Beyond alt-right: why we must engage with populism

As many as 150,000 people attended the Unite the Kingdom march in London last month. Many outlets described it as a far-right, anti-immigration gathering. The organisers and the attendees themselves would accept the anti-immigration tag, although most of them want to limit immigration, not end it altogether. But they would challenge the alt-right label. Yet if we consider the political forces which motivated the march - a revived nationalism and contempt for concepts of national shame, scepticism about liberal immigration policies and multiculturalism, and distrust of establishment institutions – we find a strong correspondence between these and what “alt-right” typically designates.

So why do so many Unite the Kingdom protesters reject the “alt-right” label? Because it is a label that often functions to discredit and dismiss. The phrase alt-right is only ever used in one of two ways: to discredit the grievances of people who are thought to be insensible, or else it is uttered 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.

Indeed, the phrase alt-right, having been derived from "alternative right," suggests a political camp that is beyond the pale and thus unworthy of a seat at the discussion table. 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.

So many of us in Britain refuse to take the New Right seriously. Partly, we refuse because the New Right challenges our broadly liberal vision of progress, which many 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 a politics of grievance.

With regards to the first reservation, let me say the following. In the last fifty years, mature political discussion in the UK has been largely framed by liberalism. In simplified form, the liberal settlement holds that government’s role is to prepare conditions that best allow individuals to seek their own success, and that political progress involves bestowing the chance at “the good life” to an ever-greater number of people. This settlement has come under attack in the past decade, most successfully by Nigel Farage, but still dominates polite political conversation.

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 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.

While this justification is understandable, it is entirely erroneous. The error lies in the unspoken and unexamined conviction that the good things in life or in politics are ultimately consistent with one another. So, the reasoning goes: whatsoever contradicts that which we know to be good must itself be evil. In this view, those who dissent from orthodox ideas of virtue are at best ignorant. At worst, they are villains.

To demonstrate this error, let us consider two ends which I believe many readers will think desirable. These are equality and diversity. These two ends are irreconcilable; between them there is a contradiction which simply cannot be resolved, no matter how much resources and planning we commit to the task. The more equal we are, the less diverse we will be.

Consider, for example, how in the last thirty years modernising economies have lifted billions out of poverty, and migration into developed countries has given millions opportunities that they never would have had otherwise. These trends have certainly made the world more equal by giving a greater number of people the economic opportunities that were heretofore available only to those born in rich countries.

On the other hand, these same trends have made the world far less diverse. As non-Western countries have adopted Western practices and institutions 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 the cultures of their new and old homes. These bridges then work to pull the cultures closer together, primarily by exporting Anglophone norms and ideas to other countries.

The point is that those who disagree with us are not to be dismissed as fools or confronted as villains, even if what they demand contradicts our assumptions about what constitutes goodness and virtue. That is because, as we have seen, it is all too easily possible for two good things to be incompatible with one another.

In terms of the New Right, I believe national sovereignty and self-determination and the preservation or re-establishment of their respective communities' culture and identity are the primary motives of the adherents to this new political force. 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 and even noble 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 of us also fear that the politics of the New Right is a politics of grievance which should never have been allowed a foothold, and that now it has found its footing it will drag us down along with our politics. In one sense, it is now too late to worry about this since the New Right is now 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.

Alongside the legitimate grievances of the New Right, they are many excesses to be found. The only effective and sustainable way of fighting back against these excesses is to address the legitimate grievances of these supporters in a framework which avoids the excesses of the New Right. As a first and necessary step in this direction, we must welcome a greater range of opinions in non-New Right spaces. It is too often the case that people with unfashionable ideas on sensitive topics are derided and ostracised. Instead, people should be allowed to freely discuss their opinions without one or the other side creating the false and pernicious impression that the fate of the country, or indeed of the world, will be decided by the outcome of the discussion.

It is instructive to consider the case of James Damore, a Google engineer who in 2017 wrote a memo arguing that some efforts to promote gender diversity at the company were misguided. The memo caused a backlash from his colleagues, with some saying that it made them feel unsafe at work. Damore was promptly fired from Google. yet, there is absolutely no trace of any threatening language in the memo. Nor is there any evidence that the author does not want women to have the same opportunities as men, in fact the author proposes some measures to promote gender diversity at Google. The only controversial claim is that the disproportionate representation of men in the tech industry can be partially explained by differences in the interests of the sexes, and how those impact career choices.

After the memo's release and Damore’s firing, the issue received a great deal of media attention, and he gave some interviews. His first two interviews were given to right-wing ultranationalist platforms. Some might take that to have been a mask-off moment for Damore. But I present to your consideration a much likelier explanation: that he turned to those who would embrace him after the undeserved scorn which he received from his erstwhile colleagues and peers.

After the memo's release and Damore’s firing, the issue received a great deal of media attention, and he gave some interviews. His first two interviews were given to right-wing ultranationalist platforms. Some might take that to have been a mask-off moment for Damore. But I present to your consideration a much likelier explanation: that he turned to those who would embrace him after the undeserved scorn which he received from his erstwhile colleagues and peers.