Also living in Switzerland, I've noticed a scary involuntary alliance of journalism with what you might call the US-style conservatives (which is right-wing to far right-wing here):
Critical journalists who tend - by a variety of factors like age and education - to be on the more 'left' side of the political spectrum write a large amount of critical articles about those various conservative initiatives, like the one mentioned above. The attacked parties gain an incredible amount of publicity and they've taken the tabloids as their "publicity hostage".
Combine this with the diffuse resentment of those readers/people not feeling represented by government, those conservatives easily win at elections and votes - even when some of those initiatives are in clear disarray of everything the country stood and stands for.
I always think of Woody Allen's "Bananas": By tomorrow the official language will be Swedish (same as Switzerland ;) ) and people have to wear their underwear on their heads. But at least its against the establishment.
The death of those sometimes outrageously stupid political ideas could be easily achieved by simply ignoring them and their pundits. This might force the political players to get back to actual problem-solving concepts and lead to healthier debates in the media.
>> I've noticed a scary involuntary alliance of journalism with what you might call the US-style conservatives
I thought that this 'alliance' was called ownership. Rupert Murdoch et al whose political agenda is less government control and more control for the private sector which translates into private control by fewer (and fewer) people with less accountability. Essentially what we are going through, world wide, is a consolidation of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands.
This consolidation suites the purposes of the ownership of media companies, and it is the media companies that set the tone and content of their reporting. Over the last 50 years there has been a massive consolidation in the ownership of media companies, with a corresponding massive shift to a very right wing perspective in popular reporting.
I can not think of a single time that a strike by a Union has been reported in a favorable light, for example.
> with what you might call the US-style conservatives (which is right-wing to far right-wing here)
Your comparison doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing you don't understand the right wing in the US very well.
That far right in Switzerland and you get into neo-nazi ideology, fascism etc. which is represented in the SVP and New Right types.
US conservatives are mostly not like that. US conservatism is a mainstream ideology that represents upwards of a quarter of all Americans. Most are in favor of vastly reducing the size of government (but not reducing the military or spying). Ted Cruz for example is not a nazi sympathizer and rather than in favor of a huge government ala fascism, would prefer to cut it in half. Fascism favors dramatically increasing the power of government, and the power of government over the economy; US conservatives typically are against that (even if it's not very well represented in the politicians).
In America, neo-nazi types, the KKK, skinheads etc have practically no power or representation in politics, they are fringe outcasts that are not accepted in any major party. That has been the case for decades. Unlike in countries such as Sweden for example, where neo-nazi parties hold elected power.
The Koch brothers are considered far right wing in the US - they're libertarians that believe in high degrees of social liberty, ending mass-incarceration and the war on drugs, and a small government.
I agree that my comparison is not very accurate. I didn't mean "far-right" in terms of neo-nazi and other extremist ideology, but parliamentary far-right - strictly geographically speaking. (And although they like to create a martial vocabulary, I tend to disagree that the SVP/New Right is anything close to neo-nazis... at this point in time - after all the SVP-styled conservatism does represent at least a quarter of Swiss votes)
It strikes me as the biggest parallel between US- and CH-far right (as described above) that their voters seem to be less critical of the political suggestions their political leaders make. Harsh punishments and swift deportations of foreigners that are pictured as potentially criminal/dangerous/job-threatening are just an example of this kind of rhetoric.
So, when journalists condemn a certain "deportation/punishment" ideas of such a politician, IMO all they are doing is giving him a platform to communicate those ideas. Which was the point I was trying to make in terms of the original post about punishment.
You conveniently ignore the evangelical aspect to the hard-right. Christian Dominionism is part of their game plan, and there is definite influence in government by its proponents.
Nah, not really. Hard-right evangelicals have been dwindling in power in America for decades, and I'd be surprised if most conservatives could pick "Christian Dominionism" out of a police lineup.
Critical journalists who tend - by a variety of factors like age and education - to be on the more 'left' side of the political spectrum write a large amount of critical articles about those various conservative initiatives, like the one mentioned above. The attacked parties gain an incredible amount of publicity and they've taken the tabloids as their "publicity hostage".
Combine this with the diffuse resentment of those readers/people not feeling represented by government, those conservatives easily win at elections and votes - even when some of those initiatives are in clear disarray of everything the country stood and stands for.
I always think of Woody Allen's "Bananas": By tomorrow the official language will be Swedish (same as Switzerland ;) ) and people have to wear their underwear on their heads. But at least its against the establishment.
The death of those sometimes outrageously stupid political ideas could be easily achieved by simply ignoring them and their pundits. This might force the political players to get back to actual problem-solving concepts and lead to healthier debates in the media.
But then again, maybe that's the wrong approach.