Contrary to a time-honoured internet adage,
I almost always read the comments on my articles. Even if I don’t join
in very often (I figure I’ve already had my say) I do note what readers
tell me. And one of the things that comes up pretty frequently when I
write about the far right, or even regular conservatives, is the
proposition that we should just ignore them rather than drawing
attention to their activities.
Those commenters aren’t alone. There’s a current of punditry which concurs that the far right, in particular, only benefits from the attention that reporters give them. Related arguments include the idea that the lunatic fringe is a distraction from more serious problems, that militant opposition to the far right is as bad as what it’s opposing, and even that drawing attention to far right links and associations somehow infringes on people’s free speech rights.
Believe me, I have considered all of this, and I have come to the conclusion that it is at best bunk, and at worst a dangerous concession to radical reactionaries.
The first thing to understand is that while the far right strategically uses public events and appearances in order to try to legitimise their positions, they are perfectly happy at other times for their ideas, organising, and associations to go unnoticed, and more importantly unopposed, by the broader public.
At far right conferences in the United States, if journalists are allowed in, they are frequently restricted from photographing or otherwise identifying participants. Many radical right and fascist organisers habitually take pains to deny their real views and even their identities. They find ways to hide in plain sight, using alibis like “irony” to obscure the propagation of their ideas and symbols.
The far right craft deliberate strategies to infiltrate seemingly less radical events, and “mainstream” conservatives – wittingly or not – frequently provide them with cover.
And mainstream figures who have taken up far right ideas, or developed links with far right organisations, don’t like to be called on it either. In my last column, I detailed how Mark Latham’s deal with Rebel Media put him in some extremely dubious company.
He vented his discomfort at this scrutiny on Twitter, accusing me of being an enemy of free speech. The cries of “free speech” when faced with criticism is something we find repeated often on the far right. But mostly Latham exhibited the normal response of putatively “mainstream” figures who are attracted to the audience and the notoriety that radical right outlets can bring, but who do not wish to be accountable for those associations.
The cementing of links between mainstream figures and the radical right points to the key danger they present. When people proffer the solution of not drawing attention to the far right, they frequently have a picture in mind of a radical fringe group with no hope of seizing state power.
You would think that the presence in the White House of figures who have deep and extensive links to the “alt right” and other, organised elements of the far right would put paid to this view, but it seems to persist.
But we can put aside the details of the Trump administration’s staffing arrangements for now, and point out that the far right don’t need to capture state power in order to wield an outsized influence.
The recent history of Australian immigration policy demonstrates how an issue which was first politicised by far right groups has gradually led to a brutal system of arbitrary offshore detention that is now established as a matter of bipartisan common sense. Pauline Hanson has recently been boasting about the Liberals lifting still more of her ideas, and it’s hard to say she’s wrong. And mainstream politicians have been happy to appear on antisemtic alt right podcasts, even if they later deny understanding the white nationalist roots of the program.
The paranoid conspiracy theory which goes by the shorthand “cultural Marxism” was cooked up by far right ideologues who wanted to move their ideological crusade onto the field of culture. But it is now a common conservative currency. On the white supremacist far right, it is seen as a handmaiden to “white genocide”, while among mainstream Australian conservatives, and even journalists, it’s associated with “safe schools” programs, feminism, and the ABC.
Showing how these dynamics work, and understanding the ideas that underpin them, is essential to understanding the rightward drift of many policies, and for progressives, it’s important in challenging that drift.
More fundamentally, it’s crucial for journalists to help us understand the society we live in, and how far right ideas so easily, and so often, gain a foothold in mainstream political discourse. If there isn’t a clear line between mainstream conservatism and the far right, it’s a journalist’s responsibility to point that out.
Given the recent history of far right violence and terror, it’s not a stretch to call it a matter of life and death.
Those commenters aren’t alone. There’s a current of punditry which concurs that the far right, in particular, only benefits from the attention that reporters give them. Related arguments include the idea that the lunatic fringe is a distraction from more serious problems, that militant opposition to the far right is as bad as what it’s opposing, and even that drawing attention to far right links and associations somehow infringes on people’s free speech rights.
Believe me, I have considered all of this, and I have come to the conclusion that it is at best bunk, and at worst a dangerous concession to radical reactionaries.
The first thing to understand is that while the far right strategically uses public events and appearances in order to try to legitimise their positions, they are perfectly happy at other times for their ideas, organising, and associations to go unnoticed, and more importantly unopposed, by the broader public.
At far right conferences in the United States, if journalists are allowed in, they are frequently restricted from photographing or otherwise identifying participants. Many radical right and fascist organisers habitually take pains to deny their real views and even their identities. They find ways to hide in plain sight, using alibis like “irony” to obscure the propagation of their ideas and symbols.
The far right craft deliberate strategies to infiltrate seemingly less radical events, and “mainstream” conservatives – wittingly or not – frequently provide them with cover.
And mainstream figures who have taken up far right ideas, or developed links with far right organisations, don’t like to be called on it either. In my last column, I detailed how Mark Latham’s deal with Rebel Media put him in some extremely dubious company.
He vented his discomfort at this scrutiny on Twitter, accusing me of being an enemy of free speech. The cries of “free speech” when faced with criticism is something we find repeated often on the far right. But mostly Latham exhibited the normal response of putatively “mainstream” figures who are attracted to the audience and the notoriety that radical right outlets can bring, but who do not wish to be accountable for those associations.
The cementing of links between mainstream figures and the radical right points to the key danger they present. When people proffer the solution of not drawing attention to the far right, they frequently have a picture in mind of a radical fringe group with no hope of seizing state power.
You would think that the presence in the White House of figures who have deep and extensive links to the “alt right” and other, organised elements of the far right would put paid to this view, but it seems to persist.
But we can put aside the details of the Trump administration’s staffing arrangements for now, and point out that the far right don’t need to capture state power in order to wield an outsized influence.
The recent history of Australian immigration policy demonstrates how an issue which was first politicised by far right groups has gradually led to a brutal system of arbitrary offshore detention that is now established as a matter of bipartisan common sense. Pauline Hanson has recently been boasting about the Liberals lifting still more of her ideas, and it’s hard to say she’s wrong. And mainstream politicians have been happy to appear on antisemtic alt right podcasts, even if they later deny understanding the white nationalist roots of the program.
The paranoid conspiracy theory which goes by the shorthand “cultural Marxism” was cooked up by far right ideologues who wanted to move their ideological crusade onto the field of culture. But it is now a common conservative currency. On the white supremacist far right, it is seen as a handmaiden to “white genocide”, while among mainstream Australian conservatives, and even journalists, it’s associated with “safe schools” programs, feminism, and the ABC.
Showing how these dynamics work, and understanding the ideas that underpin them, is essential to understanding the rightward drift of many policies, and for progressives, it’s important in challenging that drift.
More fundamentally, it’s crucial for journalists to help us understand the society we live in, and how far right ideas so easily, and so often, gain a foothold in mainstream political discourse. If there isn’t a clear line between mainstream conservatism and the far right, it’s a journalist’s responsibility to point that out.
Given the recent history of far right violence and terror, it’s not a stretch to call it a matter of life and death.
No comments:
Post a Comment