Beyond alt-right: why we must engage with populism

Last month, as many as 150,000 people attended the Unite the Kingdom march in central London. Most outlets described it as a far-right, anti-immigration gathering. The organisers, and many of the attendees accept this “anti-immigration” tag, though many of them seek to merely limit immigration, not end it altogether. However, what they would challenge is the “alt-right” label.

And yet, if we consider the political forces motivating this march - revived nationalism, contempt for national shame, scepticism of immigration and multiculturalism, and distrust of elite institutions – we find a strong correspondence between them and what the “alt-right” has come to mean.

Why, then, do so many Unite the Kingdom protesters reject this label? Because “alt-right” has become less of a description than a dismissal. The phrase is only ever used in one of two ways: to discredit the grievances of people seen as insensible, or analysed in lecture halls and highbrow podcasts as the host or lecturer wonders how these grievances came about and how we can get rid of them without genuinely addressing them.

Since what was once alternative is now mainstream, and since the contemptuous label of alt-right has served neither to placate nor subdue the supporters of right-wing populism, it would be more appropriate to refer to this movement as the New Right.

Across Britain, many refuse to take the New Right seriously. Partly, because it threatens our broadly liberal vision of progress, which we once believed was shared by all political participants in the UK. And partly, we refuse because we fear, rightly, that it could shatter our political traditions and replace them with grievance politics.

In the last fifty years, mature political conversation in the UK has been largely defined by a liberal consensus: that the government’s role is to create conditions for individuals to pursue their own success, and that political progress means extending that freedom to an ever-greater number of people. Though this settlement has come under attack in the past decade - most successfully by Nigel Farage and Brexit – it still dominates our assumption of what reasonable politics looks like.

So deep-seated is our belief in the liberal world view that even as we watch its assumptions contradicted and its promises unfulfilled across the globe, we cling to its last vestiges. We do so for an understandable reason, namely because we believe that what the liberal tradition urges us to accomplish – to continually expand individuals’ agency over their own lives – is the ultimate expression of political good. It then seems to follow that any agenda that contradicts it is wrong and must be opposed.

But this is entirely erroneous. The liberal worldview rests on an unexamined conviction that all good things in life are consistent with one another. So, anything contradicting a good must therefore be evil. Those who dissent from orthodox ideas of virtue become, at best, ignorant, and at worst, villains.

To demonstrate this error, consider two ideals most readers hold dear: equality and diversity. These two ends are both noble, but not reconcilable; between them there is a contradiction which simply cannot be resolved. The more equal a society becomes, the less diverse it we will be, and vice versa.

Globalisation offers proof. Over the last three decades, modernising economies and migration have lifted billions out of poverty – a triumph of equality. Yet, the same process that has provided these economic opportunities has diminished cultural diversity. As non-Western societies have adopted Western norms in the hopes of growing their economies, they have left behind many of their own customs and traditions. The large diasporas living in Anglophone countries build a bridge between their new cultures and their old homes. These bridges pull the two traditions closer together, primarily by exporting Anglophone ideas to their countries of origin.

This contradiction does not mean that equality or diversity are wrong. It simply shows that political goods can conflict, and those of us who disagree are not to be dismissed as fools or confronted as villains. The same logic applies to the New Right, which seeks sovereignty, self-determination, and cultural preservation. These are legitimate ends, but ones that are diametrically opposed to the instincts and preferred goals of liberal progressives. Liberal progressivism is itself driven by legitimate ends. But in its universalism, it erodes local and national identities, and in its egalitarianism it impinges upon national self-government, and it wears down local communities.

Some liberals also fear that the politics of the New Right will legitimise its worst impulses – its conspirational thinking, xenophobia, and authoritarian streak. In one sense, it is now too late to worry about this since the movement has become mainstream and no longer operates at the fringes. But there is still the question of how we might engage with this new political force such that its destructive capacity is minimised. 

The only effective and sustainable way of curbing the New Right’s excesses is by confronting its grievances directly and on equal ground. As a first and necessary step in this direction, we must widen the space for dissenting voices in non-New Right circles. It is too often the case that people with unpopular opinions are derided and ostracised. Instead, people should be allowed to freely discuss their opinions without being under the false and pernicious impression that the fate of the country, or the world, will be decided by the outcome of their discussion. 

The case of James Damore, a Google engineer fired in 2017 after writing a memo about gender representation in tech, illustrates this point. His memo received backlash from his colleagues, with some saying that it made them feel unsafe at work. However, it contained no trace of threats, slurs, or claims that women should not have the same opportunities as men. It only argued – controversially - that biological differences between the sexes may explain gender disparities in the tech field. 

Damore’s first interviews after the memo release were with far-right ultranationalist platforms. Some might take that to have been a mask-off moment for Damore. But I believe that he turned to outlets who would embrace him after the undeserved scorn he received from his erstwhile colleagues and peers. 

The lesson is not that Damore was right. It is that when mainstream spaces expel heterodox ideas, fringe ones will embrace them. 

The New Right’s rise contains both legitimate grievances and dangerous distortions. To limit the latter, we must engage the former. This starts by fulfilling our duty to listen and to have difficult conversations with people who have different hopes for the future. These exchanges will one day result in a compromise which provides a more deliberate, thoughtful, and open-minded political sphere.