> America’s current troubles are political polarization and ballooning deficits.
American problem is one sided right wing radicalization, not polarization. If left of center moved the the right even more, the issues would remain.
American problem is one sided right wing radicalization, not polarization. If left of center moved the the right even more, the issues would remain.
Now we just need a right-leaning person who lacks self awareness to offer a rebuttal to you and we can complete the picture.
It's certainly true that the political parties are more polarized, didn't used to be as ideological as they are now. To a large extent, the southern Democrats all left to join the Republican party, and the "compassionate conservatives" have mostly abandoned the Republican party. I expect with the split between MAGA and the America first people we are beginning to see another realignment.
You always here people say one half of the country is red and the other half is blue, but in reality is probably more like 1/3 each red/blue and another 3rd who don’t subscribe to the dogma of either side and are fed up with the endless bickering between the two teams.
One thing that’s for certain is the tech giants tech giants and news companies are attempting to manipulate us more than ever. It might feel like we’re more polarized that ever, but I think much of that is because it’s good for business, and they are shoving division in our faces on a daily basis.
There is real evidence of this by an awesome project called “Tech Watch Project” (https://techwatchproject.org/). They have a data dashboard with real time charts at https://americasdigitalshield.com/.
The idea is that tech giants are purposely trying to manipulate voters in the middle by feeding them more biased search results, notifications, et cetera. The thing about this, is that on close election they can literally swing elections the way they want them to go by manipulating undecided voters algorithms.
In elections with wider margins it’s not going to have an effect, but in close races it only takes a point or two to get the desired result. This is a power they should not have and it needs to be talked about more.
This theory is false, it does not work. It was tested to destruction in the UK this year and tl;dr: it's how to annoy everyone. When the centre-left party chases the right-wing, they disillusion their base and lose votes there, without gaining any significant number or right-wingers, who still prefer what they see as the "real thing". And the right-wingers are emboldened, not collapsed - they take one step back for every step taken towards them.
The long version is here: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/zbmp3_v2
> Every thing Starmer said indicated he was soft on immigration and he took no meaningful steps to stop it and send refugees back.
Immigration into the UK is steeply down (1), the "took no meaningful steps" is just not true. But this is not how the topic is reported. I do believe that Home Secretary Mahmood truly does believe the hard-line things that she says (2) and that it is in no way winning any votes for Labour. Again, actual Labour voters are repulsed, and Reform voters are not attracted.
This underscores my point that ceding this issue is not how centre-left parties win. I refer you to the study linked above as to how this backfired due to these perceptions.
1) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyp1ekd584o
2) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/21/shabana-mah...
What i’m describing is literally how the Danish left got back in power. In the UK you’d need someone in Labour at least as aggressive as Fredrickson: https://theconversation.com/denmarks-prime-minister-has-led-.... Immigration isn’t “left wing” or “right wing.” It’s just neoliberalism. It’s based on viewing people as fungible units of labor output.
I do not agree. This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. In racist terms.
In academic language from the linked study:
> Thus, accommodating the radical right on immigration could benefit the radical right by increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage
That’s labeling. Neoliberals coined the term “far right” to refer to a group that to the left of the conventional right on economic issues.
> increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage
The Danish left predicted (imo, correctly) that the issue would remain and get more salient due to external factors. Then they got on the right side of it.
The alternative approach is to hope the issue will reduce in salience. The problem is that the unruly coalitions that you need to stop far right parties can’t meaningfully give their constituents anything else they want. This is the problem in Germany, France, and the UK.
Yes, the far right parties in the UK are trying to do most of that (1) as well as inciting race riots against immigrants. I don't think that you have a point here.
1) not so much on the free trade, they talk a good fight on potential global trade deals, but their record is not so great - spurning actual EU free trade, going along with the USA's attempted trade wars.
On that last point, the USA now is a counterexample to your criteria.
It is true that "there are ... libertarians who want gay rights and no social security" - they do exist. But are they a significant percentage of the voters, compared to the more regular right wing (e.g. UK Reform / Restore) who get double-digit percentages of the vote? No, they are not.
I see that you added this. There's a lot going on. "External factors" sounds like fixed facts of the world. But as I pointed out above, Immigration into the UK is steeply down (1), but this is not your perception or many other perception of the topic. It's not driven by facts.
Would you describe a mega-rich person in the USA using their social platform to stoke racial hatred in the UK and promote conspiracy theories as "external factors", fixed facts of the world? (1)
The far right engages in endless grievances and stoking of culture wars. It's what they do, they are not going to be satisfied with a minor concession, they will just be emboldened instead. And win or lose, if they have to abandon the current grievance, they will find something else to turn into the next grievance. Facts are secondary to this.
The idea that a rational centre-left party can meaningfully "get on the right side" of this escalation - and do so by agreeing with the hate-mongers - is not just wrong, it's nonsensical. Again, Mr Starmer tried it and got nothing.
If you think that's the "right side" then what you want is a right-wing party, no centre-left party is ever going to be the one for you - and this is in common with most voters as I said above.
> The alternative approach is to hope the issue will reduce in salience.
Nope. As they say, "Hope is not a strategy". The right is not going to stop stoking culture wars, as as it works for them, it's their main weapon. This is not a thing that will "naturally" reduce in salience by itself, as it was a political choice in the first place.
1) https://www.trtworld.com/article/18192985
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/elon...