Austrian election is symptom of global populism

By Georgie Anne Geyer

Since the end of World War II, when Vienna had the mood of an abandoned, exhausted remnant of its imperial Habsburg past, Austria has cautiously, step by step, built itself into one of the loveliest countries in Europe.

Physically, of course, the little nation of 9 million in the center of Europe is exquisite, with its neon green valleys, white-covered Alps all around, and sounds of music that seem to ring through every village.

But last week, modern, prosperous Austria almost became something else, something distasteful to many in Europe even while it is invigorating to others. Austria became the first democratic country of Europe to be led by a rightist party that is against free immigration, against the European Union and against multiculturalism. Almost.

After weeks of hand-wringing from Sweden to Salzburg and from Brussels to the Burgenland over the prediction that Norbert Hofer, the pleasant, 45-year-old candidate of the Freedom Party, might actually be elected Austria's new head of state, in the end it was a cliffhanger - Hofer received 49.7 percent of the vote, while Alexander Van der Bellen, a pro-refugee economist, received 50.3 percent. Hofer's loss was hardly an unrespectable one.

But the truth of last week in central Europe was not that Van der Bellen won, but that Hofer lost by such a tiny margin. Even while E.U. members let out their breaths in relief, they were holding some breath aside for the next time this comes up - or something worse.

As the worthy Financial Times wrote after Sunday's elections: "Other European far-right politicians have not yet come as close to power as the Freedom Party. But it is possible to trace an arc of illiberal politics through Poland, Hungary (and to some extent) Slovakia and Austria that stretches from the Baltic Sea to the gateway of the Balkans."

In fact, what is commonly called "the new populism" in Europe is now extending itself as far as France, where the National Front of the le Pens is thriving, and England, whose referendum on June 23 will determine whether the country should leave the E.U. - an exit being called the "Brexit." All of this is basically underlain by concern about the onslaught of refugees.

But populism is a cool, respectable term for leaderships that call forth in their adherents an often fanatical identification with populism's charismatic leaders, and it is seen by many liberals as serving as the electoral/political antechamber to fascism. And in the programs of many of the new populists, especially in Hungary, one can trace a liking for Vladimir Putin's Russia.

But above even that identification with Russia and what many Europeans regard as the failure of globalization - essentially, global free trade resulting in the loss of many industrial jobs in Western nations - lies the major complaint: uncontrolled immigration, which is transforming European "civilization" into something else. This is why and where Islam comes in.

Not only does the rise of the populist leader in Europe threaten the E.U. - and, don't forget, the concomitant idea that the European countries will never go to war among themselves again - but much the same historic development is being played out across the pond, where Donald Trump speaks to and arouses many of the same emotions.

In both Europe and the United States, it is the white working class, once the powerhouse of America but now feeling disrespected and ignored, while their jobs are passed out to China and India, who are voting for the populists. As the perceptive George Packer wrote in The New Yorker: "These Americans know that they're being left behind, by the economy and by the culture. They sense the indifference or disdain of the winners ... and it is reciprocated."

The problem with globalization was not that it was done, wiping out jobs and industries and the pride of nations, but that it was done without any preparation for the new parts to be played by American workers, say, in a steel mill. I went to many seminars on globalization in the '80s and '90s; never did I hear one word about retraining for new jobs, or one iota of sympathy from the intellectuals who pushed the policy but never suffered from it. It was said the laid-off workers would get new jobs in the service industries.

I asked a speaker at one of the sessions if he really expected steel workers to become hotels concierges. He only gave me a strange look, as though I just ... didn't ... understand.

Until now, we had pretty much accepted that discrimination plagued only black Americans. Instead, it now has other terminologies. It can be intellectual/working class differences. It is THIS new reality that we will need to deal with.

Email Georgie Anne Geyer at gigi_geyer@juno.com.

© 2016, Universal