Replies

Sorry, but having something of a social welfare safety net is not socialism, unless you are really arguing the United States today is a full-fledged socialist nation

Are you arguing the opposite? Never mind your use of weasel terms like “full-fledged” versus more precise terms such as de facto to distinguish from de jure, the latter meaning openly socialist.

The existence of any government-sponsored social welfare system (falsely called a “safety net” and always posited against private faith-based charities) is socialism. Calling it “not socialism” is mendacity, with all due respect. The availability of jobs (whether working for others or for oneself) is supposed to be the actual safety net against privation and squalor, in concert with society’s support of strong family units and private morality, and of course the Founding Fathers’ concept of people’s militia versus standing military.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of its negatives, the FPÖ is clearly and undeniably more conservative than most European parties. They are for smaller government and lower taxes

Nobody can be for smaller government and lower taxes while being for social welfare at the same time; it is oxymoronic. And it is not “more conservative” when those disparities exist in policy.

The other negatives cannot be ignored, since they go with these particular negatives. Just the same old difference between national socialism and international socialism once more.

Why don’t you list all the mainstream European parties that actually have a chance at winning that advocate the repeal of the social safety nets their countries already have? It is political suicide for a party to do that regardless of where it stands on the political spectrum

Another defense of socialism.

The party’s current presidential candidate Hofer’s slogan is “putting Austria first.” How extraordinarily different from Trump’s so much less jingoistic “America First” saying (one might almost think Hofer was trying to copy Trump) …

The actual quote from Trump is this:

My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. It has to be first. Has to be.

Insinuating the exact same context as what Huber would use is presumptuous.

BTW, Norbert Hofer bragged that his party was “to the left of the US Democrats” recently. What to believe out of these people?

OK, if you believe that Social Security and Medicare are “socialist,” fine. No candidate in this country would get far advocating their elimination. And yes, the Republicans have already proven that a party can exist that supports programs like Social Security, as well as smaller government and lower taxes, so no that is not an oxymoron. Obviously, by your definition the United States is a socialist nation and both it’s major parties are pro-socialism. In reality, however, we are a mixed economy (like all the Western nations are) and a democratic republic.

It’s strange that you criticize the libertarians so harshly, because you sound like a radical libertarian to me (and least on the issue of the role of government). And by the way, the FPÖ is not for “more” social welfare, but for protecting what they already have from the burden that massive numbers of third-world immigrants are placing on their system. I’m sorry, but Trump has used the words “America first” a few times now, not that the meaning is much different from your quote. I’ve heard him myself, and I’ve seen it in print. Many in the media, by the way, have been calling Hofer the “Donald Trump of Europe.”

The choices are hard-left, Marxist, radical environmentalist, open borders, pro-EU, anti-Western Civ Greens vs. low taxes, pro-business, anti-Islamist, pro-gun, questioning if they should leave the EU, patriotic FPÖ (that, yes, does have a questionable past). These are the only two choices right now in Austria. It doesn’t matter if neither are perfect.