Austria is sleepwalking toward a far-right victory | Hacker News Reader

Austria is sleepwalking toward a far-right victory

politico.eu

34 pointsrobtherobber58 comments

Why sleepwalking? Seems very awake and intentional.

My thoughts exactly.

What if the left has been destroying their country through unchecked spending and immigration and the right are the only people awake enough to see it?

"What if the left has been destroying their country through unchecked spending and immigration and the right are the only people awake enough to see it?"

We had no left government in ages ;)

The ÖVP is moderate to right and is part of EVERY government since 1987 (!!!)

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ministers_of_finance_(...

But the left wasn't in power the last 7 years. The center-right and the Greens were and are in power. It requires some mental gymnastics to frame this coalition as left.

But to be frank, I'm not following Austrian politics closely. If the FPÖ is anything like the German AfD they are actually a very pro free-market. anti-social and worker-hostile party. I don't know why struggling people would vote for them, but they do.

> I don't know why struggling people would vote for them, but they do.

In stark contrast to many, I know a lot of people voting for the FPÖ, although all my close friends are far more left than right.

I have family that votes for the FPÖ, I have acquaintances and I know them, because I talk to them, uncondescending and am very interested in their motives.

And quite frankly: Most of the time it's simply not logical.

I can point them to laws the FPÖ enacted (because, you know, stuff like that is public), laws that DIRECTLY hurt them and they still vote for them, because "the foreigners, they will take everything we have!"

And even foreigners vote for them. People that are not Austrian citizens but already living in Austria feel like they belong here but now the gates should be closed.

It all boils down to emotions and the good ol' divide et impera, which has worked for millenia all around the world.

Some have their reasons, e.g. because they like what the FPÖ is doing at local levels.

I was about to post the same thing. The article strikes a very condescending tone towards Austrian voters - like they're idiots for voting this way. Meanwhile, as usual, it's the economy that has people upset:

> Year-on-year inflation peaked at 11.2 percent in January 2023 and remains above the eurozone average. And natural gas prices increased by 103 percent in the first half of 2023 compared with the same period the year prior.

These kinds of numbers have very real consequences for people living paycheck to paycheck.

Austria uses predominantly Russian natural gas via the Ukrainian pipeline. Sure, it sucks that prices are going up, but going against Ukraine and against Bulgaria - the two countries that can transit that Russian gas to them - isn't the smartest of decisions.

So then the alternative is to let Putin have his way with Ukraine, just so gas prices stay low?

It's really interesting how similar the "political programmes" of far-right populists are across the globe, from FPÖ to Orbán to Trump: anti-immigration, vaccine skeptic, isolationist, against international treaties and organizations (EU, UN, NATO, ...), and (most interestingly) consistently pro-Putin. I wonder why...

In EU, electricity price is indexed on gas price, and so, we the gas price is applied to cheap nuclear energy. Also, care do demonstrate how buying Russian oil to India saves Ukraine? Thanks.

When has the far right actually solved any real problems instead of exacerbating them?

I think the idea is that only people who agree with the author are Austria.

Because admitting that right/centre-right views are democratically popular would mean they'd actually have to grapple with the issues going on. It's cheaper and easier to make comparisons with the Nazis and play to the raw outrage of their readership than actually engage in real journalism.

The comparisons with the Nazis - in the case of the FPÖ - are not exactly far-fetched. They have a history of engaging with Neo-Nazis.

That's as may be, but it's also a well-rehearsed cry of establishment media:

- "Neo-Nazi accused a fan of Nigel Farage, trial told", BBC [0]

- "Farage’s fascist past?", The Independent [1]

- "Giorgia Meloni appoints minister once pictured wearing Nazi armband", The Guardian [2]

- "Milei appoints former minister with pro-Nazi past as head of state lawyers", El Pais [3]

The first isn't anything to do with Farage, really. The rest are childhood indiscretions and one case of a bad taste outfit worn on a stag party. Google any democratically elected leader from the right followed by "nazis" and you'll find articles like this.

[0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-57258375

[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-...

[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/01/giorgia-meloni...

[3]: https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-12-02/milei-ap...

The difference is that in Austria it has a bit of historic meaning.

And while there were (and probably are) Nazis and Neo-Nazis in different parties the VDU that later became the FPÖ definitely a way higher amount than average.

Sure, I get it, people like to call each other Nazis in a fight. I‘m just saying in the case of the FPÖ, it‘s a different story. They have/had Neo-Nazi connections, and that‘s well known.

In the sense that "establishment media" is rooted in the liberal, democratic, and constitutional state (you know, the one where free speech, freedom of the press and and many other civil liberties are actually protected) and has a problem with people who expound or even glorify ideas that would seek to abolish such a state (as proven by history)? Let's talk about civil liberties and free press in Nazi Germany, I'm pretty sure it becomes apparent why a free press is against a non-free society.

Then, maybe it really is just bad taste to show up with a Nazi armband but then, in a free country, a free press can and should point out that this is bad taste and that, maybe, we would like to consider if we want to vote or otherwise support someone with this kind of poor judgement into power. It is not a rehearsed speech just because you dislike the message.

I actually agree with you more or less entirely. I only suspect that the motivation for making such comparisons is not always so noble, however. Some of it is just plain old smearing.

No argument here ;)

The left has been calling everyone on the right racist and Nazis for so long that it's lost its punch. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a Nazi or racist.

Sounds like you’ve no actual clue of the history of FPÖ.

Eh, the Liederbuch-Affäre where they sang actual Nazi songs is not known outside of Austria?

Happened a few years ago

When people are leaning towards far-rights it's sleepwalking, when they are leaning towards far-left they are a progressive society.

Hopefully KPÖ will agitate enough to guarantee their presence in the federal assembly.

The Beer Party should join forces with the KPÖ

If they are willing to spend their efforts spreading class consciousness, why not ? :D

And also if they understand being part of a commie party in parliement is just to be able to act as a vanguard party.

It's a shame the term "Communist" is burned forever by some idiots calling themselves communists who clearly were not. Yet this is an argument that I'll always lose, because it's academic.

I hope the KPÖ is on my ballot this time and I can give them my vote.

Mmhhh whats the country/party you are refering to if I might ask?

Austria/KPÖ and the problem they have with the naming or at least that's what many people I've talked to and in the public discourse.

That's why some people have taken to calling it "Karitative Partei Österreichs" :)

A similar article was written about the Danish vote to the right and journalist and politicians still don't seem to get it. The voters voted for this. Instead of talking down to them, and discrediting their votes, politicians and journalists need to start considering why the policies that were enacted by the governing party failed. Why did the voters reject those?

I think voters across the world are sick and tired of being told by politicians what they should do and think. It should be the other way around.

Every time there are important elections I keep reading that Austria is sliding towards far-right.

I don't remember when was the first time I heard this, but it was a while ago and I guess it was the first time in the 21st century that Austria chose a far-right PM. Don't know the repercussions, but I guess this is a common thing?

And why is it such a huge thing that Austria is shifting towards far-right? I know it's a problem for most countries, but is there anything important about Austria shifting towards this end of the political spectrum?

Just historic reasons. We should know better after Engelbert Dollfuß and Adolf Hitler.

Aren't these socialists?

No, one was a fascist and Dollfuß was ... well, read it yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss

There is this famous quote in German, let me translate it to you:

"You become a good christian by going to the church, as much as you become a car by going to the garage"

The same applies to everything. Just because someone calls himself by something doesn't mean shit.

> but is there anything important about Austria shifting towards this end of the political spectrum?

Because the media's favorite go-to about ANYTHING right of center is "Nazis! Nazis! Nazis!" and well, Hitler was born in Austria, so this is an omen or something.

My guess is the fairly recent history of a certain Austrian authoritatian far-right leader responsible for some of the worst atrocities in the course of human history has something to do with this particular fascination. Not saying every right wing extremist from Austria will turn out the same way, but perhaps not surprising that the locale does raise a couple of extra eyebrows when notable things - like elections - occur.

The headline here is mighty disingenuous, Austria has been voting in far right parties since the late 1990s. In fact, as a country they've moved very much to the right even in the last decade. It's not sleepwalking into anything if the voters consciously keep voting this way in larger numbers, in fact it kind of absolves the Austrian electorate from what they've chosen... "It wasn't me mister, I just sleepwalked into voting for a bunch of unreformed nazis".

What I can't stand is the old "but the left wing does unchecked spending" myth.

The ÖVP reigned ABSOLUTE for decades (!) in Niederösterreich and it has the second most debt of all Austrian states.

Also: The ÖVP is moderate to right and is part of EVERY (federal) government since 1987 (!!!)

Also, guess who provided the minister of finance?... well, no need to guess:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ministers_of_finance_(...

Can't the far-right parties, politicians, and voters just be banned; for democracy's sake and to avoid a "tragic election result"?

Possibly controversial in this day and age of Twitter takes: Germany did not sleep walk into a NSDAP victory. People actually voted for it.

A reason there is so much political division is the stupid belief that the bad outcome happens because nobody is awake/smart/educated enough to stop it from happening. No one considers the fact that they are living in a bubble, and the majority might have a totally different view, and thus political affiliation, than your bubble.

You can thank the social media recommendation algorithms for turning this bubble into a cozy echo chamber. An intellectual prison where both sides move further and further away, each with their own set of truths, beliefs and interpretation of the world. The saddest thing is, media and journalists are the ones most entrenched in the social media idiocy, and help it spread like wildfire.

Party politics were a mistake, social media made it exponentially worse.

> Germany did not sleep walk into a NSDAP victory. People actually voted for it.

30-something percent, IIRC. Enough to give them a large presence in the legislature - the largest, though not a majority. But they didn't really run things until Hitler was appointed chancellor. Appointed. Not elected.

So, yes, Germany did vote - once - for all those Nazis in the legislature. Hitler would probably not have been appointed if the Nazis only had, say, 5% of the seats. But Germany didn't elect Hitler to run the country.

I looked it up: 44%. That's more than is common for governing parties in many political systems (the rest coming from coalition partners for a parliamentary majority), so it's entirely fair to say that NSDAP had people's mandate.

> Party politics were a mistake

Agreed, but I don't see practically how to avoid them in a democracy/republic, even if you started from a totally clean slate and could unilaterally make all the rules before setting it loose.

A successful political campaign requires funding and if you don't want directly corporate-sponsored politicians then let's assume for the sake of argument you can create parties which don't take corporate funding. Can't have them running on public funding or you give incumbents a massive potential for corrupt campaign funding.

And different geography drives different motivations. What someone farming in Kansas cares about is probably significantly different from what a lead engineer in San Francisco cares about, even if you zeroed out all their existing cultural biases. People with similar interests then will naturally gather to campaign for their interests. Those interests will probably fund candidates they want to succeed.

And that then leads into a vicious cycle where the winners (even if they're not actual corporations) get economic benefits they use to fund the next favorable candidate and so on and you end up eventually more or less where the US is now.

There is no simple answer to the problems you've described. To me it's clear it is impossible to create a state that is vast (i.e. like the US but also as large as most countries), efficient and largely free from lobbying and corruption.

A government's efficiency is inversely proportional to its size, but the hold it has on its population scales with size. The tendency of the modern government is to restrict its citizens more and more, while becoming less and less efficient. Parties are self-serving entities of the Large and Inefficient State, perpetuating this uncontrollable growth.

To me and most people walking with a circled A on their T-shirts the solution is obvious. The state should simply be smaller, in reach but also in width. The smallest, the better. Why is everyone trying to find a workable solution for a continent-sized country with 300 odd million citizens? Chances are, the problems of Kansas are often quite different than those in California.

> The efficiency of government is inversely proportional to its size

This is arguably false, which the libertarian centrists at Niskanen were forced to accept: having an efficient government is key to prosperity, but [most efficient governments are quite large](https://www.niskanencenter.org/quality-government-not-size-k...).

Quoting a [similar article](https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/quality-of-government), a former Niskanen staffer [said](https://x.com/hamandcheese/status/1491474440558895106?s=20):

  "Countries with high functioning public institutions also tend to have high functioning market institutions. This hints at a deeper continuity between the two domains, and/or a third factor that underlies both."

Thanks for the sources. At first sight, I think there are many factors at play, and these sources are mistaking cause for effect. Most prosperous countries are large, but simply because a large state can raise much larger amounts of money, that if wisely used can be allocated to long term investments that improve prosperity. This does not mean that they are prosperous because they are efficient. My thesis is that they are prosperous despite being utterly wasteful.

In fact, there are many small but rich countries that have very high quality of life, like Switzerland, Britain, Netherlands, Hong Kong to name a few.

It becomes like a U curve where you either are small, or have to grow very very large for waste not to impact prosperity too much.

I've tended to hold that view as well, but a fellow circled-A enthusiast of my acquaintance pointed out that a challenge may arise when it comes time to enforce the will of the small state against the will of larger states.

I see the Meiji Restoration in Japan as a historical example of this. Japan wished to enforce an isolationist policy which the Americans were able to violate with their military advantage. In response, Japan chose to transition from a feudal shogunate to a centralized empire. My understanding is this was so that the military of Japan could be consolidated so they could negotiate internationally on more equal terms than they could when they needed to also manage relationships with the regional daimyo.

But as you mentioned in another reply there are examples of small European countries which have managed to maintain their sovereignty despite having larger neighbors, so there's probably still more to it (which I'm assuming can be summed up as diplomacy and probably some degree of being lucky with which neighbors you get).

Like the article says, it‘s very likely that the FPÖ will win the next election. Even optimistic liberals share this expectation.

Kickl, I‘m afraid, is much more serious in his anti-democratic ambitions than the FPÖ leaders preceeding him.

It‘s frankly worrying.

> Kickl, I‘m afraid, is much more serious in his anti-democratic ambitions than the FPÖ leaders preceeding him.

Can you elaborate? The article doesn't mention any anti-democratic policies the FPÖ wants to enact.

Depends on where you live... in Graz the KPÖ (Communist Party of Austria) was elected a while ago.

In Salzburg there was a mayor-election that ended in a second ballot between the SPÖ (socialist party of austria) and the KPÖ candidate.

The FPÖ is mostly voted by the people in rural areas that have never seen an asylum seeker... similar to how the rural people voted for Erdogan and how the rural people vote for Putin...

Ignorance is not a bliss for everyone, just for the ignorant.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

I am not sure which side is more retarded these days - left or right. Anyone with half a brain looks on at the tribal demagoguery and disengages from all things political; thus all we are left with is chancers, grifters and charlatans.

Is it really far-right or simply not left?

Barely right at all in fact

Beautiful to see it, hope Germany is next!

Austria is So lucky,these corporate fascist leftists need to get their asses beat.

Sleepwalking is a condescending term, like the author knows better than them.

You know what else is stupid? Excessive over-regulation and the stagnation of Europe's economy, which aligns with the author's politics.

>Year-on-year inflation peaked at 11.2 percent in January 2023 and remains above the eurozone average. And natural gas prices increased by 103 percent in the first half of 2023 compared with the same period the year prior.

Left-wing politics are going to improve this? Lol. Please remind me who are all the groups that got everyone to stop building nuclear power?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com