I really like the efforts made by "The Unpopulist" but really the comments section is simply too weird. Other than taking an opportunity to engage in 2 minutes of hate on a daily basis by a handful of discontents I don't see anything much here that seriously engages with the content presented and makes no effort to actually advance any sort of dialogue.
As far as I can tell the general orientation "The Unpopulist" tends toward the libertarian perspective. Hardly shills for "the left" as I keep reading in the comments.
My own experience has taught me to ignore anything where terms like "the right" "the left" "woke" are used as shorthand (without qualification) or used as a blanket way of dismissing inconvenient people. Such terms can be used WITH qualification but generally in the "antisocial media" universe they never are.
"I really like the efforts made by "The Unpopulist" but really the comments section is simply too weird. Other than taking an opportunity to engage in 2 minutes of hate on a daily basis by a handful of discontents I don't see anything much here that seriously engages with the content presented and makes no effort to actually advance any sort of dialogue."
Yup, it's genuinely wild.
As a description of our comments section, Yeats was spot on: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
I think the ratio of thoughtful to thoughtless is probably always fairly low--but perhaps even lower in times of high social tension. That, and I think you're reflecting an almost knee jerk impulse by people all across the spectrum to "other" anyone who even questions, much less challenges. This is challenging for serious people, particularly in a time when speed and ruthlessness have their own acute effectiveness, so trying to accumulate deep knowledge is one way to mitigate and look ahead to if/when we need our own sense of alacrity in the moment.
Fair. Folks say left and right like those terms don't change based on where you're standing.
I figured that out when folks started calling me a radical leftist and I am still showing up in the lower right in about every political compass out there so if I am radically left exactly how far right are they?
Wonderful article! I consider myself a social democrat or social liberal, so basically left wing. I have much more respect for good faith CATO libertarians (like Alex Nowrasteh, Tom Palmer) or classical liberals than "paleolibertarians" like Lew Rockwell. The way I distinguish good faith libertarians from bad faith libertarians is how much anti-immigration they are, for example, if they are nearly open borders or open borders supporters, then they are good faith precisely because being generally pro-immigration or open borders is consistent with universalism or cosmopolitanism of liberalism, that is, all human individuals have human rights. This is foundational. The enlightenment ideologies - Liberalism and Socialism have always been cosmopolitan or universalist. The "paleolibertarians" give preference to this fuzzy collective rights concepts when they want to defend nativism, and interestingly these "paleolibertarians" would never argue for this collective rights stuff in any other context. I just consider paleolibertarians to be just nationalist conservatives who don't like the term "Conservatism" or "Nationalism."
As I read and listen to the article, I found that the overarching and perennial problem is extremism. The labeling doesn’t matter. The fact is we are humans and we like to pigeonhole ourselves. This makes life easier and avoids circumspection. The hard part is not falling into one extreme or the other. However, it’s pointless. Once you have been branded or brand yourself, then there is nothing to discuss. I hope that this comment doesn’t come off as flippant.
> The tenets of the far right involve some combination of hardline social conservatism, ultra-nationalism (especially ethnic nationalism, or nativism), populism or anti-elitism, and authoritarianism. Although far-right figures, movements, and parties around the world often differ in their degrees of radicalness, all who subscribe to some combination of the above doctrines are properly characterized as far right.
The far-right is not founded on nationalism. The far-right is founded on the basis of eugenics or social Darwinism, a secularised form of Calvinism. Social Darwinism is based on the idea of congenitally predetermined excellence and status as "elect", a duty of the elect to testify to their blessings through the calling of work, and the right of the elect to the promised land.
Fascism is a form of social Darwinism applied at the level of the nation. But not all social Darwinist philosophies are fascism. There are many social Darwinists who are not nationalists, and who hold contempt for nationalism. For example, Incels are eugenicists but are not nationalists (and not necessarily misogynist, still bad though).
Because of Anglo-America's roots in middle-class Anglo-Saxon Puritanism and because Anglo-Saxon Puritan values have been secularised into whiteness and white Masculinity, Anglo-American culture is fundamentally eugenicist.
> A similar idea, “nativism,” says the extremism scholar Cas Mudde, “holds that states should be inhabited exclusively by members of the native group (the nation) and that non-native elements (persons and ideas) are fundamentally threatening to the homogenous nation-state.” This is why far-right thinkers and activists posit a conflict between the “true people” and the enemies of the people.
No. Patriarchy exists without women, and eugenics exists without race. Male supremacy is founded on gayphobia, and the subdivision of masculinity into hegemonic and subordinate masculinities via war. Likewise, eugenics is founded on the subdivisions of man within the nation into castes based on so-called excellence, IQ or ability.
> What role do women play in far-right activism?
A lot of roles: TERFs, Securo-Feminism and Carceral Feminism are many areas popular with the feminine far-right.
> Why is antisemitism so strongly tied to the far right?
Probably because Calvinism is based in the elect replacing the Jews as the chosen people.
I am happy to write on the far-left and have done a lot of that in the past. Yes, calling voters names or belittling them is a mistake. Identifying a Nick Fuentes as a neo-Nazi is a different matter. The essay had no belittlement in it.
Tom, you should know Rob makes only this one point on every post. He somehow doesn’t seem to understand that it doesn’t make sense to ask a publication that has been founded to correct for the preoccupation with the leftist enemy among the libertarian right to become preoccupied with the leftist enemy. He is proof that there is an addiction to anti-leftism on the right and it wants more and more of this drug while we are trying to put the right in rehab :)
Shikha: Your target is "the leftist enemy among the libertarian right" ... The elephant in the room is also "the leftist enemy among the libertarian left." Statism is the enemy. Your refusal to apply a 'libertarian' standard to Kamala Harris in the heat of an election is intellectually unfair and partisan politics.
Tom: Okay, and if your equal treatment does not get to Kamala Harris and the deep state of the Biden-Harris Administration (and Hillary/Bill/Gore before), then I dare say that you have a heavy bias at the expense of scholarship. 'Far Left' is so mainstream that you might need a day pass to the White House and to Sacramento. Let's see what you can whip up before election day....
Most of us learned years ago that commenters who breathlessly issue "Now do x"-style replies—which was what your comment here was, just a more dressed up version of it—are at bottom intellectually compromised bothsidesists whose operating assumption is that the center left is just as bad as, or even worse than, the hard right.
You spam us a ton on Facebook. Just a warning that we won't have infinite patience for it here.
I have read this and I agree with Mitchell. The article never addresses the why, it just addresses the what.
Ever since 2008, people have every reason to be skeptical of elites, both political and corporate, and for good reason. What could have possibly happened in 2008 that may have started this whole thing?
"Too big to fail." An absurd comment and they got it backwards. If the political elites actually cared for the electorate, they would have said "so big, they had to fail." It's the classic tower of Babel story. Alas, as a wise man once said, there is nothing new under the sun.
Let it be known that the authors in the unpopulist, particularly Janet Burton, had no problem with keeping her own country in lockdown during the COVID mania because somehow locking down society was totally a liberal thing to do.
Shameful. The whole Liberty movement, particularly the one promulgated by the Unpopulist, has completely lost the plot. The unpopulist still runs away from the entire COVID situation. Why do we think that is? Probably because they aren't truly liberals, but are rather in favor of maintaining the status quo, but with more immigration. That's it.
You brought up Covid a bunch of times in this reply even though the piece had zero to do with that. This is probably very hard for you, but try your absolute best to stay on topic.
Don't you think the totalitarian COVID policies have people reason to be highly skeptical of elites, both political and corporate? You'd think that'd be something worth noting in your write-up about the "far right".
And to say something not related to COVID, did you ever think that talking down to people and treating them like children (as you just did in your reply with your sarcastic and condescending remarks about having difficulty talking about staying on topic) may be contributing to the rise of the "far right"? I mean, the more your demean people and treat them like lower beings, it seems only natural that this would happen.
You're right that it was a condescending remark, and I apologize for that. Though we disagree on the salience of Covid policies when it comes to assessing and understanding the far right, I do appreciate you taking the time to engage with the article.
I think this sums up everything. The authors of this article know full well why people are becoming "far right". But the solution is to continue to do that which is expanding populist support. Here it is...
"Far-right movements tend to draw support from disaffected, alienated, and angry individuals and groups. They may be rich or poor, more or less educated, employed or not. More unifying than any socioeconomic characteristic is a shared, strongly negative attitude toward the present state of the world and especially a sense of underappreciation, persecution, or heightened threat perception."
Alienation is doing it, and yet people who oppose populism continue to alienate. It's comical. Bernie Sanders realized it after the election. I wonder if anyone else will. I doubt it.
This has to be the most ill-conceived article that the UnPopulist has ever published!
It's a tendentious, thinly-veiled ideological polemic that cherry-picks its examples and discredits any legitimate defense of liberalism by descending to the level of conspiracy theory.
And so, in a discussion of antisemitism, George Soros (an atheist and a globalist oligarch) becomes an exemplary Jew, while Yoram Hazony -- founder of those "National Conservative" conferences (an Israeli, observant Jew) -- evidently must be merely a shill for antisemites (though the authors don't acknowledge that he [or his politics] can plausibly even exist).
Same with the putative “LGBTQIA community”: Presumably the likes of Judith Butler are exemplary, but an Andrew Sullivan or a Bari Weiss must be either crypto-fascists or dupes.
The authors describe a Far Right that eschews "traditional types of organization with an identifiable, hierarchical leadership structure... a dispersed community that share[s] ideology, goals, and information. They blend social support networks with radical political views and action. Because of their dispersed and loosely associated nature, they are difficult even to identify. They are very difficult to stop."
Where have I seen that before? Ah, yes -- in descriptions of the Occupy movement, or of Antifa -- by their adversaries!
There are legitimate issues (of human identity!) at stake in our current politics — many of them redolent of long-standing right/left quarrels over heredity and environment — of family, ethnicity, and tradition vs the “expert”-driven Brave New World of the Therapeutic State.
Meanwhile, as we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
Have we reached an impasse where liberalism must adopt McCarthyite rhetoric, ostensibly to preserve itself (from populism, of all things — in America, arguably a liberal phenomenon at its inception)? I think not.
I'm a liberal — but (rather than resorting to this crap) I’m as much of a populist as Bernie Sanders.
In terms of the larger picture — of an overall analysis (or a defense of liberalism) — the authors of this piece need to spend more time with Isaiah Berlin.
"Populism cannot be a consciously minority movement. Whether falsely or truly, it stands for the majority of man, the majority of men who have somehow been damaged. By whom have they been damaged? They have been damaged by an elite, either economic, political or racial, some kind of secret or open enemy – capitalism, Jews and the rest of it. Whoever the enemy is, foreign or native, ethnic or social, does not much matter." His thinking on this matter informs the entire essay and is descriptive of the mentality of far-right activism. (Think about recent references to "the enemy within.")
Berlin was quite aware of the dangers of far-right thinking, as well as of far-left thinking. They share much in common.
The other comments indicate that the commenter briefly breezed through the piece and did not read it.
Your whataboutism demands that I produce a work in the next ten minutes. I have not only written about the far-left, but I spent a lot of time working against their agenda. What a strange demand.
Can you point to a post by you or at the UnPopulist in general that equally dissects Kamala Harris and the Biden-Harris regime? The authoritarianism, the Fascism? Statism on Stilts? Your article is already in draft where you can substitute "Far Left" for "Far Right" and fill in the blanks. If you need information on the Climate Industrial Complex or the ongoing UN-IPCC-COP global/domestic takeover of energy, the master resource, I am on it!
Look forward to the series then. What areas are in the pipe? Any on Agenda 21/UN/climate? That is a huge threat to economic and personal liberty that involves global government with the US/EU in the lead. (Your organization had a climate conference where the speakers were all supportive of the activist climate agenda., btw.)
I read the piece twice. The first time, each sentence made me more livid than the last -- so I went back for an overview, to gauge whether I was mistaken in my initial impression.
Ultimately, what I found so off-putting was the tone and the approach. The difference from Berlin is the glaring lack of nuance throughout the piece. I'm sure you were aware of some (probably most!) of the factors that I mentioned, but you chose either to ignore them or to dismiss them with perfunctory disclaimers. This was a piece of blatant propaganda. Based on your response, you could surely do better than that! :-)
Congratulations on reading it. Try understanding it. You completely misunderstood how the far-right and populists generally identify enemies; as Berlin notes, the identity of the chosen group can vary from one populist movement to another. Those who demonize gay and lesbian and transgender people are not interested in distinguishing Andrew Sullivan from Judith Butler. As we note, “The participation of Jewish, LGBTQ people, and members of other minorities in National Conservatism, CPAC, and far-right parties illustrate the sometimes implausible mix of persons that can constitute far-right groups and hints at the ways in which they could violently dissolve if the far-right were to achieve their goals, as mentioned earlier in this FAQ. They seem convinced that when their movements—which are focused on demonizing other groups—come to power, they will be immune from such demonization.”
Where does that put a Yoram Hazony in your analysis? Merely fodder for the next (this time antisemitic) Night of the Long Knives? Is there a legitimate controversy between "family, ethnicity, and tradition vs the 'expert'-driven Brave New World of the Therapeutic State"?
(IMO, in terms of that disparity, you paint with too broad an ideological brush [that could easily splash onto an Andrew Sullivan] -- hence, my remark about perfunctory disclaimers.)
Do you condemn Bernie Sanders as a "far left populist"? Is there a legitimate critique (or grievance) against extreme concentrations of wealth (the origin of American populism)?
I suspect we're not all that far apart in many (or at least some) of our views. I know where I stand; I'm not "confused." I know that I need to watch my back, but I don't respond well to the "solidarity" offered by a protection racket.
Again, my problem with this piece was with its tone and approach, which I found simplistic and counterproductive.
Andrew Sullivan is a self-described conservative who incorporates liberal ideas into his conservative approach. He is not in any way remotely connected to the far-right. Hazony is an explicit tribalist who rejects the idea of liberal democracy and the American conservative tradition of constitutional equality. Consider this statement from his defense of tribalism, “the freedom of the individual is seen to depend on the freedom of his family, clan, tribe, and nation—that is, on the freedom and self-determination of the collective to which he is loyal, and whose pain and degradation he experiences as his own”; it was written in the context of the position of Jews in multi-religious states. They are outsiders, in Hazony’s view, everywhere but Israel. Contrast that with the position of George Washington, whose view Hazony contemptuously dismisses: “May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
The American tradition, which Hazony rejects root and branch in favor of tribalism, is well expressed by Washington:
From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790
To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island
[Newport, R.I., 18 August 1790]
“Gentlemen.
While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
You're preaching to the choir here. I'm familiar with those (wonderful) remarks by George Washngton.
As a Jewish American (a disciple of Judah Magnes, a "spiritual Zionist" and a believing Jew who accepts the narrative of Exile and Return, but who believes that political "self-determination" is inherently an INDIVIDUAL right), I consider Hazony a malevolent figure -- a very dangerous person.
He's obviously no fan of pluralism (nor of American aspirations) -- but that doesn't make him antisemitic. We Jews have been embroiled in this dispute since the days of the Maccabees vs the Hellenists, up through the excommunication of Spinoza. It ain't over yet.
PS: I now realize that you're a libertarian. Full disclosure: FWIW, I'm something of an "anarcho-centrist," midway between the Cato Institute and Emma Goldman (spiritually, an agnostic monotheist with a cautionary Buddhism regarding the ego [hence, wary of regarding Ownership as the fulcrum of the Self]). I've obviously been burned many times by "woke" elements on the left, but occasionally also by those on the libertarian (transactional) right who refuse to recognize the difference between love and prostitution.
In any event, I greatly appreciate the time and trouble you've taken in responding to my comments!
The idea that someone like Hazony can't be far right, or aligned with the far right, because he is Jewish is a relic from a prior discourse era where, in their adorably naive cluelessness, some thought that one's identity characteristics precluded certain ideological affiliations. Unfortunately for this silly talking point, the leader of the Proud Boys was Hispanic, Nick Fuentes is partially of Mexican ancestry, and Candace Owens has indulged white supremacist ideas. There is nothing alarming about any of that—because, psychologically, what a person finds ideologically compelling can override whatever otherwise undesirable implications, or associations, or even contradictions, that come with that endorsing that ideology.
But it's also a misunderstanding of what the authors of the FAQ claimed. A more careful reader wouldn't have made the mistake you made. The subsection question itself is a clue: "Why is antisemitism so strongly tied to the far right?" That doesn't mean every far rightist is an antisemite, or that anyone who peddles in far right ideology is "a shill for antisemitism." Imagine thinking that the authors precluded even the possibility of hardcore Israeli nationalism counting as far right simply because, in other manifestations of far right ideology, antisemitism is present. It's just not entailed. Hazony's NatCon movement is propping up an ideology that in many of its iterations is quite hospitable to antisemitism—that's undeniable.
Do you think Netanyahu can't be categorized as far right because he is Israel's head of state? Absurd.
Also, you missed this from the authors:
"The participation of Jewish, LGBTQ people, and members of other minorities in National Conservatism, CPAC, and far-right parties illustrates the sometimes implausible mix of persons that can constitute far-right groups and hint at the ways in which they could violently dissolve if the far right were to achieve their goals, as mentioned earlier in this FAQ. They seem convinced that when their movements—which are focused on demonizing other groups—come to power, they will be immune from such demonization."
Regarding the above comment, Berny, I'm still waiting for your response to my earlier reply.
You've accused me of taking positions (or of having opinions) vastly different from (and in some cases even diametrically opposed to) those I've actually expressed. Your characterizations of my critique verge on personal insult ("ridiculous," "silly"); you cherry-pick or extrapolate falsely from one or another detail when you think you've spotted a "gotcha," and thereby misrepresent my overall point(s), or simply leave it unaddressed; and your response is utterly lacking in nuance (like the article itself) or even in a recognition of what my views (as explicitly stated) actually are. Your attitude seems to be that of an apparatchik rather than of a good-faith interlocutor, while I've taken pains to be the latter. I don't appreciate being either belittled or smeared.
Regarding Hazony, I've even been able to reach some measure of mutual understanding with (one of) the article's author(s) himself. Please see the entire comment (referenced in my reply) that begins, "You're preaching to the choir" -- which had already been posted prior to your own remarks (demonstrating how irrelevant they are to my actual views).
Meanwhile, as for your "UnPopulist" moniker: I'd be very interested in your view on the possibilities for a liberal populism -- particularly for the legitimacy of a movement opposed to extreme concentrations of wealth. You've defined "populism" so as to include an exclusionary "poison pill" that guarantees it will always be a pejorative term. (Conversely, I view any antisemitism or racism in late 19th Century American populism as a bug, not a feature. [As you might be aware, this remains a matter of some controversy among historians.])
I appreciate your effort to combat authoritarianism, and your openness to observations from the Social Democratic "left" to the libertarian "right" -- but I'd urge you to avoid, in your zeal, policing a dogma (or orthodoxy) of your own!
On that note, I'll turn you over to my "alternative KKK": Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka. ;-)
If you've read my most recent comment about Hazony -- the one that begins, "You're preaching to the choir" ("a malevolent figure, a very dangerous person"), along with my other comments in this thread -- it should be clear that I'm not making excuses for Hazony or his ideology, and I certainly NEVER claimed that "he can't be far right"!
However, he's also symptomatic of a particular strain in Jewish history (one to which I obviously DON'T subscribe) -- and this disparity involves a dispute among Jews that was ongoing for 1,000+ years before there was ever an Estates-General, with the advent of a "left" and "right." (And, again, this does NOT excuse Hazony's politics; it merely puts them in perspective, where he and I are nonetheless ALSO on opposite sides!)
As for your ending quote? It's the very basis for my asking, "Where does that put a Yoram Hazony in your analysis? Merely fodder for the next (this time antisemitic) Night of the Long Knives?" I wouldn't want to have to count on that to bring him down, and fear of that prospect is not likely to deter him now.
Of course, we're also talking about a certain strain (and reality) in human history, and in that context, we're at an ominous juncture in our evolution as a species, and in our politics. To wit: "There are legitimate issues (of human identity!) at stake in our current [impasse] — many of them redolent of long-standing right/left quarrels over heredity vs environment — of family, ethnicity, and tradition vs the 'expert'-driven Brave New World of the Therapeutic State."
In that context, the Far Right might be (however unfortunately and unscrupulously) exploiting some very legitimate concerns. That sort of nuanced understanding (beyond perfunctory dismissals and disclaimers) was utterly lacking in this piece.
My objection, therefore, was to the article's tone and polemical approach (as an "FAQ," of all things), which I found simplistic and counterproductive. Liberalism (and pluralism) are indeed in a pickle -- all the more reason to be especially wary of mirroring fascism's most unsavory, suspicion-fueled techniques. I think we can do better, but not if we operate on the premise that "If it bleeds, it leads."
Perhaps I should simply avoid such tabloid-flavored confections, and stick to reading Yascha Mounk. ;-)
PS: I've always been a little miffed by the title of this blog. I believe that a liberal populism is possible -- and is far from an oxymoron. Indeed, it might be the only way out of the mess we're in. (As I've also inquired on this thread: "Is there a legitimate critique [or grievance] against extreme concentrations of wealth [the origin of American populism]?")
"Populism" (like "Zionism") can evoke vastly divergent implications and responses, depending on how (narrowly or broadly) one defines the term.
Finally, my perspective (on "the 'expert'-driven Brave New World of the Therapeutic State") is informed by that other "KKK": Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka. ;-)
Just like last time, you posted this reply a few minutes after we published the piece itself. Which means you didn't read it. We just dropped a deeply-researched resource on what the far right is and you wave it all away to bring up your reactionary talking points unsolicited.
We require that comments under our posts clear a threshold of reasonableness and good-faith. Please try to do better next time.
Thank you for the candor. I am a speed-reader. Your references to T. Robinson and other anti-mass migration activists make clear your agenda, correct? Unchecked mass migration that no citizen in the West voted for? TY!
I really like the efforts made by "The Unpopulist" but really the comments section is simply too weird. Other than taking an opportunity to engage in 2 minutes of hate on a daily basis by a handful of discontents I don't see anything much here that seriously engages with the content presented and makes no effort to actually advance any sort of dialogue.
As far as I can tell the general orientation "The Unpopulist" tends toward the libertarian perspective. Hardly shills for "the left" as I keep reading in the comments.
My own experience has taught me to ignore anything where terms like "the right" "the left" "woke" are used as shorthand (without qualification) or used as a blanket way of dismissing inconvenient people. Such terms can be used WITH qualification but generally in the "antisocial media" universe they never are.
"I really like the efforts made by "The Unpopulist" but really the comments section is simply too weird. Other than taking an opportunity to engage in 2 minutes of hate on a daily basis by a handful of discontents I don't see anything much here that seriously engages with the content presented and makes no effort to actually advance any sort of dialogue."
Yup, it's genuinely wild.
As a description of our comments section, Yeats was spot on: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
I think the ratio of thoughtful to thoughtless is probably always fairly low--but perhaps even lower in times of high social tension. That, and I think you're reflecting an almost knee jerk impulse by people all across the spectrum to "other" anyone who even questions, much less challenges. This is challenging for serious people, particularly in a time when speed and ruthlessness have their own acute effectiveness, so trying to accumulate deep knowledge is one way to mitigate and look ahead to if/when we need our own sense of alacrity in the moment.
Fair. Folks say left and right like those terms don't change based on where you're standing.
I figured that out when folks started calling me a radical leftist and I am still showing up in the lower right in about every political compass out there so if I am radically left exactly how far right are they?
Wonderful article! I consider myself a social democrat or social liberal, so basically left wing. I have much more respect for good faith CATO libertarians (like Alex Nowrasteh, Tom Palmer) or classical liberals than "paleolibertarians" like Lew Rockwell. The way I distinguish good faith libertarians from bad faith libertarians is how much anti-immigration they are, for example, if they are nearly open borders or open borders supporters, then they are good faith precisely because being generally pro-immigration or open borders is consistent with universalism or cosmopolitanism of liberalism, that is, all human individuals have human rights. This is foundational. The enlightenment ideologies - Liberalism and Socialism have always been cosmopolitan or universalist. The "paleolibertarians" give preference to this fuzzy collective rights concepts when they want to defend nativism, and interestingly these "paleolibertarians" would never argue for this collective rights stuff in any other context. I just consider paleolibertarians to be just nationalist conservatives who don't like the term "Conservatism" or "Nationalism."
As I read and listen to the article, I found that the overarching and perennial problem is extremism. The labeling doesn’t matter. The fact is we are humans and we like to pigeonhole ourselves. This makes life easier and avoids circumspection. The hard part is not falling into one extreme or the other. However, it’s pointless. Once you have been branded or brand yourself, then there is nothing to discuss. I hope that this comment doesn’t come off as flippant.
I appreciate the research and time that went into this piece. I will read part II soon.
> The tenets of the far right involve some combination of hardline social conservatism, ultra-nationalism (especially ethnic nationalism, or nativism), populism or anti-elitism, and authoritarianism. Although far-right figures, movements, and parties around the world often differ in their degrees of radicalness, all who subscribe to some combination of the above doctrines are properly characterized as far right.
The far-right is not founded on nationalism. The far-right is founded on the basis of eugenics or social Darwinism, a secularised form of Calvinism. Social Darwinism is based on the idea of congenitally predetermined excellence and status as "elect", a duty of the elect to testify to their blessings through the calling of work, and the right of the elect to the promised land.
Fascism is a form of social Darwinism applied at the level of the nation. But not all social Darwinist philosophies are fascism. There are many social Darwinists who are not nationalists, and who hold contempt for nationalism. For example, Incels are eugenicists but are not nationalists (and not necessarily misogynist, still bad though).
Because of Anglo-America's roots in middle-class Anglo-Saxon Puritanism and because Anglo-Saxon Puritan values have been secularised into whiteness and white Masculinity, Anglo-American culture is fundamentally eugenicist.
> A similar idea, “nativism,” says the extremism scholar Cas Mudde, “holds that states should be inhabited exclusively by members of the native group (the nation) and that non-native elements (persons and ideas) are fundamentally threatening to the homogenous nation-state.” This is why far-right thinkers and activists posit a conflict between the “true people” and the enemies of the people.
No. Patriarchy exists without women, and eugenics exists without race. Male supremacy is founded on gayphobia, and the subdivision of masculinity into hegemonic and subordinate masculinities via war. Likewise, eugenics is founded on the subdivisions of man within the nation into castes based on so-called excellence, IQ or ability.
> What role do women play in far-right activism?
A lot of roles: TERFs, Securo-Feminism and Carceral Feminism are many areas popular with the feminine far-right.
> Why is antisemitism so strongly tied to the far right?
Probably because Calvinism is based in the elect replacing the Jews as the chosen people.
I am happy to write on the far-left and have done a lot of that in the past. Yes, calling voters names or belittling them is a mistake. Identifying a Nick Fuentes as a neo-Nazi is a different matter. The essay had no belittlement in it.
Tom, you should know Rob makes only this one point on every post. He somehow doesn’t seem to understand that it doesn’t make sense to ask a publication that has been founded to correct for the preoccupation with the leftist enemy among the libertarian right to become preoccupied with the leftist enemy. He is proof that there is an addiction to anti-leftism on the right and it wants more and more of this drug while we are trying to put the right in rehab :)
Shikha: Your target is "the leftist enemy among the libertarian right" ... The elephant in the room is also "the leftist enemy among the libertarian left." Statism is the enemy. Your refusal to apply a 'libertarian' standard to Kamala Harris in the heat of an election is intellectually unfair and partisan politics.
Tom: Okay, and if your equal treatment does not get to Kamala Harris and the deep state of the Biden-Harris Administration (and Hillary/Bill/Gore before), then I dare say that you have a heavy bias at the expense of scholarship. 'Far Left' is so mainstream that you might need a day pass to the White House and to Sacramento. Let's see what you can whip up before election day....
Most of us learned years ago that commenters who breathlessly issue "Now do x"-style replies—which was what your comment here was, just a more dressed up version of it—are at bottom intellectually compromised bothsidesists whose operating assumption is that the center left is just as bad as, or even worse than, the hard right.
You spam us a ton on Facebook. Just a warning that we won't have infinite patience for it here.
I have read this and I agree with Mitchell. The article never addresses the why, it just addresses the what.
Ever since 2008, people have every reason to be skeptical of elites, both political and corporate, and for good reason. What could have possibly happened in 2008 that may have started this whole thing?
"Too big to fail." An absurd comment and they got it backwards. If the political elites actually cared for the electorate, they would have said "so big, they had to fail." It's the classic tower of Babel story. Alas, as a wise man once said, there is nothing new under the sun.
Let it be known that the authors in the unpopulist, particularly Janet Burton, had no problem with keeping her own country in lockdown during the COVID mania because somehow locking down society was totally a liberal thing to do.
Shameful. The whole Liberty movement, particularly the one promulgated by the Unpopulist, has completely lost the plot. The unpopulist still runs away from the entire COVID situation. Why do we think that is? Probably because they aren't truly liberals, but are rather in favor of maintaining the status quo, but with more immigration. That's it.
You brought up Covid a bunch of times in this reply even though the piece had zero to do with that. This is probably very hard for you, but try your absolute best to stay on topic.
Don't you think the totalitarian COVID policies have people reason to be highly skeptical of elites, both political and corporate? You'd think that'd be something worth noting in your write-up about the "far right".
And to say something not related to COVID, did you ever think that talking down to people and treating them like children (as you just did in your reply with your sarcastic and condescending remarks about having difficulty talking about staying on topic) may be contributing to the rise of the "far right"? I mean, the more your demean people and treat them like lower beings, it seems only natural that this would happen.
You're right that it was a condescending remark, and I apologize for that. Though we disagree on the salience of Covid policies when it comes to assessing and understanding the far right, I do appreciate you taking the time to engage with the article.
I think this sums up everything. The authors of this article know full well why people are becoming "far right". But the solution is to continue to do that which is expanding populist support. Here it is...
"Far-right movements tend to draw support from disaffected, alienated, and angry individuals and groups. They may be rich or poor, more or less educated, employed or not. More unifying than any socioeconomic characteristic is a shared, strongly negative attitude toward the present state of the world and especially a sense of underappreciation, persecution, or heightened threat perception."
Alienation is doing it, and yet people who oppose populism continue to alienate. It's comical. Bernie Sanders realized it after the election. I wonder if anyone else will. I doubt it.
This has to be the most ill-conceived article that the UnPopulist has ever published!
It's a tendentious, thinly-veiled ideological polemic that cherry-picks its examples and discredits any legitimate defense of liberalism by descending to the level of conspiracy theory.
And so, in a discussion of antisemitism, George Soros (an atheist and a globalist oligarch) becomes an exemplary Jew, while Yoram Hazony -- founder of those "National Conservative" conferences (an Israeli, observant Jew) -- evidently must be merely a shill for antisemites (though the authors don't acknowledge that he [or his politics] can plausibly even exist).
Same with the putative “LGBTQIA community”: Presumably the likes of Judith Butler are exemplary, but an Andrew Sullivan or a Bari Weiss must be either crypto-fascists or dupes.
The authors describe a Far Right that eschews "traditional types of organization with an identifiable, hierarchical leadership structure... a dispersed community that share[s] ideology, goals, and information. They blend social support networks with radical political views and action. Because of their dispersed and loosely associated nature, they are difficult even to identify. They are very difficult to stop."
Where have I seen that before? Ah, yes -- in descriptions of the Occupy movement, or of Antifa -- by their adversaries!
There are legitimate issues (of human identity!) at stake in our current politics — many of them redolent of long-standing right/left quarrels over heredity and environment — of family, ethnicity, and tradition vs the “expert”-driven Brave New World of the Therapeutic State.
Meanwhile, as we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
Have we reached an impasse where liberalism must adopt McCarthyite rhetoric, ostensibly to preserve itself (from populism, of all things — in America, arguably a liberal phenomenon at its inception)? I think not.
I'm a liberal — but (rather than resorting to this crap) I’m as much of a populist as Bernie Sanders.
In terms of the larger picture — of an overall analysis (or a defense of liberalism) — the authors of this piece need to spend more time with Isaiah Berlin.
I encourage the commenter to spend some time reading Isaiah Berlin. I spent some time with him (far too little) and I've read his work. This, to take one example, might be of interest: https://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/lists/bibliography/bib111bLSE.pdf
"Populism cannot be a consciously minority movement. Whether falsely or truly, it stands for the majority of man, the majority of men who have somehow been damaged. By whom have they been damaged? They have been damaged by an elite, either economic, political or racial, some kind of secret or open enemy – capitalism, Jews and the rest of it. Whoever the enemy is, foreign or native, ethnic or social, does not much matter." His thinking on this matter informs the entire essay and is descriptive of the mentality of far-right activism. (Think about recent references to "the enemy within.")
Berlin was quite aware of the dangers of far-right thinking, as well as of far-left thinking. They share much in common.
The other comments indicate that the commenter briefly breezed through the piece and did not read it.
Tom Palmer: Can you now write a piece on the Far Left in terms of authoritarianism and Fascism, etc.?
Your whataboutism demands that I produce a work in the next ten minutes. I have not only written about the far-left, but I spent a lot of time working against their agenda. What a strange demand.
Can you point to a post by you or at the UnPopulist in general that equally dissects Kamala Harris and the Biden-Harris regime? The authoritarianism, the Fascism? Statism on Stilts? Your article is already in draft where you can substitute "Far Left" for "Far Right" and fill in the blanks. If you need information on the Climate Industrial Complex or the ongoing UN-IPCC-COP global/domestic takeover of energy, the master resource, I am on it!
This is more than a regular piece—it’s an entry from a major series we’re running:
https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/the-biden-administration-is-facilitating
Look forward to the series then. What areas are in the pipe? Any on Agenda 21/UN/climate? That is a huge threat to economic and personal liberty that involves global government with the US/EU in the lead. (Your organization had a climate conference where the speakers were all supportive of the activist climate agenda., btw.)
You've been warned to stop spamming. Please consider this yet another warning.
I read the piece twice. The first time, each sentence made me more livid than the last -- so I went back for an overview, to gauge whether I was mistaken in my initial impression.
Ultimately, what I found so off-putting was the tone and the approach. The difference from Berlin is the glaring lack of nuance throughout the piece. I'm sure you were aware of some (probably most!) of the factors that I mentioned, but you chose either to ignore them or to dismiss them with perfunctory disclaimers. This was a piece of blatant propaganda. Based on your response, you could surely do better than that! :-)
Congratulations on reading it. Try understanding it. You completely misunderstood how the far-right and populists generally identify enemies; as Berlin notes, the identity of the chosen group can vary from one populist movement to another. Those who demonize gay and lesbian and transgender people are not interested in distinguishing Andrew Sullivan from Judith Butler. As we note, “The participation of Jewish, LGBTQ people, and members of other minorities in National Conservatism, CPAC, and far-right parties illustrate the sometimes implausible mix of persons that can constitute far-right groups and hints at the ways in which they could violently dissolve if the far-right were to achieve their goals, as mentioned earlier in this FAQ. They seem convinced that when their movements—which are focused on demonizing other groups—come to power, they will be immune from such demonization.”
Let me add that Andrew Sullivan is not affiliated with the far-right, as you suggested. You seem very confused.
Where does that put a Yoram Hazony in your analysis? Merely fodder for the next (this time antisemitic) Night of the Long Knives? Is there a legitimate controversy between "family, ethnicity, and tradition vs the 'expert'-driven Brave New World of the Therapeutic State"?
(IMO, in terms of that disparity, you paint with too broad an ideological brush [that could easily splash onto an Andrew Sullivan] -- hence, my remark about perfunctory disclaimers.)
Do you condemn Bernie Sanders as a "far left populist"? Is there a legitimate critique (or grievance) against extreme concentrations of wealth (the origin of American populism)?
I suspect we're not all that far apart in many (or at least some) of our views. I know where I stand; I'm not "confused." I know that I need to watch my back, but I don't respond well to the "solidarity" offered by a protection racket.
Again, my problem with this piece was with its tone and approach, which I found simplistic and counterproductive.
Andrew Sullivan is a self-described conservative who incorporates liberal ideas into his conservative approach. He is not in any way remotely connected to the far-right. Hazony is an explicit tribalist who rejects the idea of liberal democracy and the American conservative tradition of constitutional equality. Consider this statement from his defense of tribalism, “the freedom of the individual is seen to depend on the freedom of his family, clan, tribe, and nation—that is, on the freedom and self-determination of the collective to which he is loyal, and whose pain and degradation he experiences as his own”; it was written in the context of the position of Jews in multi-religious states. They are outsiders, in Hazony’s view, everywhere but Israel. Contrast that with the position of George Washington, whose view Hazony contemptuously dismisses: “May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
The American tradition, which Hazony rejects root and branch in favor of tribalism, is well expressed by Washington:
From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790
To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island
[Newport, R.I., 18 August 1790]
“Gentlemen.
While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
Go: Washington”
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0135
You're preaching to the choir here. I'm familiar with those (wonderful) remarks by George Washngton.
As a Jewish American (a disciple of Judah Magnes, a "spiritual Zionist" and a believing Jew who accepts the narrative of Exile and Return, but who believes that political "self-determination" is inherently an INDIVIDUAL right), I consider Hazony a malevolent figure -- a very dangerous person.
He's obviously no fan of pluralism (nor of American aspirations) -- but that doesn't make him antisemitic. We Jews have been embroiled in this dispute since the days of the Maccabees vs the Hellenists, up through the excommunication of Spinoza. It ain't over yet.
PS: I now realize that you're a libertarian. Full disclosure: FWIW, I'm something of an "anarcho-centrist," midway between the Cato Institute and Emma Goldman (spiritually, an agnostic monotheist with a cautionary Buddhism regarding the ego [hence, wary of regarding Ownership as the fulcrum of the Self]). I've obviously been burned many times by "woke" elements on the left, but occasionally also by those on the libertarian (transactional) right who refuse to recognize the difference between love and prostitution.
In any event, I greatly appreciate the time and trouble you've taken in responding to my comments!
This is a really ridiculous comment.
The idea that someone like Hazony can't be far right, or aligned with the far right, because he is Jewish is a relic from a prior discourse era where, in their adorably naive cluelessness, some thought that one's identity characteristics precluded certain ideological affiliations. Unfortunately for this silly talking point, the leader of the Proud Boys was Hispanic, Nick Fuentes is partially of Mexican ancestry, and Candace Owens has indulged white supremacist ideas. There is nothing alarming about any of that—because, psychologically, what a person finds ideologically compelling can override whatever otherwise undesirable implications, or associations, or even contradictions, that come with that endorsing that ideology.
But it's also a misunderstanding of what the authors of the FAQ claimed. A more careful reader wouldn't have made the mistake you made. The subsection question itself is a clue: "Why is antisemitism so strongly tied to the far right?" That doesn't mean every far rightist is an antisemite, or that anyone who peddles in far right ideology is "a shill for antisemitism." Imagine thinking that the authors precluded even the possibility of hardcore Israeli nationalism counting as far right simply because, in other manifestations of far right ideology, antisemitism is present. It's just not entailed. Hazony's NatCon movement is propping up an ideology that in many of its iterations is quite hospitable to antisemitism—that's undeniable.
Do you think Netanyahu can't be categorized as far right because he is Israel's head of state? Absurd.
Also, you missed this from the authors:
"The participation of Jewish, LGBTQ people, and members of other minorities in National Conservatism, CPAC, and far-right parties illustrates the sometimes implausible mix of persons that can constitute far-right groups and hint at the ways in which they could violently dissolve if the far right were to achieve their goals, as mentioned earlier in this FAQ. They seem convinced that when their movements—which are focused on demonizing other groups—come to power, they will be immune from such demonization."
Regarding the above comment, Berny, I'm still waiting for your response to my earlier reply.
You've accused me of taking positions (or of having opinions) vastly different from (and in some cases even diametrically opposed to) those I've actually expressed. Your characterizations of my critique verge on personal insult ("ridiculous," "silly"); you cherry-pick or extrapolate falsely from one or another detail when you think you've spotted a "gotcha," and thereby misrepresent my overall point(s), or simply leave it unaddressed; and your response is utterly lacking in nuance (like the article itself) or even in a recognition of what my views (as explicitly stated) actually are. Your attitude seems to be that of an apparatchik rather than of a good-faith interlocutor, while I've taken pains to be the latter. I don't appreciate being either belittled or smeared.
Regarding Hazony, I've even been able to reach some measure of mutual understanding with (one of) the article's author(s) himself. Please see the entire comment (referenced in my reply) that begins, "You're preaching to the choir" -- which had already been posted prior to your own remarks (demonstrating how irrelevant they are to my actual views).
Meanwhile, as for your "UnPopulist" moniker: I'd be very interested in your view on the possibilities for a liberal populism -- particularly for the legitimacy of a movement opposed to extreme concentrations of wealth. You've defined "populism" so as to include an exclusionary "poison pill" that guarantees it will always be a pejorative term. (Conversely, I view any antisemitism or racism in late 19th Century American populism as a bug, not a feature. [As you might be aware, this remains a matter of some controversy among historians.])
I appreciate your effort to combat authoritarianism, and your openness to observations from the Social Democratic "left" to the libertarian "right" -- but I'd urge you to avoid, in your zeal, policing a dogma (or orthodoxy) of your own!
On that note, I'll turn you over to my "alternative KKK": Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka. ;-)
If you've read my most recent comment about Hazony -- the one that begins, "You're preaching to the choir" ("a malevolent figure, a very dangerous person"), along with my other comments in this thread -- it should be clear that I'm not making excuses for Hazony or his ideology, and I certainly NEVER claimed that "he can't be far right"!
However, he's also symptomatic of a particular strain in Jewish history (one to which I obviously DON'T subscribe) -- and this disparity involves a dispute among Jews that was ongoing for 1,000+ years before there was ever an Estates-General, with the advent of a "left" and "right." (And, again, this does NOT excuse Hazony's politics; it merely puts them in perspective, where he and I are nonetheless ALSO on opposite sides!)
As for your ending quote? It's the very basis for my asking, "Where does that put a Yoram Hazony in your analysis? Merely fodder for the next (this time antisemitic) Night of the Long Knives?" I wouldn't want to have to count on that to bring him down, and fear of that prospect is not likely to deter him now.
Of course, we're also talking about a certain strain (and reality) in human history, and in that context, we're at an ominous juncture in our evolution as a species, and in our politics. To wit: "There are legitimate issues (of human identity!) at stake in our current [impasse] — many of them redolent of long-standing right/left quarrels over heredity vs environment — of family, ethnicity, and tradition vs the 'expert'-driven Brave New World of the Therapeutic State."
In that context, the Far Right might be (however unfortunately and unscrupulously) exploiting some very legitimate concerns. That sort of nuanced understanding (beyond perfunctory dismissals and disclaimers) was utterly lacking in this piece.
My objection, therefore, was to the article's tone and polemical approach (as an "FAQ," of all things), which I found simplistic and counterproductive. Liberalism (and pluralism) are indeed in a pickle -- all the more reason to be especially wary of mirroring fascism's most unsavory, suspicion-fueled techniques. I think we can do better, but not if we operate on the premise that "If it bleeds, it leads."
Perhaps I should simply avoid such tabloid-flavored confections, and stick to reading Yascha Mounk. ;-)
PS: I've always been a little miffed by the title of this blog. I believe that a liberal populism is possible -- and is far from an oxymoron. Indeed, it might be the only way out of the mess we're in. (As I've also inquired on this thread: "Is there a legitimate critique [or grievance] against extreme concentrations of wealth [the origin of American populism]?")
"Populism" (like "Zionism") can evoke vastly divergent implications and responses, depending on how (narrowly or broadly) one defines the term.
Finally, my perspective (on "the 'expert'-driven Brave New World of the Therapeutic State") is informed by that other "KKK": Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka. ;-)
This is wonderful satire, reminiscent of the National Lampoon in 1978-1980 when Doug Kenney and Henry Miller were in charge.
In reality, the "Far Right" - meaning the center - is:
* Unprecedented prosecution of political opponents and their attorneys
* Mass government-controlled censorship programs
* Mass migration that no citizen ever voted for
* Endless war and funding of the Defense-Industrial Complex.
Did I miss anything?
You missed everything, yes.
Just like last time, you posted this reply a few minutes after we published the piece itself. Which means you didn't read it. We just dropped a deeply-researched resource on what the far right is and you wave it all away to bring up your reactionary talking points unsolicited.
We require that comments under our posts clear a threshold of reasonableness and good-faith. Please try to do better next time.
Thank you for the candor. I am a speed-reader. Your references to T. Robinson and other anti-mass migration activists make clear your agenda, correct? Unchecked mass migration that no citizen in the West voted for? TY!
The Climate Industrial Complex
..."is against"... my apologies.
Invoking—and updating—Dril for the purposes of our comment section here: You do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to" the AfD.