There’s this idea that won’t go away — that the reason the far right¹ are rising in many countries is because people are racist.

It’s Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ all over again, echoed by politicians and commentators from across the spectrum.²

But if we think this way, we’re missing two things: demand and supply.

A few weeks back I made a quick video on this. And for those of you who prefer the written word, I expand on the ideas — and include some proposals — in the piece below.

Let’s go.

Demand

What is the actual demand for ‘far right’ policies, i.e. those that end up closing borders or discriminating against minorities?

It’s that familiar cocktail of related but distinct concerns that we’re seeing across the workers of the Western world:

1. Overlooked and devalued. A loss of voice and status. “We feel like what we say doesn’t matter”.
2. Less say and less trust. A loss of democratic agency. The persistent sense that elites don’t listen.
3. Change without consent. The sense that the world has changed really fast and no one asked the public. This typically expresses itself as a fear that our shared identity and values are eroding.
4. Costs and insecurity. Housing queues that never move, wages that feel stuck, rents that are exploding, public services that are stretched. Life becoming unaffordable.
5. Loss of control. Often expressed as a loss of control over borders.³

These concerns are real and, at least at their root, they’re justified. And yes, they can push some people towards parties whose policies are (or later become) racist.

But explaining the success of these parties as simply “voters are racist” is lazy and fatal for us. Because some of these people are persuadable!

And if that’s our diagnosis, then what should we do… wait for these voters to stop being racist? Convince them to change what’s in their hearts?

The bottom line is this: if we don’t try to move these voters towards us – or worse, if we drive them away by labelling them racist – we will lose by default.

Supply

Why are far-right outfits so good at addressing these concerns?

In a sentence: because they’re better organised. (Not everywhere, not always, but often.)

They don’t offer a grand economic analysis that attributes people’s ills to neoliberalism, capitalism or some other abstract concept (even if there’s much truth to that).

Instead they have a few, simple themes, repeated until people can recite them in their sleep. And they grab the agenda — especially on migration and “order”. Their proposals are simple, tangible, and emotional.⁴

Like “Stop The Boats” from the UK conservatives, “Take Back Control” from the Brexit campaign, or Donald Trump’s “Build The Wall”.

Why the Far-Right Wins

Lessons from the Austrian election that the left needs to hear.

Mehran KhaliliMehran Khalili

It also helps that far right parties are typically more hierarchical, because this makes message discipline and decision-making much easier than left wing parties.

But that’s not an excuse for the left to descend into a meltdown every time there’s a campaign.

What we can do

There are skills we can learn without adapting the far right’s policies or rhetoric. Like many of the things I discuss in this newsletter.

Fix our internal organisation

At the root of many of the left’s strategic and tactical mis-steps is how we structure and staff our operations. The decision-making model should be:

• Members choose the direction, vote on the big things, and can fire the leaders
• A small elected team then gets the job done between votes

It’s not “pure” direct democracy, but an honest democracy with delivery. And it needs to be clear from the start.

For smaller activist projects, here’s an organising model that works, and the types of profiles to look for. And, vitally, a primer on the need to take an inquiring, curious posture – especially when meeting the challenge of the far right.

Less Shock, More Strategy. Please.

When the far right wins, we should study and adapt. Rather than simply react.

Mehran KhaliliMehran Khalili

Also (a point made by Yanis Varoufakis and others, often): we need organisers who are not seeking power first and foremost. We can create structures that discourage this.

Simple messages, a focus on the core issues

Like the far right, we need to offer simple, tangible solutions that provide emotional connection. And we need a laser-sharp focus on the five core issues I listed above.

Here’s a table that puts all this together:

What I would not do in response to an ascendant far-right: organise ‘anti-fascist’ actions (which implicitly flattens the issue into racism, hardens identities and won’t move persuadables). Or try to disqualify the far right with censorship or lawfare, which as I’ve argued also gives the opposite result.

Why Lawfare Backfires

Ban the candidate, boost the cause

Mehran KhaliliMehran Khalili

The bottom line

Support for the far right is growing steadily. Racism exists. The latter does not explain the former. And treating it as such, hands the field to the other side.

The far right convert diffuse, legitimate fears into a focused offer. If we don’t meet those fears with fair solutions — and organise to deliver them — we will keep losing.

So let’s stop pretending it’s simple and looking for scapegoats. Instead: we must see it clearly, act accordingly. And win.

Notes