FPÖ Messaging Analysis

This is my attempt to understand why people vote for the FPÖ based on their messaging, and then to dismantle it.

What are the reasons to support this party?

Since I am not an FPÖ supporter, I will assess the reasoning behind voting for them based on a combination of data, personal experience, political theory, and intuition.

Let’s start by imagining an ordinary voter:

• Living an average life, able to support yourself but without much disposable income.
• Growing up in a liberal democracy, taking its massive benefits for granted.
• Lacking a strong sense of purpose or identity.
• Feeling deeply frustrated with politics, seeing it as useless, boring, and full of people who don’t directly improve your life—while all politicians, in some way, seem corrupt or ineffective.

The FPÖ is keenly aware of these factors and exploits them effectively. Their messaging takes these sentiments and expands upon them in a way that resonates emotionally. It looks something like this:

• Your life is bad and could be better if politicians did the right thing.
  • This ties into both economic frustration and existing anger toward politicians.
• Liberal democracy (or "The Establishment") is responsible for these problems.
  • This exploits a lack of understanding of liberal democracy’s benefits while fueling resentment over its flaws. It plays into the instinct to blame broad systems rather than individual circumstances.
• "The Establishment" must be fought.
  • This provides a sense of purpose—something deeply fulfilling. Once this belief is internalized, questioning it feels like losing a core part of one’s identity.
• The FPÖ will fight the establishment.
  • This channels the newfound sense of purpose into concrete political action in support of the party.

Once these ideas take root, challenging any of them is perceived as an attack on the person's basic worldview. Furthermore, "The Establishment" becomes a catch-all term, encompassing both liberal democracy as a system and specific policies promoted by other parties—immigration, COVID measures, aid to Ukraine, etc.

Why are these reasons wrong?

Now, you might say, "That’s a solid breakdown of their messaging, but what if it’s true?" Here’s why these arguments are fundamentally flawed.

• Your life is bad and could be better if politicians did the right thing.
  • This is true in principle—competent governance can significantly improve people’s lives. However, that’s precisely why we need real discussions about policy, not scapegoating and simplistic solutions.
• Liberal democracy (or "The Establishment") is causing politicians to intentionally act this way.
  • This is just false. Problems are complex, and different approaches can have varying levels of effectiveness. Most politicians don’t enter politics to enrich themselves while making your life miserable—if that were their goal, there are far easier ways to do it. This isn't even considering civil servants, who genuinely work in their fields because they believe in their importance.
• "The Establishment" must be fought.
  • This is dangerous. Liberal democracy is the best system we’ve found for balancing competing interests. There are multiple ways to influence politics as an individual—dismantling the system is unnecessary and reckless.
• The FPÖ will fight the establishment.
  • This is either a con or a catastrophe—pick your poison. There are two likely scenarios:
    • The FPÖ is cynically using anti-establishment rhetoric to gain power and profit from it. This theory is popular among parts of the left and some conservatives.
    • The FPÖ genuinely intends to dismantle liberal democracy. In that case, we must ask: What do they want to replace it with? Many indicators suggest a more authoritarian system:
      • Their flirtation with Austria’s authoritarian past.
      • Their rhetoric about law following politics, not the other way around.
      • Their attacks on institutions that check autocratic tendencies, such as the Verfassungsschutz and public media.
      • Their admiration for autocrats like Putin, treating him as an ally rather than a threat.
  • Personally, I lean toward the second interpretation, given the evidence.

Implications

If my analysis of the FPÖ’s goals is correct, what does their ideal vision for Austria look like? Here’s what they seem to be pushing toward:

• Consolidating power across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches with the help of wealthy donors.
• Rewarding those donors handsomely.
• Silencing critics:
  • Media can be pressured through financial leverage. Public broadcasters like ORF could be transformed into state propaganda by shifting funding from public contributions to direct government control.
  • Political opponents and independent institutions can be labeled as threats, justifying further power grabs.
• Aligning with authoritarian regimes—such as Russia and Hungary (Kickl is a close ally of Orbán and conspicuously silent on Putin, while other FPÖ members have literally invited him to their weddings).
• Deflecting blame for inevitable mismanagement by manufacturing crises—scapegoating immigrants, exaggerating security threats, and framing opposition parties as complicit to maintain a grip on power.

What can you do

If this future worries you, remember that our system is designed to make such power grabs difficult. Other parties would be hard to convince, and the FPÖ is still far from a parliamentary majority. Democratic institutions exist to prevent this—but institutions are only as strong as the people who uphold them.

So:

1. Campaign against the FPÖ and promote viable alternatives. Use social media, traditional media, or direct conversations.
2. Defend Austria’s democratic institutions.

Conclusion

I've come to accept that my views won’t always be shared by everyone and that democracy requires compromise. That’s what makes it valuable—it allows diverse interests to coexist and forces us to engage with different perspectives.

But what I will never accept is people who reject this process outright—who believe they should impose their will without debate or opposition. That is an ideology of the past, one that has led to immense suffering. We should have left it behind long ago.

#Austria