Today, if the right is on the rise in the world and in our country, it is not enough to explain it only with populism or the wrong choices of voters. The real issue is the mood of societies. When people feel insecure, they look for clarity and ownership, not long programs.
The right saw this. It spoke simply. It emphasized order, control and belonging. It said “I am here”, it said “we”. How realistic these discourses are is another debate, but it gave a clear message: You are not alone. Most of the time, this feeling was reciprocated at the ballot box.
The main difference between the right and the left is in the view of human beings. The left sees poverty and inequality as structural problems and seeks solutions in the welfare state and equality. This approach leads the left to construct a rational language. The right, on the other hand, focuses on human fears, insecurity and the need for order; it constructs a language of security and stability.
So what did the left do here?
The left has historically been on the side of labor and justice. But over time it shifted to a language of truth-telling rather than empathy. Instead of asking people how they felt, it told them what to think. However, people who are anxious are not convinced; they want to be understood first.
Why couldn't the left get in touch with this feeling? Because for a long time it saw politics as a matter of reasoning and demonstrating the truth. It treated man as a being who is convinced when given the right information. Fear, anxiety and feelings of insecurity were often temporary or exaggerated. Instead of listening to the emotion, he tried to correct it. There was also an overconfidence in institutions in Europe. It was assumed that the welfare state and the law would protect people anyway. As long as this assumption was valid, it didn't seem like a problem. But when the system weakened and institutions were shaken, European society felt alone. The left failed to read this rupture in time.
Another problem is that the left has distanced itself from the field. The daily plight of people living with debt, precariousness and anxiety about the future was not seen enough. Moreover, it was not only the economy. With uncontrolled migration, neighborhoods changed rapidly, familiar surroundings dispersed, and the balance of daily life was disrupted. For many people, this change meant a direct loss of trust rather than a cultural difference.
Language has also become heavier in this process. Concepts have increased, sentences have lengthened. Yet people are looking for an answer to a simple question: “Are you with me?” No clear answer to this question has been produced.
Today's situation is the result of the left's inability to read the human mood rather than the extraordinary success of the right. Being right was not enough. Because politics is not just about telling the truth; it is about recognizing anxiety and building a sense of trust.
This is not an accusation, but a self-criticism. If the left is to find a response again, it has to understand what people feel before telling them what to think. The winner at the ballot box is not the one who tells the most truth, but the one who gives the most “I am with you” feeling.