Is anyone here from a country NOT called USA where they pile up a bunch of people in the background of a politician who then gets applause for everything?

I have literally never seen this in Europe. In Germany, we'd probably consider this "weird" in case our politicians did that. Feels a bit like clicking the thumbs-up button of my own social media post...

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 49 minutes ago* (2 children)

UK, prime minister speeches are usually done in the street in front of their house. Sometimes you might see Larry the cat in the background

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    most of the people seated in trumps rallies are paid to be there.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 hour ago

    In Germany we have party members piled in the front and they have to clap when Merz tells something that is supposed to be funny but really isnt.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 hours ago

    It’s like a laugh track on bad sitcoms. It tells you what you’re supposed to do. It’s especially effective for those who’ve turned off their brain, like when watching other rotten TV.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 child)

    I always wanted to sit in those seats and make disgusted and horrified expressions the entire time. Maybe agree with a few talking points to throw people off, of course.

    Yes, I realize Trump doesn't have talking points but is rather prone to more of an oral diarrheal word cloud.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 6 hours ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

    Very USA-based. In Australia, we'd be giving him the finger, shouting, and probably throwing Vegemite sandwiches at him. No, that wasn't an exaggeration. Someone once threw a vegemite sandwich at former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. And someone once hit professional dickhead, Fraser Anning, with an egg.

    Also in Australia, it's usually a couple of noddies standing behind the politician as he or she waffles on. Often different people each time, the noddies stand and nod when the politician makes a point the politician wants people to see is right. Noddies probably influence a lot more elections in Australia than people think.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 hours ago*

    This is more of a 'running for office' thing in the US. It's not normal for a sitting president.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

    Cons in Canada have taken to doing this shit as well. It's fucking embarassing to see, but not surprising.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    Completely staged. That’s why we don’t take it seriously in the US.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 131 points 12 hours ago (7 children)

    In Germany, we’d probably consider this “weird” in case our politicians did that.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

    This might be weird to say, but as I saw this picture, I realize I've never really learned what he actually said in these speeches. I know he was a great orator and we learn the basic evil stuff he stood for. There is no time I can ever remember, in the hours that I've learned about ww2 and Hitler, that I have ever been taught or shown what he really believed in. Somehow this guy got millions of people on board. I can tell you all about battles and weaponry, the holocaust, the different sides involved, but I really have no idea of the real why.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 minutes ago*

    People place too much emphasis on Hitler's oratory skills because the idea of one guy hypnotizing everybody with speeches is a simple and appealing narrative. You can find his speeches on Youtube and they're mostly just angry shouting, maybe it's just that norms have shifted in response to him but it really doesn't seem like anything special.

    To understand the real story you have to understand the broader history at the time. I started writing this comment and it just grew and grew so I apologise for the length.

    Socialism in Europe

    In the early 20th century, socialism was growing in popularity and labor movements were becoming more organized. Marx had predicted a simultaneous, worldwide revolution, with the working class uniting across every nation. During the Russian Revolution, countries across Europe sent troops to stop it but failed, and there was a fear that the USSR would sweep across Europe with the support of socialists in each country.

    The reality was that there were major differences between the social democrats in Germany, France, and Britain compared to the Marxist-Leninist USSR, one major point of contention being WWI. Lenin argued for "revolutionary defeatism" where socialists would openly call for the defeat of their own governments and take advantage of the state's difficulties to overthrow it. Social democrats believed in gradually reforming the system and working within it, which included not making serious waves over the war, and only really criticizing it on principle, in the abstract.

    In Germany, the SDP voted in favor of selling war bonds at the start of the war, indicating their willingness to go along with it. However, towards the end of the war, once it was clear that Germany would be defeated, a revolution occurred.

    The German Revolution and The Spartacist Uprising

    In 1918, sailors at Kiel saw the writing on the wall and mutinied, defying orders to deploy against the British navy. This happened organically, without leadership or a clear political agenda beyond being unwilling to keep fighting. But it would soon become clear that the reich had fallen and that the war was lost.

    Two factions emerged that tried to steer things in different directions. One was the social democratic SDP, and the other was the communist Spartacist League, later the KPD. The Spartacists wanted to enact radical reforms and to set up a council republic similar to the Soviet system, while the SDP wanted a parliamentary system. The SDP won, and executed the Spartacist leadership, which led to an irreparable rift with the KPD.

    In order to form a governing coalition in the new parliamentary system, without any chance of working with the KPD, the SDP had no choice but to ally with center-right parties. And because they had no choice, that meant the center-right parties held all the cards.

    The Weimar Republic

    Having lost the war, the new government had no choice but to accept the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which included ceding territory, war reparations, and demilitarization. But there was roughly a decade, the 1920's, when they were able to rebuild, recover, and make some social progress. The German film industry in particular thrived, with films like Nosferatu (1922) and Metropolis (1927) establishing Germany as the cultural center of this new medium (which would last until Hitler destroyed it, leading many talented filmmakers to flee to the US and lend their talents to Hollywood).

    But then the Great Depression hit. People all around the world were struggling, and the war reparations placed an additional strain on the Germany economy. To make matters worse, the governing coalition of the SDP and center-right parties enacted austerity measures, aimed at balancing the budget instead of economy recovery, and the reduced revenues meant cutting social spending at the time it was most needed. Unemployment skyrocketed. People were desperate, and furious at the government, labelling Chancellor Brüning "The Hunger Chancellor," and the SDP lost credibility by association.

    People wanted change, and the wanted an explanation for how things went wrong.

    The Stabbed-in-the-Back Myth

    Enter, the Nazis. The Nazis provided a simple explanation for where things went wrong. Things went wrong when Germany was defeated. Germany was defeated, because the socialists had turned traitor and betrayed it.

    There were bits and pieces of truth in that narrative. Lenin had called for socialists to do that, as he did in Russia, but few in Germany had really listened to him. The SDP had fully supported the war, which caused Lenin to fiercely denounce them. There was eventually a revolution, but by the time it occurred it was already clear Germany was defeated. In that revolution, the faction that was more aligned with Lenin's ideas had been crushed.

    But, by lumping both factions together in "the left," and ignoring any facts that didn't fit, they were able to weave together people's frustration with the current government with their fears and animosity towards the communists into a simple narrative that played on people's patriotism and the pain of having been defeated.

    Then, they took it a step further. Because it was somewhat hard to ignore some of these inconsistencies and the fact that the two factions on the left hated each other's guts. But what if the connection was that they were both being manipulated into betraying Germany, on behalf of a sinister force behind the scenes?

    Antisemitism and Nazi race theory

    In mideval times, it often happened that kings wracked up tons of debt, often on pointless military adventures, and when the debts couldn't be paid, they simply blamed it on the Jews, which also conveniently let them seize their assets when they expelled them from the country (a similar approach to what the Nazis did). There was a lot of preexisting racial prejudice and stereotypes, going back centuries if not millenia. Framing things in racial terms allowed the Nazis to take advantage of existing stereotypes and prejudices, and also allowed them to present an alternative to the class-based narratives of the left.

    Racial equality was a relatively new idea that was not broadly accepted, and the Nazis were able to frame the very idea of equality as another Jewish conspiracy.

    How did Jews end up in control of everything if white people are the superior race? In the Nazi view, the ideal is a balance between thought and action, in line with the image of a "self-made millionaire." Some races, they claimed are inclined towards action, but not thought, and so their "natural place" is to be put to work in service to others. Jews, on the other hand, were too inclined to thought rather than action, they were uninterested in actually building anything and only interested in finding ways to take what others had built. In order to prevent white people from acting against them in a strong, decisive way, they promoted ideologies like communism, which called for racial tolerance and compassion. As the Weimar Republic had made early strides in trans healthcare, this was also called a Jewish conspiracy to weaken and soften white men.

    Hitler becomes chancellor

    As the economic conditions continued to decline, and as the far right grew stronger and gained more and more seats in parliament, neither the SDP nor the KPD showed any interest in reconciling. The SDP denounced the KPD and the Nazis as being equally bad and undemocratic and the KDP accused the SDP of being "the moderate wing of fascism." The SDP saw the KDP as a liability that would alienate their other coalition partners, and the KDP did not want to associate themselves with the disasterous austerity policies the SDP's coalition was enacting. Not only did they oppose each other in parliament, but they even fought each other in the streets, even as the Nazi brownshirts were pushing them both out.

    Eventually, the SDP/center-right coalition no longer had enough seats, and nobody was willing to form a coalition with the Nazis or the communists, which triggered a constitutional crisis. Most parliamentary systems have rules and contingencies for if a coalition can't be formed (in part because of this), but the Weimar system lacked clear rules. Without a majority, the government simply couldn't govern, and with riots and street-fighting breaking out everywhere, there was a fear of full on revolution.

    This finally brings us to the 1932 presidential election, between Adolf Hitler, Paul von Hindenburg (a center-right candidate backed by the SDP), and Ernst Thälmann of the KDP. Hindenburg won, and his chief concern was restoring stability and protecting business interests, and he appointed Hitler chancellor with those goals.

    With the ongoing constitutional crisis and unclear rules, Hitler found a legal argument that essentially gave the chancellor dictatorial power. The streets already belonged to the Nazis. When the first concentration camps were built, they were for the communist KPD, and the SDP raised no objections, not realizing that they would follow not long after.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    Same kind of blaming everything on someone/something else like Trump rambles about, just much better spoken. You can find clips on YouTube and even if you don’t speak German you can tell he was good at delivering speeches.

    We really should show these things in school so people more people recognize it instead of falling for it again and again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    Yeah, I'm surprised they don't get to see videos of him. He really brought the energy to the room. As a leftist back then this was not a laughing matter. Today with Trump it's an orange grandpa meandering along.

    Steve Miller may be a better example when it comes to fascist energy, but he doesn't bring any charm.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 80 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

    I know you asked for non-USA opinions, but as someone from the USA, I have always thought this was weird. Not only are they either fake or paid or self-centered extreme fans, but they got to sign away their "show up on TV and photos" rights, all for the privilege of looking at Trump's ass while he speaks. Worst seat in the house.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

    Regardless of who's speaking, I always end up staring at the people sitting/standing behind them. Some part of me is waiting for them to break character, I think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    i think some of the rallies, where people caught on to people acting strangly a couple times when he was signalling htem to cheer, i remember one video was a guy akwardly sitting there staring at people, while people were cheering.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    Yeah, we have this in the UK, and I'm sure it's taken from the US originally.

    It is the worst seat in the house, but I get it's to try and control the background on clips from speeches. Having people cheering and fawning over everything the candidate says is effective when most people will only see a 5 second clip of whatever event it was. It's a product of modern social media and clip based news sadly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 hours ago

    The UK trying to copy things from US politics is always eye-watering levels of cringe, remember Boris's briefing room and the bloody lecterns? FFS US-style brashness in British politics is almost always painful to watch in general, makes us look like a bunch of Ancient Greeks trying to convince everyone but particularly ourselves that the Romans aren't entirely in control these days. The briefing room itself isn't even used now thanks to Partygate starting from there and grinding what remained of public faith in the state into a fine and mildly carcinogenic dust.

    Our best post-war PM was clearly Clement Attlee and he was famously chill, his skill was managing a cabinet with a lot of the big personalities and managing consensus. Every PM since the man himself has wanted their Churchill moment, but the country would be far better if they all sought an Attlee legacy instead. Except the Town and Country Planning Act, that needs catapulting into hell with extreme prejudice; you can control US-style sprawl without giving NIMBYs a direct veto over everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • This happens in Canada as well. The way I see it is it's supposed to show support for the candidate in question.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    I can see why Germany would not be receptive of large political rallies based on recent history. The same should be the case in the US. But yet here we are.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

    I don't think I've ever seen a politician getting applauded regularily, outside maybe of a talkshow setting. And not during a speech, maybe at the end when they finished. They also don't really take center stage to give big speeches all that often. And having 7 presidents means less cult of personality.

    It mostly looks like This is one of the presidents giving a press conference, with several experts/advisors next to him (and more experts in the front row, should more specific questions come up). The rest are journalists. I'd say press conferences make up the majority of appearances, so there's no crowds/"fans". Heck even the concept of a fan of one of the presidents sounds weird. Maybe for the parties, but I have never heard of anyone being a fan of one of the presidents.

    Then there's other events, but even for national day celebration speeches, it's nothing crazy, this has some pictures of several of the presidents giving various national day speeches last year. No people in the background. But then I don't think most people really watch any of this, so why bother?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 hours ago

    Not unique to USA, it's a cult thing and a load of hype.

    These people are made to feel special, just for one day.

    It's a cult thing.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 12 hours ago (1 child)
  • [–] 18 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

    Heads up: we also clap when the plane lands.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 12 hours ago

    This happens a lot in Prime Minister question time because the people sitting next and behind them are their own party people.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

    I'm in the UK, and politicians do this too at campaign rallies now, and have done so for some years. We certainly took this from US style electioneering.

    It's all about optics - it supposedly looks good for a politician to be talking and people enthusiastically cheering on in the background. It kind of makes sense if you accept that all that will be shown on TV or social media is a clip from a speech, so you want to try and package that with as positive a spin on it as possible. The political party can control the background this way and it's impossible for the media companies to edit it out.

    I can't speak for other European countries, but I have seen clips from other electioneering videos with a similar set up, so it's not just the US and the UK. For example: This article from SBS in Australia (one of their public service broadcasters) has a picture of exactly this phenomenon: https://www.sbs.com.au/language/gujarati/en/article/profile-of-australian-labor-party/ji29c0grz

    But I'm pretty certain we in the UK took this from the US in the last 15-20 years maybe? I don't know if it came from somewhere else before? I wouldn't be surprised if it's older than we think!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

    Couldn't they be paid actors?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 hours ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago* (1 child)

    If they are, it's like they are inflating their own popularity. Gross and manipulative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    The whole thing is a commercial; you show the product, you show someone enjoying it. It plants the idea in viewers' minds that maybe they'll enjoy it, too.

    Gross and manipulative, even if those dingalings clapping like trained seals aren't being monetarily compensated.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›