[qsort]

I suspect a huge part of Macron's success was his opponent. France elections have a top-2 runoff, and I wouldn't be surprised if many electors were like "I don't like Macron but I really don't want Le Pen to win".

The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world.

[pjc50]

> "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world.

... except Germany?

I think it's more popular on the ground than you'd think, but it's very unpopular in the media who like their politics to be professional wrestling.

[V__]

A lot of people seem to think that Germany is "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" but that is not the case. Angela Merkel and her CDU/CSU party like to pretend and brand themselves as such, but they don't vote that way.

Also, Germans as a whole can be categorized as liberal regarding social policies but very conservative regarding economic ones.

However, the election last week was a big upset to her party and might finally lead to a new government coalition with the policies you mentioned.

[rsynnott]

CDU/CSU aren't particularly socially progressive.

That said, "grudgingly as socially progressive as the public demands we be, economically center-right" is pretty common in European politics; CDU/CSU are an example, as are FF and FG in Ireland.

[mywittyname]

That seems fine/palatable to me. And honestly, that's good leadership. Social policies should follow popular opinion and be flexible enough to shift ever few years. But economic policies may require unpopular actions to be taken.

The population may not want higher interest rates, or a trade deal that kills a local factory. But those things might be for the greater good of everyone.

[rsynnott]

My issue with this approach is that it tends to put off progress until there is _overwhelming_ public support. For instance, the 38th Amendment to the Irish Constitution, which liberalised divorce rules, received _82%_ of the public vote. That's particularly extreme, but the 34th and 36th amendment (equal marriage and abortion) received 62% and 67% respectively. All of these could have been introduced years earlier and passed with clear public support.

If you wait until you have no choice but to do something, you tend to delay doing things a very long time. And it bleeds over into timidity about making tough decisions; for instance the FF/FG coalition in Ireland has been unable to do anything about housing, because any actual action is going to annoy _somebody_.

[_hilro]

> for instance the FF/FG coalition in Ireland has been unable to do anything about housing, because any actual action is going to annoy _somebody_

Ireland has a ridiculously high percentage of population dependent on government support for housing. This is in the form of assisted rent payments which in effect, sets a high floor for rent. People receiving support are competing in the same market for housing as pretty much all workers.

We don't build government housing anymore because we saw the actual disaster that became of that.

The far left parties have a 'housing for everyone' nonsense manifest which a) Ireland doesnt have the labour force for, b) tax payers subsiding shit wages c) Ireland already has high income tax and sales taxes.

At some point there has to be the realisation that life on the dole shouldn't equate to a middle class lifestyle without the stress or debt when those who should have a middle class lifestyle don't have one because they're being squeezed in every direction possible and still have to take on hundreds of thousands of debt for mediocre accommodation.

[rsynnott]

While I agree with pretty much none of that, it also entirely misses the point. The problem with housing in Ireland is, very simply, that there is _not enough of it_. This clearly needs to be fixed, whether by prodding the markets or changing the planning laws or direct social housing construction or all of the above. The coalition's approach has been to do ~nothing (the previous FG government did tinker rather timidly with the planning laws, at least, but it fell far short of the sort of action required).

[jimmygrapes]

Counterpoint: California voted against gay marriage once upon a time, and overwhelmingly so. The popular (lack of) support was overridden by judicial activism. The rest of the country followed.

[lotsofpulp]

I would not classify 7M votes for banning same sex marriage and 6.4M votes against banning same sex marriage with 80% registered voter participation rate to be overwhelming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8

The voting age population was 26M in 2008, so even subtracting non US citizens and non CA residents, there were many millions of people who did not bother to vote, and I would bet that people who wanted to ban same sex marriage were more motivated to vote than people who did not want to ban same sex marriage.

https://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/res/pdf/GENtrends/CApop/CAp...

[Loughla]

No, it is very unpopular in the US in those who regularly vote in primaries. The primary decides the race, for many, many elections. The presidential race is not exempt from this, either. To draw enough primary voters to make the ballot in one of the two major parties, candidates are, increasingly, needing to take extreme stances on most social and economic issues. (for example, look at how many people came out for Trump in the 2016 primary. In my parents' county in their Midwest state, the polling place literally ran out of republican ballots)

Pandering to the extremes, and the movement of many politicians toward extreme views is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

[ordinaryradical]

Yang explains this exact issue so well here: https://youtu.be/-2O3JYaELW0?t=1038

This is part of the reason he and others will be pushing for structural changes, including open primaries, as central to the platform. Changing the mechanics of the elections is the only way to enable a return to centrism in the US.

[dragonwriter]

> Changing the mechanics of the elections is the only way to enable a return to centrism in the US.

There is no centrism to return to. The post-WWII age of bipartisanship wasn't one of centrism, it was one where the party split didn't align with the ideological divide. It was jist as much a period of competing ideological extremes (and governing from ideological polarized positions, which is why it featured the US military being used to enforce the federal will against US state governments.)

Changing the mechanics of elections to artificially favor centrism is...opposed to the kind of changes that would expand the scope of meaningful choices and improve representation.

[holywar20]

Americans feel unrepresented. This makes us despair and forces us into increasingly unpopular, existential crisis, that are good for no one.

I do not believe the problem is we aren't progressive enough. The problem is no one trusts the goverment. And no one trusts the goverment is because no one in goverment is accountable to the majority and no one governs the way we would like to be governed.

Frankly it's not about 'centrism'. It's about the fact the parties do NOT represent the diversity of opinion in America. there pro-choice republicans, pro-life democrats, republicans who like trans-rights, pro-capitalism democrats, pro-gun democrats, anti-trump Republicans ... But despite all this diversity of opinion, you have a system that forces binary choices between slates of options.

We are a very diverse country - ethnically, politically, socially. It's beautifully diverse. Among the most diverse in the world. I do not believe the current political system reflects that diversity accurately.

Which is why voter participation in America is low, and most elections across the country do not matter. This is wrong. Every district in America should be competitive.

[hef19898]

In order to qualify for the run-off, Macron had to end up in the top 2 first. Which he did. And that En Marche got the parliament as well was a bit of a surprise. Curious to see how things play out next year so.

[alexgmcm]

If Le Pen or Zemmour get through to the second round then I imagine Macron will win, as voters unite to avoid them winning, much as happened in the previous elections.

Although I guess Le Pen and Zemmour might split each others vote, preventing them from reaching the second round.

[hef19898]

The far right failing to reach the second would really be great! Even if I cannot vote, but it would send a signal so.

[Aleatoire24]

The National Assembly scores wasn't a surprise, since presidential mandate last 5 years like the AN's deputies mandate and the AN elections come right after the presidential election we haven't see any cohabitation government like it was the case in the past when the presidential mandate lasted 7 years. And LREM, which is easy to place as centrist, is full of recruits that come from the PS (Socialist Party) and LR (The Republican, last name in date of the main party from the right). And LREM got the support of classic center party like the MODEM which get many members promoted in the current government structures.

[kergonath]

Yeah, him getting a majority was the bigger surprise. The presidential election is a popularity contest. Both major, traditional parties shot themselves in the foot repeatedly and lost a lot of their appeal. Then, in a runoff against Le Pen, you just win by not being a Nazi.

Getting enough MPs, so many of them outsiders, on a technocratic platform (so without pulling th usual emotional strings) was quite impressive. Of course, the end result is not great, but then nothing really is these days

[hef19898]

Sometimes Macron makes me think of Schröder in Germany. Both came as a surpise, both had to implement some unpopular measures. In the case of Schröder, these measures helped to get Germany back on its economic feet (Germany was Europe's sick man in the 90s) and ultimately cost him his Chancellory further down the road. And not all these reforms were actually "good", Hartz 4 is still a damn disgrace for rich, highly industrialized country. Not that it will be changed anytime soon, regardless of the next government we get. We'll see how Macron does.

Not being a Nazi is actually good thing so. Even more so if it wins elections!

[Leherenn]

> the end result is not great

Do you mean having outsiders elected to parliament or the whole Macron government/term?

[Thrymr]

> The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world.

I don't know about that, it has won the popular vote in 7 of the past 8 US presidential elections.

[badRNG]

I mean let's look:

- 2020 - Biden

- 2016 - Trump

- 2012 - Obama

- 2008 - Obama

- 2004 - Bush

- 2000 - Bush

- 1996 - Clinton

- 1992 - Clinton

I'd think that Bush represented a socially conservative position, and I'm not entirely certain that Trump was any more conservative on particular social issues. Additionally, I think Clinton represented a middle of the road approach to social issues (RFRA, massive deregulation, "begrudgingly" signed Defense of Marriage Act, etc.) On economic issues, they all fall somewhere between middle of the road and hardline neoliberalism.

[scythe]

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and HR Clinton won it in 2016. The only popular vote victory for a Republican post-Cold War was in 2004. Also, "deregulation" is typically an economic issue.

[dpatterbee]

You've missed the word "popular" Bush 1 and Trump lost the popular vote.

[mywittyname]

It could probably be argued that Bush would have lost the 04 popular vote if he hadn't be thrust into the Presidency in 00.

[wayoutthere]

Economically, neoliberalism is indistinguishable from conservativism so I’m not sure what “hardline” means (it also was certainly not Obama — he talked a good game while still murdering children with drones and funneling tax dollars to corporations hand over fist). Liberalism takes the worst parts of both the left and the right and mashes them together. You can’t divorce socialism from social progress — they are two sides of the same coin. No social justice without economic justice.

[adventured]

Bush was definitely socially conservative. Trump was closer to middle of the road socially.

Clinton was middle of the road socially for his time, at best. Trump was more progressive than Clinton.

See for Clinton regressiveness: signed welfare reform (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act); was adamantly against gay marriage (the Defense of Marriage Act); don't ask don't tell; aggressively championed one of the worst human rights violations in US history in his tough on crime campaign (1994 crime bill); Clinton did practically nothing to advance drug legalization and instead furthered the oppressive war on drugs program by the US Govt; started another major US war; financial and telecommunications deregulation; Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Clinton was an excellent conservative.

And when it comes to the border and immigration (as a mark against Trump on the social score), the Obama Admin deported more people per year than the Trump Admin did.

[scythe]

>Clinton did practically nothing to advance drug legalization

Clinton tolerated the first medical marijuana program in the US when it was passed in California in 1996 (Prop 215). That was the first significant liberalization of drug laws since 1980; if the Feds had shut it down, the movement may have been significantly slowed.

[reducesuffering]

While true, politicians cant stray too far from their base, and there was 20 years of social progress in the general population between them: drug decriminalization, gay marriage, etc.

[wayoutthere]

Only because it’s been pitted against increasingly obvious forms of fascism. And it was unpopular enough that Hillary Clinton lost against Donald fucking Trump who was at least pushing something different.

There are a lot of people in this country, myself included, who have stopped voting period. No meaningful change will happen by continuing to elect democrats and I’m solidly in the accelerationist camp at this point. An economically left platform would get me out to the polls. Yang is not that; this is just neoconservativism in new clothes.

[netcan]

It's always true that the election system itself plays a big role in how/what candidates get elected. It's also true that the US electoral structure was a huge factor in Biden or Trump's election. Change the structure of the primary or main election, get different results.

That notwithstanding, it's also true that elements of Trump or Bidens' success might translate.

In any case, the "The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN." is arguably the most successful coalition in western (and many non western) democracies for decades.

Depending on vantage, political classifications like "progressive" and "middle of the road" are relative, and we don't usually agree on the bounds. But if

If you compare changes though, these orientations have been politically powerful for decades. ...

Normative beliefs around gay rights, minority rights, secularism, women's rights and such have been marching forward, call it progressing. Circa 2005, gay marriage was fringe and ilegal almost everywhere. Obama, Clinton & other prominent US democrats occasionally even had to pretend to be against gay marriage, for elections. Within <15 years, gay marriage is legal in the US, most of western europe, etc. A religious-conservative position on a lot of issues is considered fringe now. 15 years ago, condoms were still politically controversial. Bush cancelled HIV prevention initiative because condoms.

Meanwhile, the economic middle-ground is approximately in exactly the same place as it was in the 90s. This might be breaking down ATM, but very generally, the conservative position from the 80s became the middle ground. Barriers to trade, corporate shields, tax structures and such haven't changed much since that shift.

[qsort]

> If you compare changes though, these orientations have been politically powerful for decades

They have, but they usually don't go toghether, that was my point.

Social rights advocacy usually goes hand in hand with far-left positions, while more centrist economic policy usually implies conservative social positions.

I believe it's been a policy driver because it's kind of an "elite ideology", which is overrepresented in educated or powerful circles, which have relatively more soft-power.

[ZeroGravitas]

It all makes sense. If you're part of group X which is legally excluded from wealth or power, you're hardly going to be impressed by a system that says "lets judge everyone's moral worth as a person on their inherited wealth".

So the best way to increase support for market based economics is to remove such government interventions.

But instead the market-based people often team up with the bigots slowing prpgress on both fronts.

[netcan]

I don't think these narratives are ever definitive, but I think this rendition isn't really operative.

>> Social rights advocacy usually goes hand in hand with far-left positions

Maybe to some extent, but mostly I think this is a product of being "in opposition." You get to be more blunt, fiery & vanguard in your rhetoric when you are in opposition. Also party fringes tend to group somewhat.

In any case, "centrism" has been relative to a previously conservative economic outlook and a previously liberal social outlook. A party representing the economic left wing agenda combined with the social conservative social agenda of the 1950s-80s would have bombed in the following decades.

Maybe "elite ideology" has been further right economically and further left socially than the mainstream... but that position tends to be well represented as centrist factions of large parties.

There aren't fringe factions representing these positions because mainstream parties already do. The UK does actually have such a party, the Libdems. They sometimes act as punisher for labour or tory candidates that stray from the middle ground. IE, they get labour votes when the labour candidate is overly radical in rhetoric, and conservative votes if the conservative candidate is overly reactionary. But, any recent British PM would have been at home in the LibDem party.

There's no need for a centrist party that defines political orientation the same way the main factions do. Even in real multiparty systems, this kind of centrism is usually a small, short lived and inconsequential victory. The problem isn't that the ideas aren't popular enough. They're too popular. Both major parties already court these voters.

[Hokusai]

extremely unpopular in the real -world- USA.

[Nimitz14]

I completely disagree with your assessment and would be very curious how you got to your opinion that "extremely unpopular in the real world".

I suspect it comes down to how we define "socially progressive".

[mschuster91]

> The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world.

Is it? "Economically middle in the road" is somewhat around classic Social Democrat politics, a staple of European politics. The problem with the classic European Social Democrat parties is that they shot themselves in their feet by a combination of neoliberalism (e.g. German SPD post-2005/Hartz IV or British Labour) and individual scandals (corruption).

[dagw]

"Economically middle in the road" is somewhat around classic Social Democrat politics

Even more conservative parties in Europe are moving that way. Just look at the Tories in the UK for example, proposing massive government spending plans paid for by raising taxes.

[kergonath]

That’s surprising only if you consider the Tories as being economically liberal. They are conservative in the sense that they look after the interests of the old aristocracy and a coalition of the rich. Their policies are intended to benefit a specific subset of the population. Their taxes (as well as things like the universal credit cuts) are perfectly aligned with that ideology.

They don’t have a problem with the concept of taxation, just taxation of the powerful.

[slibhb]

No it's surprising because austerity was the Tory platform until Boris Johnson.

[Brakenshire]

They increased UC for the pandemic, and then reduced it, much like the Furlough scheme, and both of those policies would have been considered centre or centre-left responses if done by a centre or centre-left party.

[ZeroGravitas]

> They are conservative in the sense that they look after the interests of the old aristocracy and a coalition of the rich.

I thought this was the literal definition of right wing? The side that supported the king against the democratic will of the people?

And is there anyone who has a rhetoric of "less taxes" who actually intends everyone to benefit? That seems like a mirage and it's all done in service of the rich and powerful.

Which is a hard policy to sell to ordinary people, unless you wrap it in some cheap bigotry to confuse them.

[vidarh]

The Tories are a coalition of three major faction: One Nation, Thatcherites and Cornerstone.

One Nation, which has tightened its control from Cameron onwards, is closer to centrist Christian democrats, who e.g. oversaw expansion of universal healthcare and welfare systems by themselves or together with the left in many European countries.

People see this as a departure for the Tories largely because the Thatcherites were in control from 1975 until Cameron.