If you wish to preserve your sanity in an era that’s defined by instability, there is one approach you can adopt.
It requires discipline and vigilance, but with some practice, you’ll be better positioned to respond to the overwhelming tide of misinformation spread by far right politicians.
Key examples of far right dog whistles include dehumanising migration policies, aggressive roll-backs on the rights of marginalised demographics, and a vitriolic hatred of green environmental policies.
One of the main unifying strands of these arguments used by the far right is the fact that they all capitalise on negative sentiment and material conditions to spread their message.
Citizens in countries ripe for fascist takeovers are finding themselves inundated with misleading or outright false messaging about migrants committing heinous crimes, incendiary stories targeting groups like the LGBT+ community, and arguments blaming economic malaise on environmentalists seeking to rein in rogue, carbon-intensive industries.
Countries that have already been taken over by fascists are encouraging their peers in imperiled democracies to do the same. It’s working.
The point of all this toxic sludge isn’t just to overwhelm the opposing front. It is also an act of co-opting the electorate’s legitimate disgruntlement with how progressive governments failed to address root causes of social injustice.
In other words, all of the far right’s rhetoric is dependent on constantly generating enough outrage for the electorate to gloss over the brutal reality that the far right’s “solutions” will inevitably create.
The solution?
Do not take the bait.
Acknowledge the existence of the viewpoint but stay firmly on the subject, stripping away the inflammatory rhetoric and observing the real material problem that underpins the claim.
Do not allow yourself to be dragged over the red lines that make the opposing argument objectionable to begin with. Nobody ever achieved anything by trying to negotiate with a Nazi.
The minute you go over the line and start talking as if the hateful option is even worth considering is the minute you’ve already lost.
Most of all, pick your battles wisely. For example, it is absolutely useless to dedicate several column inches to the virtues and/or vices of Malta’s Eurovision entry when there are so many other more important battles to be fought first. The Eurovision is just a show. It doesn’t need to be a hill that anyone needs to die on.
For the sake of coherence, let’s stick to the three main examples highlighted earlier and apply the principles of this article to them.
Example one – you are talking about migration. Someone says that they are against uncontrolled migration and that it is a phenomenon that erodes the cultural identity of the recipient country.
Acknowledging the viewpoint means accepting the fact that freedom of movement comes with both benefits and drawbacks, and that there are structural problems within the European Union’s approach to this phenomenon.
The red line in this instance is anything that breaches fundamental human rights. European institutions have all but crossed this line, meaning that you will need to painstakingly defend the right while also acknowledging the institutional failure.
Any proposed policy or argument that begins with “send them back” willfully ignores the fact that practically nobody engages in illegal migration without absolutely needing to, usually out of fear for their own safety or a critical lack of economic opportunity.
What you should refuse to engage with is the dehumanisation of anyone fitting such a description.
Example two – you are talking about the rights of the LGBT+ community. Someone says that they are opposed to initiatives which enforce diversity hiring practices across the workforce and that nobody should be given preferential treatment because of their sexual orientation.
In this case, acknowledgement of the viewpoint largely involves accepting that both corporate interests and public authorities alike have hopped onto the diversity bandwagon, obscuring the real needs of under-represented communities with a whole load of virtue signalling that alienates everyone and satisfies nobody.
The extent of this obfuscation means the argument must be reframed accordingly.
Rather than debating diversity practices in the context of ‘preferential treatment’, the argument must be reframed to acknowledge the fact that such practices amount to reparations for decades of discrimination.
Stick to the point: nobody should be persecuted or discriminated against for their sexual orientation, end of. Anybody saying otherwise should be hounded with questions like “why do you make it your business to promote policies that actively harm the wellbeing of others?”
Example three – you are talking about the impact of green policies on the economy. Someone argues that legislative efforts like the EU’s Green Deal are negatively impacting European competitiveness and that protecting the environment should not come at the cost of slowing down economic growth.
Acknowledging the viewpoint here means accepting the fact that combating climate change requires trillions of euros in funding and that, to date, not one singular continent across the world has managed to adequately figure out how to finance their plans.
The red line is the mere suggestion that environmentalists are to blame for economic decline when it is clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that climate change is not only an existential threat but also a veritable source of losses and costs which will inevitably be shouldered by future generations.
In simpler terms, climate change and ensuing efforts to tighten legislation to fight back against it are not the problem – unfettered fossil fuel industry greed is. Ordering a regulatory bonfire of all environmental legislation is never going to be a feasible solution, no matter what any populist demagogue tells you about it.
Always remember: the success of ‘the unjust man‘ seeking to undermine democratic norms depends on how effectively he manages to force you to meet him ‘halfway’, only to then take another step back and ask you to meet him halfway again.
Reject the premise entirely, and you will free yourself from the ideological straitjacket that is imposed by it.