How do you fight far right?
There is a consensus among surveys that Donald Trump will emerge victorious in the next presidential election in the United States. Similarly, in the European elections, far-right factions will witness a large increase in popularity. It would seem that we have entered another populist phase, one that is akin to the one that occurred in 2016, when the real estate mogul elected the president of the United States and Brexit completely upended the European Union.
The most surprising thing, however, is that we have not yet discovered a way to put an end to this phenomenon, even though it is getting more widespread (for example, consider the rise of Marine Le Pen to the president of France). According to the new attitude that the Danish Social Democratic Party has taken on immigration, many concepts that are associated with the extreme right are gaining momentum among conservative parties throughout Europe and even in certain groups that are affiliated with the social democratic party.
This holds even among the most radical left-wing organizations; for instance, Sahra Wagenknecht’s Die Linke (The Left), a German party that had earlier shown great promise, has lately imploded. When an ideological choice begins to degrade, one makes an effort to bring it back to life by relying on the dialectical tools of the mythical adversary associated with it.
If, as Gramsci put it, the pursuit of hegemony in speech is the key to political success, then the strategy used by the far right is successful, at least in terms of the alleged “migratory invasion” and the demonization of established parties. If such is the case, then the efforts that have been made to properly maintain the concept that preserved liberal democratic characteristics have been inadequate over the years.
To depict themselves as the only viable alternative and the genuine advocates of national interests, populism has used one of its most effective methods, which is to portray its opponents as a monolithic entity, with little opportunity for individuality. Because of the simplicity of populist slogans, a political system that is tribal, emotionally charged, and almost wholly centered on identity was developed with the assistance of populist slogans.
Those who are opposed to populism see themselves as either straightforward administrators of the systemic framework or, as was especially the case with the so-called woke left, as champions of a divisive and insular kind of nationalism in their struggle against the movement. Although realpolitik has returned, the national identity continues to be unparalleled. Let us not fool ourselves about this.
This is particularly true in situations when the adversaries are engaged in a struggle for a portion of the electoral pie and are themselves entangled in particularisms of different kinds. It is much more problematic, on the other side, when individuals who are opposed to populists change their position to win over others who are politically supportive of population control.
Whenever anything like this takes place, it serves to further emphasize the fact that these critics are motivated by power rather than their highly regarded views. A further setback has occurred in the trust that democratic administration is the best form of government.
After that, what course of action should we take? When political sovereignty is being undermined on a global scale, when security worries return to Hobbesian levels, and when the prior unanimity on our moral basis begins to collapse, there is no visible route out of the situation. In addition, this is the most important thing.
One of the reasons why we are not going to support these movements is because they are not liberal. On the other hand, is there anybody who is advocating for the need for liberal democratic ideals to be maintained? According to my point of view, the general public perceives them less as a vital component of a democratic government and more as a hindrance.
READ MORE: