Young voters turn to far right as housing costs rise, psychologist blamed

Young voters turn to far right as housing costs rise, psychologist blamed

Why do young people from working-class neighborhoods vote for the far right instead of the left that promises paradise? This question has circulated for a while in debates and on social media, and a video by a psychologist attributing this shift to simple speeches and a lack of critical thinking has reignited the debate. The most shared response comes not from a political scientist, but from a domestic calculation posted by a user: when the right was in power, a taxi driver and a housewife paid off a flat in Madrid in ten years, with interest rates at 10%; now, with the left in government, an engineer and a doctor take forty years to do the same. With those numbers on the table, the psychological diagnosis falls short.

What the video says and why it causes outrage

The psychologist's argument, summarized in the video opening the discussion, claims that adolescents are attracted to the far right because it offers simple answers to complex problems, while diversity is presented as wealth and critical thinking as the antidote. The most repeated reply is that this same scheme explains voting for the radical left: hatred of capital, hatred of business owners, hatred of high earners. Critics point out that the argument is symmetrical and the psychologist only applies it to one side.

There is a recurring accusation of double standards. People ask why the young person who becomes a Podemos supporter isn't analyzed in the same way. It is emphasized that the education system, media, series, and networks massively promote proge ideology, yet young people still vote against the establishment. In post-Franco Spain, Che Guevara was the rebel icon; now rebellion points in the opposite direction. The pendulum, they say, has swung back.

Housing costs as an alternative explanation

The argument gaining the most traction in the conversation is not psychological, but arithmetic. A user argues that a taxi driver and a housewife paid off a flat in Madrid in ten years when the right governed, with interest rates at 10%. Today, with the left in government, an engineer and a doctor take forty years to pay off the same flat. The conclusion drawn is that youth voting is not a disorder, but a financial equation that doesn't add up.

Added to this calculation is another complaint: young people have been left without a present or future, chained to precarious jobs, unable to build a life project, while others live outside the law. The comparison is not between ideologies, but between generations. The repeated diagnosis is that the left has no narrative for this, only labels.

Criticism of 'indoctrination' and double standards

Part of the analysis targets the education system. A user states that the treatment of males in classrooms, presented as an inferior version of females, pushes boys toward rejectionist positions. The thesis is that the male brain functions differently from childhood and that schools penalize it instead of understanding it. This is not a new argument, but here it is used to explain the electoral shift.

Another current points out that the psychologist does exactly what he criticizes: simplification. He is reproached for his discourse being a secular catechism, with slogans for tender minds, and lacking self-criticism. The underlying accusation is that the left doesn't ask why it loses young people, only seeks external scapegoats.

Immigration, diversity, and broken order

The issue shifts to immigration and diversity. Some argue that diversity is a social and sarracena solvent, while others nuance that immigration has always existed and is not bad in itself: the problem would be disorder, those who don't integrate, or those who come to impose customs. The discussion moves between criticism of lack of control and rejection of generalizing about groups.

In this section, hostile opinions towards certain groups appear, formulated as part of social malaise. The article does not reproduce or endorse them: they are recorded as an opinion current that exists in the debate and should be read with distance. The tension between integration and conflict runs through much of the conversation.

The forum's response: 'It's the system, not the teenager'

The most repeated conclusion is that the psychologist confuses cause and effect. It is not that young people become far-right due to a lack of critical thinking; it is that critical thinking leads them to vote against those who have worsened their lives. The final irony is signed by someone who recalls that, with these housing and wage differentials, the psychological diagnosis is unnecessary. Or perhaps not: perhaps the problem is that nobody wants to look at the bill.

---

This article is based on the content of the thread and does not incorporate external data. The cited figures come from the analyzed messages.