self-determination initiative was discarded. It seems that Switzerland would have tired of the Gezwänge of the right-wing populists. Why does it take your book to the "rhetoric of the Right" right now?
The last vote clearly showed what a huge effort is needed to support a rejection. We have processed, as a society, so, again, in the rhetoric of the right-wing populists and energy expended, we had invested better in other. Actually, we operate a policy of damage limitation. The binds of the liberal-progressive perspective is not only utopian potential, it also attempts to be normal, against the Convention of human rights, such as the recent self-determination initiative.
The rights dominates in Switzerland for 25 years. Actually, it is not a Dilemma of the Left, that has the power to set their own themes.
Certainly, there are also omissions on the left side. But the right-wing populism is a real danger, as he reached the middle. Ostensibly to be liberal proclaimed democratic values such as self-determination, or diversity of opinion, but actually, the right-wing populists of the items on the salon, want to make able to the lead in the implementation of the policy for containment of diversity of opinion and pluralism.
How can the proclamation of freedom of expression, that this is limited?
What the right-wing populists as a commitment to diversity of opinion, therefore, means often the claim, to distort reality, to incorrect facts, prejudices, and generalizations formulate. You may say, for example, all women, Muslims or Gays are one way or the other. There is therefore a need to expand the scope of the sayable, so people from our society to marginalize. A different strategy to expand the space of the predictable, is the content of political discourse to "veruneindeutigen".
Frauke Petry said, for example, it to the right or to the left. This scheme is claimed to stand on the left-to-right. So right-wing populists appear as centered, not ideologically driven, and reasonable. As those who act in a supposedly mind beyond Extremes with healthy people. It is also said that it does not have when it comes to legal, but to contribute to the diversity of opinion. In the research, this strategy is called Equidistance. In this way, Conservative or Liberal can turn to these positions, because it is not a right, but a diversity of opinion. Right-wing populism creates this blur successfully cross-connections in the civic center, makes the extremist core of many of the items are unrecognizable.
do you Have an example?
we Take up Thilo Sarrazin, the human behavior is racist to genetic dispositions. If you are criticizing him, because such views against discrimination standards are violated, will scream "censorship!". Liberal democratic Standards such as anti-racism, anti-discrimination or fundamental rights and the Constitution orders to be staged as the alleged bans, even as totalitarian shown, to positions à la Sarrazin is not as extreme, but as an expression of freedom. Criticism of such "opinions" will be seamlessly integrated into the right-wing populist interpretations of the world – as evidence for taboos, woven into a rhetoric of "self-sacrifice". With the talk of "terror of Virtue" are also designed to withstand "the enemy" to distract from the real problems.
What do you mean by "real problems"?
address Instead of the really important problems such as the housing market policy or the retirement, the enemy summoned, which must then rebut the Left. Are this enemy as an offering to all those who struggle with social change: you will have the opportunity to give someone the blame for their uncertainty, their unemployment or precarization. Be it Muslims, feminists, or Transgender. In this sense, the fight against Political Correctness is to be understood, and is now operated primarily by the middle class.
There is also criticism of the Political Correctness of the left.
I'm not saying that all of the Left are only asking for Reasonable. It is everywhere, and dogmatism. Right-wing populists under cheer but social problems lump minorities, so that it is not about a housing shortage or deficits in the pension are the Problem, but minorities are to blame for the difficult conditions of wear. Thus, a completely distorted view is made strongly in the TRANS-people, allegedly, the family, threaten or feminist to be stylized to danger for the freedom of art. The discrediting and devilish qualities of the minorities also works by aiming a permanent part of the maximum of conflicts and tasks, a maximum of differences.
issues such as forced veiling or forced marriage. With the focus on a maximum of Scandalous and Divisive suggests that it could, in principle, be no Integration, and no common ground. Is gives the impression that minority rights and anti-discrimination preclude a liberal society. As the fight against Islamist radicalisation and the principles of minority protection would not be reconciled.
another angle of view would be urgently needed in a time in which media makers can be measured to rate and clicks.Franziska Schutzbach, socio-login
emotional scandal-mongering, but also something that will be used on real grievances , about a #MeToo.
This is so. When I talk about the AVS, then no one listens to me when I speak but #MeToo, then all come. For Switzerland, there are but a analysis that shows that the Right in the media debates, it is clear given more speaking time than others. This means that the media reproduce the dominance that corresponds to it is not necessarily the real Forces. It is giving the impression that the Right would represent a majority opinion. During the many rallies and calls for an open and caring society, which is much less frequently reported. We must therefore ask ourselves: Whom are we actually all the time to get a word in?
What would be the solution? The SVP is no longer in talk shows to invite, because you claim to speak for the people?
Even in the SVP there are moderate voices, it is not always invited to the same hard-liners. More important is the question of how we can frame as a Medium, a theme is not, however, so that it corresponds to the populist logic, but differentiated, a sharper analysis. Such a different angle would be urgently needed in a time in which media makers can be measured to rate and clicks – and therefore, the Boulevard, capitalized additions to dominate.
How they would be presented to the peer a discussion on a controversial issue such as Migration.
Instead of asking, what danger it represents for us, could you back the contribution of migrants to our society to the centre. You could show that it, among other things, were students from Russia, who fought for the admission of women at Swiss universities. Or that the Expansion of the children pushed the Cribs in the context of the hospitality work and as a result, the foreign care of children organized for Swiss women entstigmati. Both of these examples contradict the prejudice that Migration brings only arrears of gender performances that catapult us back into the middle ages.
And the problems would then be concealed easily?
Clearly, you also have to talk about problems. But if the positive contribution of Migration is at the centre would also have to discuss a SVP representative is quite different. And there are other voices could be heard, such as the migrants, which are, perhaps, understand it quieter and harder, because you have to deal with them properly. But so it is with the majority of what is not populist.
In 2016, wrote in her Blog: "I'm afraid it will not work, the right to national forces to push back on the formal-democratic way." They asked what would happen if you "abspräche these reactionary forces all legitimacy, in the sense of an act of civil disobedience", right?
This was a polemic that no longer would I have to write today, because I find it ambiguous and not very well thought out. It was not me there is a legal delegitimization. Elected politicians are to be accepted as such. To me it wasn't a question of which cultural context we can create, in the other positions than the right – wing populist legitimacy-by which I mean legal legitimacy, but meaning and importance. On these misleading rates a very questionable approach was then riding in a campaign for three months. A campaign, not journalism.
Created: 19.12.2018, 11:46 PM