Contradictions in the Contemporary Far Right

Is society made up of atomized individuals or large tribes?

"Trump" by Cowgirl111 is marked with CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Although the far left is notoriously sectarian and fractious, at a deep level its members tend to be in agreement. They are moved by a vision of a society that is reoganized on egalitarian principles, with goods allocated by magic instead of markets. Historical injustices will be removed. Although members of the far left often draw a veil over it, most would probably agree that there would be a transitional period, most likely involving a violent revolution and some kind of dictatorship.

There is an interesting contrast with the far right. Its members are often willing to find common ground, even though they disagree on how society should be organized. This makes it hard for observers to see the cracks. We will explore them in this post.

I think there are three important sub-currents in the far right. The one that seems to be in ascendence at the moment is anarcho-capitalism (A). It takes ultra-liberalism into toxic territory by proposing a hedgehog-like vision of society based purely on individual freedom, with no room for solidarity for the weak or unfortunate. Anti-immigration views in this strand often stress the alleged misuse of the welfare state by newcomers.

Donald Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon lobbied for an anarcho-capitalist view when he proposed the “deconstruction of the administrative state” in 2016. This approach often resonates with self-employed people, who see the money they have to give to the government in their bank accounts first.

A second sub-current in the far right is reactionary traditionalism (B). These people want to turn the clock back to a golden age, when hierarchies were unquestioned. This approach often resonates with deeply religious people, who feel that modern society is changing too fast. Anti-immigrant attitudes in this strand are often nativist.

The third sub-current combines the worst element of the left (the revolutionary tradition) with the worst element of the right (nationalism) (C). Fascism is a good example of this approach. It appeals to people who feel that their lives are meaningless, as Eric Hoffer memorably taught us. It opposes minorities for allegedly not being true members of the nation.

A little reflection should show that A and C are basically incompatible. Believers in A see society as being made up of atomized individuals, while believers in C are much more interested in tribal identities. Believers in B can go either way. This gives us two basic combinations, AB and BC.

An AB / BC model can help us come to a deeper understanding of the far right. Let’s take Spanish dictator Francisco Franco as an example. He was a Catholic traditionalist (B). Although other traditionalists like the Carlists backed his coup attempt in 1936, they would never have been strong enough by themselves. He accepted the support of Italian and German fascists, as well as homegrown fascists from Phalanx (Falange) (C). The BC uprising was successful, as we all know, turning Franco into a murderous warlord.

As the Spanish Civil War came to an end and World War II started, Franco decided to keep Spain out of the Axis. Although he paid lip-service to the C elements in his alliance throughout his life, he tried to keep the B elements firmly in charge. After World War II ended, he repositioned himself as a Cold War anti-communist, signing a deal with the US in 1953. This allowed him to mutate his dictatorship into an AB format, with a new emphasis on economic liberalization.

Just as Franco moved from BC to AB in the 20th century, Trump went in the other direction in the 21st. He started off his strange political career as an example of A, but found support from members of B, who felt their identities were under threat. Mike Pence, his pick for vice-president, famously described himself as “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,” setting the scene for an AB alliance.

We still don’t have the full story of what went on behind the scenes before the storming of the Capitol on 6 January 2021. The investigation is centring on the role of members of C, like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. It interesting that one of the slogans the mob changed - “Hang Mike Pence” - implied that the insurgents were interested in an AC alliance, which purged the B elements. It is difficult to see how this would have worked in practice.

Some members of the Republican Party, most notably Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, have provided cover for the assault on liberal democracy. Others, most notably Pence, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, have tried to hold the course with the B elements of conservatism and have condemned the C elements. Combining their traditionalism with institutionalism means that they should be classified as mainstream conservatives rather than members of the far right.

We can use this approach to classify far-right politics elsewhere. For example, let’s look at Spain, where I live. The Catalan nationalist movement is based around a fear of immigration diluting the Catalan language and culture. The independence movement edged closer into C during 2015 to 2017, but luckily its BC assault on liberal democracy stopped just short of full-blown fascism. Its leaders later claimed to have been bluffing.

A far-right party called Vox emerged to combat Catalan nationalism. It combines a low-tax, low-regulation approach (A) with a defence of bullfighting and traditional Catholic values (B). Although Vox is a Trump-like AB force, it has an undertow of C. For example, it invited Hungarian nationalist leader Viktor Orbán to Madrid in January. His democratic backsliding should be seen as a slower version of C. It is packaged as anti-globalism rather than outright fascism.

Thinking hard about the incompatibility of A and C can provide us with a clue about how to combat the far right as it inches into the mainstream. Its members will often try to present a united front while disagreeing on fairly fundamental issues about how to organize society. If we know where these fault lines lie, how can defenders of the open society exploit them? The comments are open. See you next week!

Further Reading

How Democracy Ends by David Runciman

The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton

The Far Right Today by Cas Mudde

The Tribalization of Europe by Marlene Wind

What is Populism? by Jan-Werner Müller

Sharpen Your Axe is a project to develop a community who want to think critically about the media, conspiracy theories and current affairs without getting conned by gurus selling fringe views. Please subscribe to get this content in your inbox every week. Shares on social media are appreciated! If this is the first post you have seen, I recommend starting with the first-anniversary post, which includes links to a free book.

Opinions expressed on Substack and Twitter are those of Rupert Cocke as an individual and do not reflect the opinions or views of the organization where he works or its subsidiaries.