I see a lot of politico links in this sub and I’d just like to say:
POLITICO Europe is a subsidiary of Axel Springer SE.
That’s a right leaning and pretty unethical publisher and politico has already been caught several times spreading reactionary propaganda. I also suspect they publish undisclosed opinion pieces as news. Like some fossil fuel investor explaining how wind turbines could be hacked by China without providing any compelling evidence. Many articles are well written so it’s hard to spot the grift sometimes. Just stay vigilant.
What kind of right wing? Christian democrats? Why is Politico for cutting welfare then? Stop oversimplifying things please.
Neoliberalism.
Because part of neoliberalism is to weaken welfare so that people are pressured into accepting exploitative labour conditions.
Wait, do you think chistian democrats are pro welfare? Do you think, neoliberalism is a left leaning ideology?
I might be wrong but your comment reads as if you think a political opinion automatically aligns with political parties (which would be massively oversimplifying the process of opinion making and political procedure).
I’m fairly sure you won’t dispute that Christian democracy is a right wing ideology. What commonalities to neoliberalism do you see between both? You probably won’t find much so it makes little sense to group them together as „right wing”. I’m beating the drum here again so that people wake up and recognise who the centrists really are.
I’m not a conservative by any means but I don’t mind true right wing ideology. It can be a compassionate philosophy that focuses on common good. True right wing is very rare these days because they were replaced by populists who can’t be even categorised as conservatives. They’re just bullies. Liberals are bullies very often too.
Incidentally, all the Christian Democratic parties morphed into fervently neoliberal parties. So there does appear to be a connection between the ideologies, no?
Quite honestly – is there a person or historical system to exemplify this?
Yes and no. Conservatives lost relevance in a world of meritocracy, most of their points were on a losing side eventually. People who come to power now, on the backs of conservative voters, don’t even try to be factually correct and therefore offer a way to continue ideological left-right war (hence the post-truth moniker used by some people). The hard pill to swallow about this is that maybe extreme meritocracy is not sustainable, or at least not sustainable in a system that doesn’t benefit the largest possible majority in practice. And maybe that politics can’t be means of changing societal norms as those have to happen naturally. A political force attempting such thing would need to have high legitimacy and current elites don’t have it because they usually prioritised interests of the largest businesses over regular people.
What I’m trying to say is that no matter which perspective you use to try to look into the future, there’s no positive outcome if neoliberalism is involved. I’m arguing with people online in an effort that sometime in the future they’re not deceived by neoliberals pretending to be right or left wing politician and that’s why I insist on making the distinction.
Christian democrats in Western Europe adapted many things from social democrats, mostly on welfare state which is critical element of societal cohesion. Those parties were since then eaten from the inside by neoliberalism that corrupted both right and left but for a time whole world aspired to European quality of life. We might not agree on societal norms with Christian democrats but things like Catholic social teaching is solid stuff to build upon.