Freddy Purcell –
As the far-right continues to feel like a powerful political force and discussions on how to counteract far-right views seem more common, I wanted to investigate what an effective response to the far-right involves. This topic is pertinent on an international scale, as more moderate political parties must find methods to curtail the popularity of far-right groups and their radical views. However, on a local level this issue has particular relevance on the back of Callum Downes’ recent talk and the revealing of Islamophobic views espoused by a speaker hosted by Exeter University’s Freedom Society. In this context, I therefore wanted to examine a specific aspect of strategy that can be used to counteract the far-right, the importance of widening the scope of discussion beyond topics on the far-right agenda, at both a local and national level. I don’t think this idea forms a complete strategy to counter radical beliefs by any means, but I do think it is an essential element of one.
The far-right is an umbrella term for right-wing groups on the extreme end of the political spectrum that have nativism and authoritarianism at their core. The radical right is one ideology under this umbrella and is distinguished by its beliefs around culturally distinguishing between “native” and “non-native” people, working within the democratic system, and adopting some level of liberal beliefs. The latter two ideals make the radical right the more socially acceptable face of far-right ideology and account for their increasing presence within US and European politics. This acceptability makes radical right parties a clear threat to moderate parties. In the most recent UK election, as they won 5 seats and 14.3% of the vote share, there was plenty of discussion about how the other political parties would deal with Reform’s surge in popularity. As Labour now seeks nearly £400m to drive for the deportation of undocumented migrants and a law to deny citizenship to refugees that enter the country dangerously, the answer appears to be to try and play Reform’s game. This is however, both a damaging and losing game.
Writing in the Guardian, Owen Jones recently pointed out that Labour’s current tactic has been commonplace in recent UK politics and across Europe. However, it never works because there is a lack of authenticity apparent when moderate parties bend to the narrative set by the far right. This inauthenticity means that efforts to one up the far-right appear hollow and therefore don’t prevent the voters from choosing more radical parties. More importantly however, it is greatly damaging to the nation as a whole because the centre of focus increasingly shifts to issues on the far-right agenda, particularly immigration, legitimising this agenda in the process. We can see the impact this can have as Labour’s current immigration policy not only makes the UK more hostile to migrants, but also takes resources away from important sectors like healthcare. It is therefore a damaging performance to attempt to combat the radical right with radical right policies. Instead, I believe it would be far more effective to offer an alternative to the radical right’s focus on immigration, showing how progress can be made by focussing on other areas.
Interestingly, there is some evidence for the effectiveness of this point in Denmark, a country that recently witnessed the rapid decline of its far-right party, the DPP. A key reason for this decline is that the DPP were shown to be out of touch on climate and security issues, demonstrating the importance of widening the scope of discussion beyond key far-right narratives. Another reason for the success of the moderate Danish government was that they addressed the concerns of far-right voters on immigration with more moderate policies, avoiding the trap of fighting radical right with radical right. However, it is telling that even without mirroring the far-right in terms of policy, comments made in the summer about the integration of immigrants by the Danish spokesperson on immigration, Frederik Vad, imply that Danish moderates haven’t completely avoided being drawn into the frame of reference of the far-right. This is because a key part of radical right ideology is the belief that immigration causes destructive social tension, so framing concerns about immigration through integration concedes ground to the far-right. I therefore suggest that it is essential to promote discussion that avoids viewing immigration within the narrow scope of the far-right, while also drawing attention to other issues that the far-right prioritises less.
I will now move from the national to local level of the far-right. Last week the Exeter student paper, Exeposé, published an article based on an anonymously submitted recording that reveals Islamophobic comments being made by a speaker at a Freedom Society talk in October. The talk was entitled “Two Tier Policing: Injustice Unveiled”, appearing to centre around the summer riots. However, the talk clearly involved acutely racist and misinformed comments about Muslims, including the idea that Muslim immigrants have relentlessly attacked the white English population through terrorism, street violence, and grooming gangs. Amongst these comments, there is also a clear narrative of ethnic displacement theory, as the speaker claimed that White English people are “being genocided”. From these comments, there is evidence of the typical radical right narrative of immigrants, particularly Muslims, as being damaging to the nation through the social issues they allegedly bring. The language of the speaker, in referring to Muslims as “they” in comparison to the use of “us” for White English people, also follows the radical right ideology of distinguishing between ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ people on cultural lines.
As an initial response and in response to pressure from an inter-society petition, the Student Guild has suspended certain Freedom Society events, promised to investigate Islamophobia in the University, and decided to review its safeguarding policy on speeches given in societies. The Guild has said it can only take limited action regarding the speaker’s behaviour as they are not a member of the Guild as a University of Law student. Freedom Society have also issued a statement on Instagram to say that they are working with the Guild to handle any concerns and have reviewed their policy on risk assessment and speaker policy. Despite all this positive action, it is unlikely that these measures will be sufficient in preventing radical right rhetoric from having a presence at Exeter University. Indeed, as the government looks to implement a new Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act that proposes fines for universities failing to uphold freedom of speech, the likelihood that a challenge to prejudicial speech will be upheld appears to be diminishing. The question therefore becomes how to counter radical right rhetoric when it isn’t legally condemned.
Since on the national level of politics it’s proved costly to be drawn into the frame of reference of the radical right, I think that any long-term response on a local/individual level cannot lose sight of the bigger picture. Challenging institutions to correctly apply the rules they lay down and to correct those rules when they provide loopholes to perpetrators of discrimination is essential. The success of the student petition against Freedom Society is proof that this can be effective as it prompted more serious measures from the Guild. Debunking damaging false claims when they occur is an equally important countermeasure. However, the counterweight to radical rhetoric must be far richer or we risk the only prominent discourse being about what should count as a valid expression of free speech and the issues that the radical right wants to discuss. The views of the radical right need to be engaged with in a positive way, in the sense of making a constructive case that counters their views. In response to the sort of comments made by the speaker hosted by Freedom Society, direct challenges are essential, but I also think it is necessary to discuss the positive impact of immigration on the country, the experiences of immigrants and their culture, alternative explanations for issues in the country, and so on. This sort of positive engagement can take place without direct reference to radical right views, and thus avoids the issue of legitimising these views or giving them more air time. There are also numerous additional benefits.
By widening the scope of relevant discussions beyond claims made by the far-right and direct challenges, the simplistic frame of reference that the radical right thrives on is challenged. This has the beneficial effect of showing alternative solutions to the country’s issues outside of the typical far-right scapegoat of immigrants, something I have argued is particularly relevant on a political level. I also think there is a further epistemic point to be made on the limited effectiveness of direct confrontation alone. There is a phenomenon of evidential preemption where if a speaker makes a claim, any subsequent counterclaim is made less surprising, and therefore has a lessened impact on the hearer (Begby, 2021). This lessened impact means that the hearer is less likely to be persuaded by the counterargument. Simple repeated points are particularly effective under this principle. The radical right makes use of this principle by narrowing discussion to a promise that the problems of a country can primarily be solved by harsh immigration laws, a simple message that is easily remembered and repeated. To counter evidential preemption, it therefore proves ineffective to only make a simple counter claim that some people will be desensitised to. Instead, providing a broad range of claims that indirectly counters the radical right has a greater ability to make a novel impact on the hearer, and so has a greater chance to be persuasive. The narrow scope of ideas that the radical right wants to engage on must therefore be widened if there is ever going to be any enduring response to its rhetoric.
Bibliography
Begby, E (2021), ‘Evidential Preemption’, Philosophy of Phenomenological Research, Vol. 102, Iss.3, pp.515-530. Accessed at: https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12654.