Their Leaders deny it, their supporters take offence when called it - yet over 60% of British voters agree that Reform UK are ‘Far Right’ So what is the truth?
Thanks, I know technically once you are past 10,000 words it's more of a dissertation than a blog post, but I wanted it to be comprehensive and authoritative.
Your definition of far-right is wide enough that any party to the left of center, that rejects multiculturalism, is critical of mass migration or rejects "positive discrimination" in favor of color-blind policies. Which most right-wing parties at least occasionally do. In fact your polls show that Conservative voters already tend to agree with Reform voters on most of these issues, and that's with Reform already attracting a lot of them.
But, I guess that's the point, right? You want an excuse to delegitimize and dehumanize people who disagree with you politically, who challenge the Authorities you believe sacrosanct (a bunch of leftist "experts" and NGOs producing biased and fraudulent studies to support your view, like Cas Mudde). If anti-pluralism is a trait of the "far-right" then you certainly qualify because you clearly believe that no pluralism should be allowed in democratic debates, you think anyone who disagrees with you is a threat to the status quo who should be neutralized or destroyed.
If "far-right" or "far-left" should mean anything, they should be reserved for movements that seek to implement radical changes in ways outside of democratic norms and processes. The reality is that most parties that are called "far-right" do not do so. They try to participate in democratic politics to affect policy changes that are constitutional and legal in nature, that simply go against your own personal desires. But to accept that they are legitimate voices in a democracy would force you to engage with them as fellow citizens worthy of respect and human dignity, which you want to deny them, so the label comes easy after that.
Seriously, what would a right-wing party program look like on migration issues, on law and order and cultural policies in your framework that would be:
A- not far-right
B- different from left-wing policies
The answer is: null. Your framework leaves no room at all for a right-wing party to exist to the right of left-wing policies without falling into the "far-right". But again, I guess that's the point. You want the Overton Window to be a mere slit in the wall.
The only thing you end up demonstrating is how the "far-right" label is being manipulated by authoritarian leftists to try to destroy democracy and pluralism.
You're wilfully leaving out far right populism, which works through electoral processes even while wrecking the same. Plenty of far right parties historically were voted into office and then could not be voted out.
An excellent post. I think you fairly describe Reform UK.
Thanks, I know technically once you are past 10,000 words it's more of a dissertation than a blog post, but I wanted it to be comprehensive and authoritative.
That's a laudable goal and I believe you achieved it.
This piece showcases the electoral appeal of Reform UK.
"Nigel Farage Has a Slogan. Britain Needs a Plan."
https://www.bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/nigel-farage-has-a-slogan-britain
Your definition of far-right is wide enough that any party to the left of center, that rejects multiculturalism, is critical of mass migration or rejects "positive discrimination" in favor of color-blind policies. Which most right-wing parties at least occasionally do. In fact your polls show that Conservative voters already tend to agree with Reform voters on most of these issues, and that's with Reform already attracting a lot of them.
But, I guess that's the point, right? You want an excuse to delegitimize and dehumanize people who disagree with you politically, who challenge the Authorities you believe sacrosanct (a bunch of leftist "experts" and NGOs producing biased and fraudulent studies to support your view, like Cas Mudde). If anti-pluralism is a trait of the "far-right" then you certainly qualify because you clearly believe that no pluralism should be allowed in democratic debates, you think anyone who disagrees with you is a threat to the status quo who should be neutralized or destroyed.
If "far-right" or "far-left" should mean anything, they should be reserved for movements that seek to implement radical changes in ways outside of democratic norms and processes. The reality is that most parties that are called "far-right" do not do so. They try to participate in democratic politics to affect policy changes that are constitutional and legal in nature, that simply go against your own personal desires. But to accept that they are legitimate voices in a democracy would force you to engage with them as fellow citizens worthy of respect and human dignity, which you want to deny them, so the label comes easy after that.
Seriously, what would a right-wing party program look like on migration issues, on law and order and cultural policies in your framework that would be:
A- not far-right
B- different from left-wing policies
The answer is: null. Your framework leaves no room at all for a right-wing party to exist to the right of left-wing policies without falling into the "far-right". But again, I guess that's the point. You want the Overton Window to be a mere slit in the wall.
The only thing you end up demonstrating is how the "far-right" label is being manipulated by authoritarian leftists to try to destroy democracy and pluralism.
No.
You're wilfully leaving out far right populism, which works through electoral processes even while wrecking the same. Plenty of far right parties historically were voted into office and then could not be voted out.