It would be dangerous to view modern European populism as a triumph of style over substance

The success of populist and Eurosceptic parties was one of the key narratives to emerge from the European Parliament elections in May. Ruth Wodak writes on the platforms which underpin these parties, noting that there is no one-size-fits-all explanation for why parties have gained ground in certain countries. Nevertheless she argues that it is difficult to predict where such a diverse range of movements will lead

"We have the character of an island nation":a discourse-historical analysis of David Cameron's "Bloomberg Speech" on the European Union

More than three years have passed since former British Prime Minister David Cameron delivered a much acknowledged and controversial speech on 23rd January 2013, in respect to the British relationship with the European Union. Europe and the European Union (EU) are now, of course, facing different challenges than three years ago. The contrasting national and transnational identities which emerge in the so-called Bloomberg Speech (BS) imply a nationalistic body politics which constructs the United Kingdom and England as separate entities contrasted to "the continent", i.e. Europe. Hence, BS oscillates between two extremes, in its attempt to alternatively observe maximum distance to the EU and some proximity to its economic policies. Moreover, both the topoi of urgency and threat/danger are appealed to – warning the EU that it would suffer under the loss of the United Kingdom; but also warning British voters that Brexit would damage their future and prosperity. This speech can be perceived as the starting point for the referendum on June 23rd, 2016 – which resulted in a tiny majority wanting to leave the EU ('Brexit'). Of course, there is no clear causal connection between BS and Brexit; but many arguments of the "remain and leave campaigns" can be traced to the BS; as well as the huge ambivalence framing Cameron's position towards the EU

"Normalisierung nach rechts":Politischer Diskurs im Spannungsfeld von Neoliberalismus, Populismus und kritischer Öffentlichkeit

In recent years, we can observe a shift towards the right, in politics and the related political discourse. This paper analyses this development for debates on migration in Austria, while drawing on the concept of "normalisation". The basic assumption is illustrated with an example of Austrian debates following the terrorist attacks in Paris, 7.–9.01.2015. In the quantitative and qualitative analysis of a complete sample of 72 newspaper articles in the period of two weeks in January/February 2015, it becomes obvious that the notion of "unwillingness to integrate" ("Integrationsunwilligkeit"), a completely vague notion (a "floating signifier") which remains undefined and was used only by the right-wing populist party FPÖ in the 1990s, has since moved to the middle of the political spectrum and was suddenly employed by the political mainstream in 2014 and 2015. Moreover, the analysis provides some evidence for the merging of two completely unrelated arguments: an argument about how to deal with non-compliance of adolescent migrant school children with an argument about the prevention of radicalisation in society

Wer oder was ist »fremd«?:Diskurshistorische Analyse fremdenfeindlicher Rhetorik in Österreich

A wide variety of linguistic means is being used to construe the alien or foreign »other«. The Discourse-Historical Approach of Critical Discourse Analysis combines the in-depth analysis of linguistic utterances with a systematic analysis of their context. We apply this approach for the study of examples from recent election campaigns – the Graz municipal election 2008 and the Austrian EU election 2009. In this article we focus on linguistic as well as visual forms of communication, which combine text and images. The analysis of open and implicit constructions of excluding (segregating) statements documents the presence of xenophobic rhetoric not only on the right margins of the political spectrum, but also in the political centre

« Right-wing populist parties endorse what can be recognised as the “arrogance of ignorance” »

Drawing on her monograph The Politics of Fear (2015), Ruth Wodak presents a critical discourse analysis of populist discourses and politics. She underlines the difference between left-wing and right-wing populism and addresses the problems of islamophobia, antisemitism, and the anger and resentment of the so-called “modernization losers”. She also tackles the specificities of the historical approach of discourse in Critical Discourse Studies while giving some insights into her own intellectual trajectory and social involvement as a discourse analyst.Dans cet entretien, Ruth Wodak, s’appuyant sur sa monographie The Politics of Fear (2015), examine les discours et les politiques populistes du point de vue d’une analyse de discours critique : elle souligne la différence entre populisme de droite et de gauche et elle aborde les problèmes de l’islamophobie, de l’antisémitisme, et de la colère ou du ressentiment de ceux qu’on a appelés les « perdants de la modernisation ». Elle traite également des spécificités de l’approche historique du discours dans les Critical Discourse Studies tout en revenant sur sa propre trajectoire intellectuelle et sur son engagement social en tant qu’analyste du discours.En esta entrevista, Ruth Wodak, apoyándose en su monografía The Politics of Fear (2015), examina los discursos y las políticas populistas del punto de vista de la análisis de discurso crítica: destaca la diferencia entre populismo de derecha y populismo de izquierda y aborda los problemas de la islamofobia, del antisemitismo, y de la cólera o del resentimiento de los a que se llama de «fracasados de la modernización». Trata también de las especifidades del planteamiento histórico del discurso en las Critical Discourse Studies, mientras vuelve sobre su propia trayectoria intelectual y su envolvimiento social como analista del discurso

'The man who hated Britain’:the discursive construction of ‘national unity’ in the Daily Mail

In 2013, the British right-wing tabloid Daily Mail triggered a fierce controversy, focused on antisemitism and patriotism/nationalism. It was sparked by the publication of an article on the British economist Ralph Miliband with the provocative headline ‘The man who hated Britain’. The lead refers to Ed Miliband, then leader of the British Labour Party: ‘Ed Miliband’s pledge to bring back socialism is homage to his Marxist father. So what did Miliband Snr really believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country’. In this paper, we analyse how Ralph Miliband is discursively constructed as a dangerous ‘Other’ and subsequently politically instrumentalised in a campaign against his son, Ed Miliband. We focus on how a particular concept of national unity is constructed with reference to the stereotype of the ‘disloyal, intellectual, international Jew’. This figure emerges as the ‘Iudeus ex machina’ in the scenario of impending doom in order, we assume, to distract attention from structural issues facing British society and economy. In our analysis we tackle the complex interdependencies of – mostly coded – antisemitic and nationalist rhetoric with the help of an interdisciplinary framework that integrates approaches to antisemitism, nationalism, media studies, and critical discourse studies, and related methodologies

Entering the 'post-shame era':the rise of illiberal democracy, populism and neo-authoritarianism in EUrope

The term 'illiberal democracy', coined by Fareed Zakaria in 1997, has gained much traction, specifically since its use by Hungarian Prime Minster Victor Orbán in 2014. Ever since, Orbán and his governing party Fidesz have been implementing this vision resulting in major cutdowns on free speech, freedom of press, of various NGOs which support human rights, and so forth. Moreover, Fidesz won the 2018 national election with a strong focus on antiimmigration policies. Although Orbán's restrictive migration policies were widely criticised during the so-called refugee crisis 2015, many EU member states have started to follow the Hungarian policy of closing borders and protecting the EU from asylum-seekers and an alleged invasion by Muslims. Hence, I claim that formerly taboo subjects and expressions in mainstream discourse are being accepted more and more ('normalisation'). Such normalisation goes hand in hand with a certain 'shamelessness': the limits of the sayable are shifting regarding both the frequency of lies and the violating of discourse conventions – as well as regarding repeated attacks on central democratic institutions. Normalising the assessment of migrants as a threat to inner security and a burden on the welfare state and education system must be perceived as an international development – generally instrumentalising a 'politics of fear'