“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 connection 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.
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 connection 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.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
2 comments:
Yes Karl. You are so? (right - no, correct -nooo) How these words have become de-valued. You write the truth in my opinion.
Yesteryear's liberals - a term that emerged with the Enlightenment in the 18th century - are today's rightists. We haven't changed all that much, but the goalposts have shifted a great deal.
Post a Comment