Two orthogonal axes: left/right, populist/establishment.
(Mostly most about the primaries, but relevant to them, so here rather than in GD).
My 5-point thesis:
1) Western politics over the last decade or so make most sense if viewed not on a one-dimensional left-right scale, but on a two-dimensional plot with left-right as one axis and establishment-populist* as the other.
2) These two axes are roughly orthogonal; the symmetry of the establishment/populist struggle between left and right is striking.
3) Until a few years ago, left and right were roughly balanced but establishment politics was overwhelmingly dominant over populist.
4) Populism has gained a lot of ground in the last few years.
5) But establishment politics are still dominant, at least for now.
Some specific observations:
:- The US primaries have provided a beautiful microcosm of this: all four quadrants were well illustrated by Clinton (left/establishment), Sanders (left/populist), most of the Republican field (right/establishment) and Trump and to some extent Cruz ( right/populist). No-one thought that either Sanders or Trump would get anywhere; in fact Sanders lost but only narrowly, while Trump won his primary but is likely to lose the general (touch wood). I think a lot of the venom of the primary on DU probably came not from the comparatively small gap between Clinton and Sanders on the left/right axis, but from the massive gap between a quintessentially establishment/left candidate and a quintessentially populist/left one on the other axis.
:- Here in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn (left/populist) has taken over the Labour party, beating three left/establishment candidates, but seems very unlikely to ever be prime minister; he's very popular with the party membership but very unpopular with his MPs. In the last election UKIP (right/populist) and the Greens and SNP (both left/populist) did far better than expected (although still winning hardly any seats), eclipsing the Lib Dems (establishment/centre, but often picked up populist protest votes in the past). The utterly right/establishment leadership of the Conservative party remains in power. An interesting phenomenon is Boris Johnson, widely tipped as a future Tory leader/PM, an establishment politician who has worked hard at presenting himself as a populist too.
:- In France the NF (right/populist) are rising, and I think the populist left are too but I don't follow their politics closely enough to be sure.
:- In Germany Pegida (r/p) and the Greens (l/p) are both getting stronger.
:- In Austria, a far-right populist just narrowly lost the presidential election.
:- In Greece, Syriza are actually in power - one of the few counter-examples to 5). That said, to call their performance in government a clusterfuck would be to miss a perfect opportunity to use the word omnishambles, so I'm not sure how far it will go.
:- In Spain, the populist left is getting a lot stronger at the expense of the establishment left, there's also a centrist/populist movement doing well, which I find interesting.
Why is this? Two possible theories:
a) Post-recession living standards creating disillusionment with "politics as usual" and creating an appetite for "anti-politicians".
b) The rise of the internet meaning that more people get more of their information from other amateurs and less from professionals, creating an environment friendlier for populism than when it was necessary to convince at least some of the media that you were worth taking seriously in order to get anywhere.
Thoughts?
*Note that I'm lazily not defining either of these terms. I probably should, but it's late at night, and for now I'll stick to "I know it when I see it". Broadly speaking, by establishment, I mean politicians presenting themselves as proud scions of an established political party of government, and by populist I mean candidates presenting themselves as "against the politicians and on the side of the people", but that's a gross oversimplification on both sides.
= new reply since forum marked as read
