition of politics in itself - the power structures it seeks to create and maintain, are. JuanCarlosFandango said:
Atheism is an indicator in my book because the proper basis of a well constituted and benign hierarchy can only be a supreme authority which must be far beyond human knowledge or control.
A perfectly valid personal view. But there's an equally valid and coherent sort of Enlightenment/humanist right wing thought that absolutely rejects irrational 'sky fairies' but is very keen on hierarchies defined by materialism - usually how much wealth you have. It's a sort of view that is very common on PH in general, and NP&E especially. You can also have left-wing politics driven by theism/religion (look at the Labour Party's origins in Methodism and Christian socialism) and left-wing politics driven by a rejection of theology as immaterial and 'the opiate of the masses'. JuanCarlosFandango said:
I would see Blair as much more of an heir to the Nazi ideology than someone like Milei.
I was originally going to gloss over this as the sort of "Blair is actually Hitler, if you think about it" that I encountered at university c.2006. But, with more consideration:Yes, you're probably right in economic terms there are more similarities between the Third Reich and New Labour than between the Third Reich and what Milei wants for Argentina, although in both cases the distances are very large. It doesn't stop Milei or Hitler being right-wing though. Or Blair, if you want to tug at that thread. Just different sorts.
We seem to have got off the entire point - from you disagreeing with the labelling of Milei as "far right" (in which I broadly agree with you) to whether he's right wing at all and whether Hitler was actually a lefty.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 21st November 16:02
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Atheism is an indicator in my book because the proper basis of a well constituted and benign hierarchy can only be a supreme authority which must be far beyond human knowledge or control.
Really!?JuanCarlosFandango said:
I would see Blair as much more of an heir to the Nazi ideology than someone like Milei.
Only on PH. 
CivicDuties said:
Reasonable analysis
In 24 hours we've gone from the right wing frothers beholding their latest & greatest messiah to outright apologism over the Falklands. The rational lesson is no amount of appeasing a populist demagogue is ever enough & only belatedly do people realise their mistake if they ever do. Rinse & repeat time & again.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff