When will left-leaning media commentators (please excuse the tautology) accept that the frequently heard term “far Right” is often no longer applicable?
“Far Right” implies an extreme fringe. But election results in several countries, including Brazil, have shown that so-called far-Right candidates command wide electoral support – enough, in many cases, to win elections. Jair Bolsinaro won the presidential race in 2018 and missed out by the narrowest of margins in the latest poll.
If we’re to believe media pundits, the "far Right" have won power in Italy and the supposedly far-Right Sweden Democrats were the big winners in that traditionally liberal country’s elections in September, to the great dismay of the Western political elite.
Meanwhile Republican candidates who are routinely (and I suspect lazily) labelled as far-Right have a very good chance of outpolling the Democrats in the United States mid-term elections. And of course the ultimate urban liberal nightmare, the “far-Right” Donald Trump, is on track to return to the White House in 2024.
Oh, and I read this morning that the far Right could hold the balance of power after the latest elections in Israel.
In the last French presidential elections, "far-Right "candidate Marine Le Pen was beaten but still won 41.5 per cent of the vote. That’s not exactly extremist fringe territory. India, Poland and Hungary all have governments that media commentators regularly describe as far-Right, presumably because in the latter two cases they have the audacity to resist the grand left-wing ideological project known as the EU. But those governments wouldn't have been elected unless voters approved of their policies.
So what’s going on here? How are we supposed to define "far Right" when it’s obviously not as far out as the mainstream media want us to believe?
The truth is that “far-Right” is an entirely arbitrary term, used to disparage any politician or party whose policies the left-leaning commentariat dislikes - or perhaps more precisely, fears.
This was borne out by a BBC radio current affairs programme broadcast just before the Italian elections in which the term was used to describe Giorgia Meloni, now the Italian prime minister, and her Brothers of Italy party.
A brief on-air discussion took place in which the presenter of the show and the journalist covering the elections considered whether “far-Right” was a fair and accurate label. They promptly reassured themselves that it was, specifically citing Meloni’s policies on LGBTQ rights and abortion.
Problem solved, then; no further discussion needed. It was a
striking demonstration, obligingly conducted in public view, of the way a media
elite assumes the right to dictate the political narrative by its use of language.
“Far-Right” is often used in conjunction with the equally damning word “populist”. But a populist politician, by definition, is one who appeals to the people. Isn’t that the essence of democracy?
Here, I suspect, is the core of the problem. “Populist” is used as a derogatory term because the progressive elite, deep down, don’t trust democracy and don’t think ordinary people, ignorant proles that they are, can be relied on to make the right choices.
For the same reason, the political elite want to control the public conversation by regulating what we are allowed to say or hear. Uninhibited political debate is dangerous. People might get the wrong ideas – hence the moral panic over disinformation.
Do the journalists and academics who so freely use the misleading term “far Right” realise that the world has moved on from the days when it described fringe nationalist groups with little hope of electoral success? Possibly not.
I think they’re in denial. They don’t want to admit that the so-called far Right has moved to the political centre, and that this is an entirely natural and predictable reaction to stifling woke authoritarianism.
27 comments:
Karl
Another useful article regarding the Left's use of language to demonise political opponents in ways that cannot be justified. Dreher takes up this theme today asking "what is a fascist anyway", given that politicians like Italy's new PM, and the current/former President of Brazil regularly attract that description.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-is-a-fascist-anyway/
When describing the situation in Brazil he states:
"Beyond a certain point, which is yet unknown in American discourse, the problem of “social conservatism” becomes inseparable from the problem of law and order. Beyond this point, private deviance from social and moral norms spills over to become a problem of public social order. Brazil has long passed this point."
Given the unprecedented rise in youth criminal offending, ram raids, drive by shootings and street violence here in New Zealand I wonder how close we are to the tipping point, where the moral relativism of the Lefts politics and policies are pushing people towards a socially conservative response, where (dare I say it) the idea of holding people accountable for their anti-social actions becomes mainstream once again.
Funny isn't it that to be popular as a human, is a human condition.
Most people aspire to be as popular as they can be. From Actors to Accountants, from Politicians to Police and from Microbiologists to Morticians.
But if you are a centrist leaning either left or right you are not very popular with the left at all.
Could it be a jealous form of avarice need from the left when they know that they actually put most peoples backs up with quibbles about cant topics that most reasoned humans either accept or ignore as they have little substance to life affect.
It is no wonder in a sea of such quibbling the left feel the need to scream the loudest and in doing so make themselves even less popular......how dare they!
Language inevitably changes, including transformation of some word meanings, eg "nice" and "gay". I think change has rendered the words "Right" and "Left" much less able to communicate meaning than they once were. Does "Right" mean support for fascism or freedom of speech? Does "left" mean empathy with low paid workers or does it mean blindly following identity politics?After a lifetime of union activism I was immediately banned from two union facebook sites for questioning transgender politics. Even with prefixes like "far"and " hard", the words "left" and "right" have become inadequate as useful descriptive terms.
The reason that the "so-called far Right has moved to the political centre" is because the Left have moved so far left that those the same distance away on their political measurement as 30 years ago are in the centre.
They themselves have disappeared into a spiraling descent that they can't recognise, and are therefore seeing more and more as far right.
They really are dangerous.
I was at a gathering the other week. A trans female, who therefore must embrace inclusion and diversity, and a Green Party supporter if not member, started spitting out about all the "fascists" elected around the world. They actually believe it.
The media’s “far right” was never far right. Most of them a slightly right. Pinochet in Chile ran a far-Right government. NZ has never has anyone remotely like that. As usual, modern media are either lazy or stupid. As you might imagine, I cancelled the Herald and the Listener years ago.
Don Franks is correct. The terms Left and Right, which I understand derive from the French Revolution of 1789, are no longer adequate as descriptors of political orientation. I see the modern spectrum ranging from Authoritarianism at one end to Libertarianism at the other. In New Zealand, the Authoritarians would include the Greens and Ardern's Labour Party, while Act would exemplify the Libertarians, with National sitting precariously on the fence somewhere in the Middle, or should that be Muddle?
If "far-right" is a cover-all term for "alternative to the ruling political orthodoxy" then far-right is exactly what we need, because the ruling orthodoxy is failing to everyone's detriment. Society's many ills can be traced back to the ideological framework that underpins them and from which they flow.
All of the individuals you note above, and their various electoral successes, are expressions of the popular will. The facts of the matter are that, despite all of the rhetorical claims to "protecting democracy" the ruling classes detest the idea of being subject to the popular will. Far from being a "threat to democracy" as claimed, the election of Donald Trump showed that democracy is still possible. The resultant clampdown on "Trumpism", however, proves my point that such an unexpected outburst of democracy must never be allowed to happen again.
At bottom, the ruling orthodoxy is only maintained by ever-increasing censorship and the manipulation of social media algorithms. Sure, it has its diehard adherents, but in general, this orthodoxy is the antithesis of what a majority of people want, and it enjoys only an illusion of popular support. Without being artificially maintained, it would collapse in about 5 minutes.
The government is continuously calling for or eluding to the need for more censorship of heterodox opinions, and questioning of official narratives. "Hate speech" legislation is in the works. Far from nominally "preventing harm" the real reason they censor speech is to hide true public sentiment and constrain genuine debate. The people aren't allowed to form their own opinions based on realities and facts. The shaping of public opinion is, instead, the sole privilege of the censorious ruling classes who fear exposure when people come to realise that they aren't alone in their concerns, and in fact, theirs is the majority opinion.
We are told that the "far-right" are "radicals" who hold "fringe" opinions. Well, reality is radicalising: that is why they work so hard to keep us locked in an illusion that benefits them and keeps them in power.
I always feel a strange sense of disconnection when retired (or semi-retired) journalists complain about the media as if it's a completely different industry. Prevailing attitudes in an industry don't change over night.
Spot on Karl !!
We can all see that "far-right" is simply a Lefty journalist's word to describe any person, especially any politician, who disagrees with the current wave of hand wringing, racially divisive wokery that has subsumed the (government funded) main stream media in New Zealand.
The term has a nasty, sort of extreme sound to it... Faaar RIGHT !! This is be design.
Interestingly I have never heard or seen or media use the term "Far-left" !!!
R Singers,
Believe me, it is a different industry. It's different in the same way, and for much the same reason, that politics are different. I don't recognise the media today as the same industry I worked in.
R Singers,
What usually happens is that in the workplace there is a small push, then another, another and still another. Each one is annoying, but bearable. The classic boiling frog symptom.
After awhile - years, I'm talking - you get to the point where you say "oh, fuck it" and walk away. Once you've done that, unwind from the situation and later look back, you often can't believe how much different it is.
I've observed that personally more than once
Most of the media, from print to audio-visual, but especially print, MUST use labels to stick on those they target. So much so, the tags become meaningless.
*Doug Longmire - enter 'Red Brigade' in Google or Wiki, and you'll see the use of the term far-left there.
To the commenter who calls him/herself Melting Snowflake: your comment inexplicably vanished, but if you kept a copy you're welcome to submit it again. I would, however, ask you to tell me exactly when I described the 2017-2020 coalition government as "far Left", because I have no recollection of doing so and can't think why I would.
Great article - thanks. Back in 2021 the now (self-titled) Chief Twit, Elon Musk tweeted a cartoon illustrating how 2008 liberal leftists have mutated into today's "progressive" left.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144?fbclid=IwAR3mysGu0eBiVfLrHJds0HPPpZ5oW2kj2Vxq1tBQIs76JVa3w0t2NAE_NCQ
Why focus on the right? Jeremy Corbyn was demonised as far-left. Corporate democrats attacked Bernie Sanders for being far-left. Some said that Lula would bring Venezulan far-left policies to Brazil, despite the record of his earlier period in office. Elon Musk said a sexual harassment allegation made against him had been trumped up by 'a far left activist/actress". Despite the accusation. SpaceX paid the woman US$250,000.
People "band" together in strange ways. Some need a label to identify with and others need to label an "enemy" so they bond together to smite the enemy.
Nazis used "Jews" to be a common enemy that must be destroyed, middle America in the post war era focussed on the "communist" and set about demonifying those identified as such or likely to sympathise with them.
Today the "left" have zero policies, other than idenity politics, that appeal to the rest of us so we have to be demonised and labelled something so we can be identified as not being one of "them".
Easy answer -- simply describe those who use that term "Far Left".
I've commented here before and included details of connections between people and organisations, along with funding. Karl has let some comments through, and not others: arguing, perfectly cogently, that he hasn't the time to substantiate allegations and, also, that I ought to step forward into the light and make those claims myself.
There's reasons why I have not and I don't intend to. The recent Substack blog "Cramner" has given me pause for thought, however, and I am looking into it.
Is Cramner a coward for remaining anonymous? I don't know his or her reasons for it, but I know mine.
What I can tell you, without risking making allegations again, is that nobody has gotten to the bottom of what the Disinformation Project is about, who funds it, and who it liaises with domestically and internationally. The truth is deeply troubling. I fear that the West really has taken a fascist turn, and a genuinely fascist one, according to Mussolini's definition and his statement that it was synonymous with corporatism.
I may follow Cramner's example soon enough. But I'm wary. One of the best hitherto underground sources of information on these matters, who I have taken a lot of cues from myself, was recently thrown into a mental institution on the basis of with what must have been - because I've spoken to the chap and he is a force of reason - a highly motivated diagnosis.
Following a complaint to mental health services by the NZSIS and the Police, I am told.
So don't be too miffed that people are wary of standing up, Karl. I suspect there are similar cases. This guy is not mad in the slightest. A drinker but not a nutter. This person is well-known among resistance groups as consistently providing quality and verifiable information about government and business activities.
Wise comments as usual Karl. Funnily, I was just thinking about this myself and wondering why I hadn't seen any "Far Left" descriptors.
Kyle Reese,
I referred to Thomas Cranmer in a comment under this post: https://karldufresne.blogspot.com/2022/10/why-culture-wars-are-being-lost-by.html
Wholeheartedly agree with your comment, Karl.
Kyle Reese:
Mussolini was the first fascist dictator. Before adopting fascism, Mussolini was a socialist. He was guided in his transformation by Giovanni Gentile. Gentile was a student of Karl Marx.
Corporatism is actually a collectivist ideology.
Lastly when one turns one's mind to Nazi ideology, also based on fascism, I recently read this piece, titled Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Which also seems to describe the Corporatism you mentioned.
The reason I mention all this is that too often fascism is used as a euphemism for right-wing. I've long held the view that fascism is what crawls out from under a left wing rock rather than a right wing one. Not a common or popular view, but mine nonetheless.
There's no comment about the far left, because those media are in it deep. Teir lens is that everything they see is to the right of them must be far-right and tells us more about their own political position than anyone else's.
Overall, the political terms left and right no longer carry their usual meanings - do they? The meaning used to relate to the economy : social democracy versus laissez-faire. . Here in Long ago New Zealand Labour and National began to merge, in a way : for good reasons they were regarded as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Both became welfare-state parties - and National has progressively lost its original conservatism. We are back to the original conservative versus liberal politics.
And yet, these days we discuss all our major problems in terms of Left/Right : Climate-change, Covid, Gender-politics, Race relations, etc. - although these are not economic problems per se.
It would not surprise me if eventually ACT becomes the future Conservative Party (akin to the American Conservatives) - while National and Labour will join forces. Even in 2023 ACT may get more MPs than National. In 2023, once in the secrecy of the ballot box, a lot of National voters will give their party vote to ACT
As annoying as this is I'm more relaxed about it nowadays because it doesn't seem to be working as the Left and MSM (but I repeat myself) thought it would, at least outside of NZ, but then we're quite Left in all respect bar Marx's classic one on the economy.
I think the reason it's not working is that so many Left plans/theories/positions are failing in practice. When that happens, attacking the opponents of those things as "Far Right" can only hold back the tide for a time.
Another sign is the use of "Alt-Right", although that seems about five years out-of-date as well so it's on to "Trumpist" and "QAnon": "Bomber" Bradbury over on TDB is a good guide to these rhetoric changes.
You all may enjoy the following post from Ann Althouse, a retired and very Liberal law professor who nevertheless is great at calling out the BS from her own side - although I've never agreed that she fully lives up to her proclamation of being "cruelly neutral, but she does try.
Anyhoo, ... at the helm of one of the most right-wing governments in Israeli history.... The far right’s strong showing was linked to fears among right-wing Jews.
The commentators are a hoot on this subject as they mock the NYT's coverage of the Israel elections:
Once an idea or movement becomes a majority, or close to a majority, it's no longer extreme, the person applying the label is.
Exactamundo.
"Far right" is just code for Nazi,white supremacist etc. It's used in situations where a direct accusation of "Nazi" is obviously ridiculous and would be dismissed as such. Far right is the soft gentle caring invocation of "Nazi"
Post a Comment