This is an excellent, principled POV and explainer, and a very important one. I agree that "illiberal" is the best single word that describes the people that would be classified far left and far right. I also use "anti-American" sometimes, which in some ways and contexts lands better since it's more visceral.
Related to your piece, I'm also very adamant about mainstreaming the word/concept TABOO, which I think would apply to the most far left and far right, since they are much more explicit in their desires for actual discrimination and violence against individuals and groups (per some of the examples you highlighted). If you're curious, I laid out here my POV on why we must restore these critical taboos, with principles for how we do so without falling into the traps of cancel culture: https://medium.com/@elevin11/the-lawful-but-awful-speech-that-must-be-made-taboo-again-1955c0ab69ac
Thanks for reading. To be clear, I too am against censorship, and believe that bad ideas are best challenged in the arena with better ideas.
It seems like we're aligned on that part, so can you clarify/elaborate your views so I can understand if/where we differ? Are you saying you don't think people should face social consequences for their views? For example, people who espouse KKK ideology should not lose their jobs or friends? The people who celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder should not have gotten fired? If it was one of your employees who openly expressed these views, you would not fire them?
Correct. As Mill argued in _On Liberty_ (and similarly Hal Draper in "Free Speech and Political Struggle," where I first learned about the "Weimar fallacy"), any kind of censorship, not just government censorship, obstructs the collective pursuit of truth.
1. In Mills' time, I would agree with him. But the ability for bad ideas to spread unchallenged today makes this untenable. That doesn't mean I am for censorship, and I absolutely welcome anybody trying to make any sort of intellectual argument for anything. I am simply for social consequences for people who act in a legal but socially destructive manner (e.g. not somebody saying "I could make an argument that Hitler was actually the good guy in WW2", but rather an explicit and egregious taboo like "I think Hitler was great *because* he killed 6 million Jews and I wish somebody would go finish the job.").
2. It's very hard for me to believe that anybody could honestly claim that they would keep an employee who regularly espouses KKK ideology in their spare time. Even if one was somewhat sympathetic to those views, they'd almost certainly destroy their business in the process (losing customers disgusted with who is kept employed, and employees who do not want to work with such an employee or for an employer who would keep them). So, are you really trying to make such a claim? You're opposed to any social consequences even for the most vile, hateful, bigotry?
By the way, you would simply be wrong in assuming that there's really an objective concept of what's unreasonable that wouldn't be subject to definitional creep. Without going into too much detail, I was removed not only from a group on social media, but from an entire platform, for nothing more than suggesting an academic paper critiquing research methodology, published by Springer, would be appropriately part of the preparatory readings for a discussion group with the word *agnostics* in its name.
First of all, let's get our definitions right. You're not talking about social consequences. That would mean something like not being invited to a party. You're talking about economic and financial consequences, meaning material coercion. I think there are enough people who value the principle of intellectual freedom to support a business that upholds it consistently, and I'll do what I can to increase their numbers. I also happen to be for guaranteeing employment or income for all, so that such coercion would no longer even be possible.
I'm sorry to hear that. I despise "cancel culture", and this sounds so incredibly undeserved.
Social consequences is a very broad category. I use it to differentiate them from legal (and physical) consequences, but yes I absolutely am also advocating for economic/financial consequences to be included, as they are directly related (arguably a subset of social consequences).
No offense, but I think you are either delusional or dishonest, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's coming with good intentions but simply some absolutist type of ideology and stubbornness (like too many libertarians). There's no way you are keeping an employee who goes around shouting "kill all the Jews and blacks". As a hypothetical, you can pretend you are upholding "the principle of intellectual freedom", but if you ever were faced with that scenario, unless you're ready to join the KKK and depart polite society saying goodbye to all your non-KKK friends and customers, you're cutting ties with them.
Can I download you into an AI assistant who can help me explain logical things to the mass of frothing troglodytes that surrounds me and encourage them to embrace reason, without risking a stroke?
Could you please run for public office? Or clone yourself? I believe the world would be made better if you were to become its benevolent dictator (like a lady Vetinari).
My nefarious plan for world domination is starting to fall into place. My tea gulags will be a reality! Now, I just have to convince another 8 billion! Bwahahahahaha!
This quote from Jay Sophalkalyan: "I’m a classical liberal, which in today’s politics brands me a “centrist”—a term I despise because it implies cowardly balance rather than deliberate rejection. I’m not wedged between extremes; I’m opposed to both of them"
It's been bothering me for awhile that I keep getting nudged back and forth on the left-right political spectrum, while my general political perspective has pretty much remained the same over the years. Today I'm questioning whether it should even be a spectrum with a "center".
Helen's walk-through of the diverse real-life manifestations of left and right is a good argument for changing the whole framework. I've long thought that Libertarianism belong on some kind of narrow orthogonal offshoot from the spectrum. Perhaps "conservative" and "progressive" need a different kind of framework than a two-dimensional line.
A couple of people mention "process" in their comments. Where is a movement or ideology heading? Helen and Kyle say that we become concerned if the process tends towards coercion. Kyle mentions intolerance. Eric uses the term "illiberal modes of thought" (which perhaps begs the question of what "liberal / illiberal" modes of thought might be.) From history and current events can come up with various ways that a political or social process might move towards undesirable extremes.
In the meantime, as Helen's essay brings out, there are all the everyday, practical political actions that must be dealt with: how do we manage housing, transportation, the judiciary, law enforcement, immigration, foreign affairs, war, etc. in the directions embodied in a nation's overall policies? (Assuming that the nation HAS a any coherent policies.) Practical governing needs the tension of "conservative" and "liberal/progressive" viewpoints (although all three of these words have serious problems.) Certainly there are underlying personal predilections in the population that might be labeled economically or socially conservative or liberal, but what is more important: labeling abstract viewpoints or finding practical balance within the pros and cons of specific policies and legislation?
A political framework based on the idea of process would be hard to express graphically. Metaphorically, for example, we could talk about "healthy" and "unhealthy" processes. One interesting objective here would be the ability to measure extremism (or unhealth) in the traditional, conservative cultures that we Western liberals have so much trouble with these days. We still share the world with these diverse cultures, and many are "healthy" if not "liberal" in our sense. History tells us that the global influence of such cultures could wax once again. Labeling them from the outset as "illiberal" inhibits the ways that their processes could still be kept on "healthy" tracks.
I’m inclined to think of liberalism as a “higher order” value that covers the things we must preserve before we can meaningfully have political sides that can engage in the tug of war over progressive or conservative policies, large government or small, taxes, housing, welfare programmes, international relations etc. If we don’t have a society that protects individual liberty & democratic processes and facilitates the free exchange of diverse viewpoints effectively to advance knowledge and resolve conflict, the people who make all those decisions will ultimately be whichever authoritarian faction is able to gain power. This is why I think it is in the interests of everyone to defend liberalism.
I agree in regions where this makes sense and even as ultimate goals. But we need to reserve "wider" (as opposed to "higher" let's say) critical approaches to ensure that we remain open to understanding the full range of human values. The approaches need not be mutually exclusive.
And then, who knows, we probably need to start understanding the values of our non-human intelligent earthling neighbors. There's more going on with cetaceans than ramming boats and wearing salmon hats.
Defined as a higher order value then Helen, you'd define liberalism as “protects individual liberty & democratic processes and facilitates the free exchange of diverse viewpoints effectively to advance knowledge and resolve conflict”?
Whilst I'd agree, the counter point is that our current ‘next level down’ political parties would all be likely to claim these are already part of their core values?
Yes! Exactly! That’s what we need and must expect. Then liberal leftists and liberal conservatives can hold their parties accountable to upholding this and have a measure by which to marginalise their extremists.
In shorthand, Helen, "far" seems to mean tending towards authoritarianism/absolutism on the one hand and anarchy on the other. The Mypolitics website uses a 2 dimensional matrix with what I'd call socio-economic "issues" on the horizontal axis and authoritarianism/libertarianism on the vertical. I prefer this partial recognition of complexity to the decreasingly useful left/right dichotomy.
One question your piece raised for me, Helen, is whether defining extremism primarily in liberal–illiberal terms presumes a still-functioning liberal public sphere capable of recognizing and disciplining those departures.
In contexts where trust, shared standards of evidence, and institutional authority are fractured, illiberal positions often persist not because they are morally persuasive but because they are epistemically insulated or strategically amplified.
This is where something like horseshoe theory feels less about ideological symmetry and more about process: as movements at opposite ends become increasingly intolerant of pluralism and dissent, they can converge in their epistemic closure and coercive impulses—even while remaining substantively opposed.
The harder problem may no longer be identifying extremism, but explaining why liberal mechanisms for marginalizing it no longer reliably work.
Kyle, they haven't always previously worked, however more mad today's fashions seem. In the 60s & 70s for example, extremism was common on right & left. I've read recently a piece which I'll try to refind discussing socioeconomic correlations with waxing & waning of extremism.
US media carried water for social justice types and policies by not labeling them as far left or even left at all. This would have tainted them with politics.
ChatGtp responds that main stream media uses far right 3x times more than far left.
I see that when someone is not overtly left of center then they are labeled as conservatives of right-wing.
Bari Weiss is a good example of this.
A more accurate political spectrum would group more people as centrist or moderates.
The point I’m poorly making here is by acknowledging more solidarity in the center we’d have a better political map and far left and far right would be more obvious.
Our media institutions do the mapping poorly. In the US declaring 1/2 the population as radical is not healthy.
A lesson could be taken from the field of cultic studies, where there's been a movement away from labeling groups as either "cults" or "non-cults," and instead recognizing that _cultic processes_ can occur in a continuous spectrum of degrees across a wide variety of groups. The danger of trying to label certain groups as "far" is that it can blind us to illiberal modes of thought even in people who are typically described as "reasonable "
But by this definition, would any religious people who oppose homosexuality be far right? I also have a related question about your previous post, on Islam. Can it be truly liberal to wish that religious people would become non-religious - especially when for many it is a positive and stabilising influence? Isn't the truly liberal position to not care at all what faith others have?
And no, liberalism absolutely does not require that people stop caring about what is true or morally good. It is about protecting individual liberty. The marketplace of ideas in which freedom of belief and speech is defended so that bad ideas can be beaten by better ones depends upon a position that some things are true and good and some are not. Liberalism opposes any action that would prevent people from believing, saying and living according to what they believe is true. The only legitimate reason to use coercion against another is if they are doing harm to someone else. So, Sarah can believe homosexuality is wrong and say so and not have lesbian sex, but if she tries to ban or punish homosexuality she is being illiberal and we stop her. Likewise, I can believe religion is false and has harmful ideas and say so and not be religious but if I try to ban or punish religion, I would be illiberal and should be stopped. You can argue that we should not oppose religion because people find it positive and stabilising but that’s an argument and is neither liberal nor illiberal.
I suppose it depends whether or not that opposition to homosexuality is political, like if they favour legislation to criminalise homosexuality and campaign for that. That would be an illiberal position. The same goes for wishing religious people weren’t religious. People are free to wish whatever they want. Wishing doesn’t impose anything on anyone. However, if you were campaigning to criminalise certain beliefs that would be illiberal. Banning religious practices that cause harm to people or animals can be justified, but that should be on the basis of the practices themselves and the harm they cause, not on any religion they may happen to be associated with.
Great article. It provides a good assessment of what “far left” and “far right” should mean, and how to properly engage with pluralistic ideas.
I do have a few qualms with your assessment of some right wing ideologies, though:
- It is true that libertarians aren’t against immigration as a whole, but they are against mass immigration. There is a subtle difference that should be acknowledged.
- The claim that conservatives “prize individual responsibility which provides safeguards against base racial identitarianism” is actually too generous of a description of them. Conserving aspects of society can be a double-edged sword: it can mean conserving good aspect of society, true, but it can also mean maintaining the status que, such as the demographic make-up of a nation.
- Populism is simply stated as being bad without actually describing what it entails and why it’s bad. And since it generally addresses the working class (the very group you’re advocating for), it rocks coming across as a bit classist.
Keep in mind, I am not arguing against your definition of what makes someone far right. That is pretty much spot on. And your assessment of left wing ideologies is pretty much spot on. Perhaps, with you being on the left, your descriptions and criticism of it feel more accurate, while those for the right feel a little like someone looking outside in. This may be my perception, though.
But again, your article is otherwise great, and it provides some useful and civic solutions to the increasing polarization currently taking place. And for your constant reminder to always approach difficult subjects with a liberal mindset.
I have other pieces defining what I mean by traditional conservatives and populists. They are whole essays in themselves. It’s not feasible to define political groups in detail in every piece. Definitely not classist! I’m including the President of the United States and the richest man in the world in that. Also, I reject claims that criticising populism is classist for the same reason I reject claims that criticising wokeism is racist. As I have never criticised populism for being a working class movement (it isn’t. It’s an epistemological and political one) or wokeism for being a grassroots minority movement) (it isn’t. It’s an epistemological and political one) those are just attempts to shut down criticism.
Understood. To be clear, I’m not defending populism at all, I’ve just had certain reservations towards its critics. Not anymore. I’m actually looking forward to your essay on what populism is.
I appreciate the clarity and good faith of this piece, and I agree that illiberalism is the real problem worth naming. My disagreement is more foundational.
I am not convinced that “far-left” and “far-right” are stable or especially meaningful categories. In practice, they tend to function less as analytical tools and more as labels whose meaning shifts with context, audience, and power. What counts as “far” usually tracks the Overton window of a given country or moment rather than any fixed ideological boundary.
Politics also does not collapse cleanly onto a single left–right axis. Economic structure, state power, religion, identity, and attitudes toward coercion operate on partially independent dimensions. Forcing them into one spectrum often produces false symmetry rather than clarity.
That symmetry breaks most clearly around power. Genuinely extreme right-wing positions such as Christian nationalism, ethnonationalism, and authoritarian populism now sit comfortably inside mainstream institutions in the US and parts of Europe. By contrast, what is commonly labeled “far-left” today is often center-left or traditionally left anti-imperialism or social democracy, reframed as extremism largely because it challenges existing economic or geopolitical arrangements.
There are illiberal left traditions, but they tend to be either historically defeated or institutionally marginal in the contemporary West. Classical Maoism, the Khmer Rouge, or groups like Peru’s Shining Path were genuinely extreme in their endorsement of coercion and mass violence, but they do not meaningfully structure Western politics today. Treating those traditions as symmetrical threats obscures a key reality: not all illiberalism is equally dangerous, because not all illiberalism has equal access to power.
For that reason, I am skeptical that rescuing “far-left” and “far-right” as coherent categories actually adds clarity. Naming specific ideologies, institutional behaviors, and modes of coercion seems more precise and more honest than relying on labels that have become culturally elastic and politically weaponized.
Well, I think that’s what I’ve done by naming measurable illiberal things rather than trying to find a centre to measure from. The centre of a Marxist regime is unlikely to be liberal and neither is a theocratic one. I have a piece coming out on this tomorrow, I hope. It has diagrams!
“what is commonly labeled “far-left” today is often center-left or traditionally left anti-imperialism or social democracy, reframed as extremism largely because it challenges existing economic or geopolitical arrangements.”
No, those are far left positions. Your refusal to realize this feel like the musings of someone stuck in an echo chamber. I don’t even disagree with your description of what makes someone far right, but the fact that you can’t admit to markers of what makes someone far left feels like a refusal at self-improvement and actualization on your political party.
No, this really is you being on the extreme libertarian end on economic issues. You recently told me my centre left stance on a strong welfare state and progressive taxes were indistinguishable from Maoist death camps (if I remember correctly).
I’m going to ignore the part about “refusal at self-improvement,” because I’m honestly not sure what that’s meant to refer to here.
I think you’re actually making my point for me. The disagreement seems to hinge on what standard we’re using to decide what counts as “far.” From where you’re standing, labeling anti-imperialism or social democracy as far-left may feel obvious. From other national or historical contexts, those positions sit well within the mainstream.
So the real question is: far by what axis? Economic policy? Attitudes toward state power? Individual rights versus collective obligation? Secular versus religious authority? Willingness to tolerate coercion or violence? Or is “far” simply shorthand for ideas that feel threatening or uncomfortable relative to one’s own position?
This is why I’m skeptical of left/right labeling in the first place. It assumes a shared center that doesn’t actually exist and collapses very different dimensions into a single line. The result is polarization into “my side” and “the other side,” rather than discussion of specific policies, institutions, or moral commitments and how they actually affect people, both domestically and globally.
If we want clarity, I think it’s more useful to talk about concrete positions and their consequences than to argue over who sits where on a spectrum whose midpoint shifts depending on who’s drawing it.
The lines of extremism on the right are drawn by those the establishment left consider to be beyond the pale. On immigration/ ethnicity that tends to be those who believe there is such a thing as indigenous Britons, are in favour of mass deportations, fly a Union Jack or George Cross, or hold that there is discrimination against white kids. On men’s rights, those who hold that there is such a thing, or that they matter, or who arse on about gynocentrism, or want women out of the workplace. On gender identity ideology, those who hold there is no such thing as trans. The centre right generally agrees.
On the left, the centre left doesn’t really believe there is such a thing as the far left at all, whether it’s about supporting terrorism, destroying people’s livelihoods for wrongthink, transitioning kids or demanding trillions for reparation. The centre right thinks the left is so demented and inconsistent anyway, that there’s no point in trying to make a distinction.
Couple of observations from behind the sofa of the culture wars.....(and from another more "scientific" discipline)
1. Terminology needs to be sharpened. There are several aspects subsumed in many commonly-discussed concepts ("extremist", "racist", "leftist", "wokeist"). (I've always thought of extremism as a function of what cost/harm/risk someone is prepared to enact to their ideological opponents, or to realise their own vision of society, than of any one stance. But there are other aspects of "extremism" too e.g. "someone's who pursues a political or religious doctrine with literal purity, disregarding context or cost".).
2. Criteria need to be clearly defined as the basis of any argument (e.g. arguments are had without a common basis for discussion: So, are we making the case for a certain policy/action to maximise wealth equality, because it grants fair opportunities, because it makes human beings more equal, because it generates greater social acceptance of more people, because it makes life better now, because it makes life better tomorrow... and for who, at whose expense?). And if someone wishes to pursue a certain life that will harm then in some way, who gets to say what takes precedent. (I would say most of our actions/choices are trade offs between health, wealth, freedom, status, social-acceptance, indulgence-of-interests, now and in the future).
3. If you (would like to) have a social conscience, but are not from the identarian movement, then it might be useful for some more evidence-based discussions on the forms of inherited disadvantage that society might care to compensate. All of this is reasonably well documented and quantified, even, in the social sciences: parental education, parental health, location of upbringing, age, gender, weight, height, attractiveness, IQ, EQ, psychological typology, accent, values-alignment with others, own education, events/life shocks, choices, religion, peer group influences and socio-economic background, access to information/economic opportunity.....
This is an excellent, principled POV and explainer, and a very important one. I agree that "illiberal" is the best single word that describes the people that would be classified far left and far right. I also use "anti-American" sometimes, which in some ways and contexts lands better since it's more visceral.
Related to your piece, I'm also very adamant about mainstreaming the word/concept TABOO, which I think would apply to the most far left and far right, since they are much more explicit in their desires for actual discrimination and violence against individuals and groups (per some of the examples you highlighted). If you're curious, I laid out here my POV on why we must restore these critical taboos, with principles for how we do so without falling into the traps of cancel culture: https://medium.com/@elevin11/the-lawful-but-awful-speech-that-must-be-made-taboo-again-1955c0ab69ac
Read it, rejected it. Mill had it right. Answer bad speech with better speech. Period.
Exactly.
The answer to speech one doesn't like is MORE speech, not less!
Thanks for reading. To be clear, I too am against censorship, and believe that bad ideas are best challenged in the arena with better ideas.
It seems like we're aligned on that part, so can you clarify/elaborate your views so I can understand if/where we differ? Are you saying you don't think people should face social consequences for their views? For example, people who espouse KKK ideology should not lose their jobs or friends? The people who celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder should not have gotten fired? If it was one of your employees who openly expressed these views, you would not fire them?
Correct. As Mill argued in _On Liberty_ (and similarly Hal Draper in "Free Speech and Political Struggle," where I first learned about the "Weimar fallacy"), any kind of censorship, not just government censorship, obstructs the collective pursuit of truth.
1. In Mills' time, I would agree with him. But the ability for bad ideas to spread unchallenged today makes this untenable. That doesn't mean I am for censorship, and I absolutely welcome anybody trying to make any sort of intellectual argument for anything. I am simply for social consequences for people who act in a legal but socially destructive manner (e.g. not somebody saying "I could make an argument that Hitler was actually the good guy in WW2", but rather an explicit and egregious taboo like "I think Hitler was great *because* he killed 6 million Jews and I wish somebody would go finish the job.").
2. It's very hard for me to believe that anybody could honestly claim that they would keep an employee who regularly espouses KKK ideology in their spare time. Even if one was somewhat sympathetic to those views, they'd almost certainly destroy their business in the process (losing customers disgusted with who is kept employed, and employees who do not want to work with such an employee or for an employer who would keep them). So, are you really trying to make such a claim? You're opposed to any social consequences even for the most vile, hateful, bigotry?
By the way, you would simply be wrong in assuming that there's really an objective concept of what's unreasonable that wouldn't be subject to definitional creep. Without going into too much detail, I was removed not only from a group on social media, but from an entire platform, for nothing more than suggesting an academic paper critiquing research methodology, published by Springer, would be appropriately part of the preparatory readings for a discussion group with the word *agnostics* in its name.
First of all, let's get our definitions right. You're not talking about social consequences. That would mean something like not being invited to a party. You're talking about economic and financial consequences, meaning material coercion. I think there are enough people who value the principle of intellectual freedom to support a business that upholds it consistently, and I'll do what I can to increase their numbers. I also happen to be for guaranteeing employment or income for all, so that such coercion would no longer even be possible.
I'm sorry to hear that. I despise "cancel culture", and this sounds so incredibly undeserved.
Social consequences is a very broad category. I use it to differentiate them from legal (and physical) consequences, but yes I absolutely am also advocating for economic/financial consequences to be included, as they are directly related (arguably a subset of social consequences).
No offense, but I think you are either delusional or dishonest, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's coming with good intentions but simply some absolutist type of ideology and stubbornness (like too many libertarians). There's no way you are keeping an employee who goes around shouting "kill all the Jews and blacks". As a hypothetical, you can pretend you are upholding "the principle of intellectual freedom", but if you ever were faced with that scenario, unless you're ready to join the KKK and depart polite society saying goodbye to all your non-KKK friends and customers, you're cutting ties with them.
Great, thank you! I miss the classic left and right, with liberals taking the best from both.
Can I download you into an AI assistant who can help me explain logical things to the mass of frothing troglodytes that surrounds me and encourage them to embrace reason, without risking a stroke?
Could you please run for public office? Or clone yourself? I believe the world would be made better if you were to become its benevolent dictator (like a lady Vetinari).
The more so because you would never want it.
My nefarious plan for world domination is starting to fall into place. My tea gulags will be a reality! Now, I just have to convince another 8 billion! Bwahahahahaha!
(❤️)
This quote from Jay Sophalkalyan: "I’m a classical liberal, which in today’s politics brands me a “centrist”—a term I despise because it implies cowardly balance rather than deliberate rejection. I’m not wedged between extremes; I’m opposed to both of them"
It's been bothering me for awhile that I keep getting nudged back and forth on the left-right political spectrum, while my general political perspective has pretty much remained the same over the years. Today I'm questioning whether it should even be a spectrum with a "center".
Helen's walk-through of the diverse real-life manifestations of left and right is a good argument for changing the whole framework. I've long thought that Libertarianism belong on some kind of narrow orthogonal offshoot from the spectrum. Perhaps "conservative" and "progressive" need a different kind of framework than a two-dimensional line.
A couple of people mention "process" in their comments. Where is a movement or ideology heading? Helen and Kyle say that we become concerned if the process tends towards coercion. Kyle mentions intolerance. Eric uses the term "illiberal modes of thought" (which perhaps begs the question of what "liberal / illiberal" modes of thought might be.) From history and current events can come up with various ways that a political or social process might move towards undesirable extremes.
In the meantime, as Helen's essay brings out, there are all the everyday, practical political actions that must be dealt with: how do we manage housing, transportation, the judiciary, law enforcement, immigration, foreign affairs, war, etc. in the directions embodied in a nation's overall policies? (Assuming that the nation HAS a any coherent policies.) Practical governing needs the tension of "conservative" and "liberal/progressive" viewpoints (although all three of these words have serious problems.) Certainly there are underlying personal predilections in the population that might be labeled economically or socially conservative or liberal, but what is more important: labeling abstract viewpoints or finding practical balance within the pros and cons of specific policies and legislation?
A political framework based on the idea of process would be hard to express graphically. Metaphorically, for example, we could talk about "healthy" and "unhealthy" processes. One interesting objective here would be the ability to measure extremism (or unhealth) in the traditional, conservative cultures that we Western liberals have so much trouble with these days. We still share the world with these diverse cultures, and many are "healthy" if not "liberal" in our sense. History tells us that the global influence of such cultures could wax once again. Labeling them from the outset as "illiberal" inhibits the ways that their processes could still be kept on "healthy" tracks.
Attribution is always important:
https://substack.com/@jaysophalkalyan/note/c-192809512?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=av3sj
https://open.substack.com/pub/helenpluckrose/p/do-far-left-and-far-right-mean-anything-1b1?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=194419576
https://open.substack.com/pub/helenpluckrose/p/do-far-left-and-far-right-mean-anything-1b1?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=194906155
I’m inclined to think of liberalism as a “higher order” value that covers the things we must preserve before we can meaningfully have political sides that can engage in the tug of war over progressive or conservative policies, large government or small, taxes, housing, welfare programmes, international relations etc. If we don’t have a society that protects individual liberty & democratic processes and facilitates the free exchange of diverse viewpoints effectively to advance knowledge and resolve conflict, the people who make all those decisions will ultimately be whichever authoritarian faction is able to gain power. This is why I think it is in the interests of everyone to defend liberalism.
I agree in regions where this makes sense and even as ultimate goals. But we need to reserve "wider" (as opposed to "higher" let's say) critical approaches to ensure that we remain open to understanding the full range of human values. The approaches need not be mutually exclusive.
And then, who knows, we probably need to start understanding the values of our non-human intelligent earthling neighbors. There's more going on with cetaceans than ramming boats and wearing salmon hats.
Defined as a higher order value then Helen, you'd define liberalism as “protects individual liberty & democratic processes and facilitates the free exchange of diverse viewpoints effectively to advance knowledge and resolve conflict”?
Whilst I'd agree, the counter point is that our current ‘next level down’ political parties would all be likely to claim these are already part of their core values?
Yes! Exactly! That’s what we need and must expect. Then liberal leftists and liberal conservatives can hold their parties accountable to upholding this and have a measure by which to marginalise their extremists.
I cited you both here:https://www.hpluckrose.com/p/liberalism-as-a-higher-order-value-5e8
In shorthand, Helen, "far" seems to mean tending towards authoritarianism/absolutism on the one hand and anarchy on the other. The Mypolitics website uses a 2 dimensional matrix with what I'd call socio-economic "issues" on the horizontal axis and authoritarianism/libertarianism on the vertical. I prefer this partial recognition of complexity to the decreasingly useful left/right dichotomy.
One question your piece raised for me, Helen, is whether defining extremism primarily in liberal–illiberal terms presumes a still-functioning liberal public sphere capable of recognizing and disciplining those departures.
In contexts where trust, shared standards of evidence, and institutional authority are fractured, illiberal positions often persist not because they are morally persuasive but because they are epistemically insulated or strategically amplified.
This is where something like horseshoe theory feels less about ideological symmetry and more about process: as movements at opposite ends become increasingly intolerant of pluralism and dissent, they can converge in their epistemic closure and coercive impulses—even while remaining substantively opposed.
The harder problem may no longer be identifying extremism, but explaining why liberal mechanisms for marginalizing it no longer reliably work.
Kyle, they haven't always previously worked, however more mad today's fashions seem. In the 60s & 70s for example, extremism was common on right & left. I've read recently a piece which I'll try to refind discussing socioeconomic correlations with waxing & waning of extremism.
US media carried water for social justice types and policies by not labeling them as far left or even left at all. This would have tainted them with politics.
ChatGtp responds that main stream media uses far right 3x times more than far left.
I see that when someone is not overtly left of center then they are labeled as conservatives of right-wing.
Bari Weiss is a good example of this.
A more accurate political spectrum would group more people as centrist or moderates.
The point I’m poorly making here is by acknowledging more solidarity in the center we’d have a better political map and far left and far right would be more obvious.
Our media institutions do the mapping poorly. In the US declaring 1/2 the population as radical is not healthy.
A lesson could be taken from the field of cultic studies, where there's been a movement away from labeling groups as either "cults" or "non-cults," and instead recognizing that _cultic processes_ can occur in a continuous spectrum of degrees across a wide variety of groups. The danger of trying to label certain groups as "far" is that it can blind us to illiberal modes of thought even in people who are typically described as "reasonable "
But by this definition, would any religious people who oppose homosexuality be far right? I also have a related question about your previous post, on Islam. Can it be truly liberal to wish that religious people would become non-religious - especially when for many it is a positive and stabilising influence? Isn't the truly liberal position to not care at all what faith others have?
What Paul said.
And no, liberalism absolutely does not require that people stop caring about what is true or morally good. It is about protecting individual liberty. The marketplace of ideas in which freedom of belief and speech is defended so that bad ideas can be beaten by better ones depends upon a position that some things are true and good and some are not. Liberalism opposes any action that would prevent people from believing, saying and living according to what they believe is true. The only legitimate reason to use coercion against another is if they are doing harm to someone else. So, Sarah can believe homosexuality is wrong and say so and not have lesbian sex, but if she tries to ban or punish homosexuality she is being illiberal and we stop her. Likewise, I can believe religion is false and has harmful ideas and say so and not be religious but if I try to ban or punish religion, I would be illiberal and should be stopped. You can argue that we should not oppose religion because people find it positive and stabilising but that’s an argument and is neither liberal nor illiberal.
I suppose it depends whether or not that opposition to homosexuality is political, like if they favour legislation to criminalise homosexuality and campaign for that. That would be an illiberal position. The same goes for wishing religious people weren’t religious. People are free to wish whatever they want. Wishing doesn’t impose anything on anyone. However, if you were campaigning to criminalise certain beliefs that would be illiberal. Banning religious practices that cause harm to people or animals can be justified, but that should be on the basis of the practices themselves and the harm they cause, not on any religion they may happen to be associated with.
Excellent essay, as usual, Helen.
I only wish I could get some of my supposedly liberal confrères to read -- and absorb -- it.
Great article. It provides a good assessment of what “far left” and “far right” should mean, and how to properly engage with pluralistic ideas.
I do have a few qualms with your assessment of some right wing ideologies, though:
- It is true that libertarians aren’t against immigration as a whole, but they are against mass immigration. There is a subtle difference that should be acknowledged.
- The claim that conservatives “prize individual responsibility which provides safeguards against base racial identitarianism” is actually too generous of a description of them. Conserving aspects of society can be a double-edged sword: it can mean conserving good aspect of society, true, but it can also mean maintaining the status que, such as the demographic make-up of a nation.
- Populism is simply stated as being bad without actually describing what it entails and why it’s bad. And since it generally addresses the working class (the very group you’re advocating for), it rocks coming across as a bit classist.
Keep in mind, I am not arguing against your definition of what makes someone far right. That is pretty much spot on. And your assessment of left wing ideologies is pretty much spot on. Perhaps, with you being on the left, your descriptions and criticism of it feel more accurate, while those for the right feel a little like someone looking outside in. This may be my perception, though.
But again, your article is otherwise great, and it provides some useful and civic solutions to the increasing polarization currently taking place. And for your constant reminder to always approach difficult subjects with a liberal mindset.
I have other pieces defining what I mean by traditional conservatives and populists. They are whole essays in themselves. It’s not feasible to define political groups in detail in every piece. Definitely not classist! I’m including the President of the United States and the richest man in the world in that. Also, I reject claims that criticising populism is classist for the same reason I reject claims that criticising wokeism is racist. As I have never criticised populism for being a working class movement (it isn’t. It’s an epistemological and political one) or wokeism for being a grassroots minority movement) (it isn’t. It’s an epistemological and political one) those are just attempts to shut down criticism.
Understood. To be clear, I’m not defending populism at all, I’ve just had certain reservations towards its critics. Not anymore. I’m actually looking forward to your essay on what populism is.
https://www.hpluckrose.com/p/why-liberal-lefties-need-to-support-daf
Thanks!
I appreciate the clarity and good faith of this piece, and I agree that illiberalism is the real problem worth naming. My disagreement is more foundational.
I am not convinced that “far-left” and “far-right” are stable or especially meaningful categories. In practice, they tend to function less as analytical tools and more as labels whose meaning shifts with context, audience, and power. What counts as “far” usually tracks the Overton window of a given country or moment rather than any fixed ideological boundary.
Politics also does not collapse cleanly onto a single left–right axis. Economic structure, state power, religion, identity, and attitudes toward coercion operate on partially independent dimensions. Forcing them into one spectrum often produces false symmetry rather than clarity.
That symmetry breaks most clearly around power. Genuinely extreme right-wing positions such as Christian nationalism, ethnonationalism, and authoritarian populism now sit comfortably inside mainstream institutions in the US and parts of Europe. By contrast, what is commonly labeled “far-left” today is often center-left or traditionally left anti-imperialism or social democracy, reframed as extremism largely because it challenges existing economic or geopolitical arrangements.
There are illiberal left traditions, but they tend to be either historically defeated or institutionally marginal in the contemporary West. Classical Maoism, the Khmer Rouge, or groups like Peru’s Shining Path were genuinely extreme in their endorsement of coercion and mass violence, but they do not meaningfully structure Western politics today. Treating those traditions as symmetrical threats obscures a key reality: not all illiberalism is equally dangerous, because not all illiberalism has equal access to power.
For that reason, I am skeptical that rescuing “far-left” and “far-right” as coherent categories actually adds clarity. Naming specific ideologies, institutional behaviors, and modes of coercion seems more precise and more honest than relying on labels that have become culturally elastic and politically weaponized.
Well, I think that’s what I’ve done by naming measurable illiberal things rather than trying to find a centre to measure from. The centre of a Marxist regime is unlikely to be liberal and neither is a theocratic one. I have a piece coming out on this tomorrow, I hope. It has diagrams!
Fair enough, look forward to reading it.
“what is commonly labeled “far-left” today is often center-left or traditionally left anti-imperialism or social democracy, reframed as extremism largely because it challenges existing economic or geopolitical arrangements.”
No, those are far left positions. Your refusal to realize this feel like the musings of someone stuck in an echo chamber. I don’t even disagree with your description of what makes someone far right, but the fact that you can’t admit to markers of what makes someone far left feels like a refusal at self-improvement and actualization on your political party.
No, this really is you being on the extreme libertarian end on economic issues. You recently told me my centre left stance on a strong welfare state and progressive taxes were indistinguishable from Maoist death camps (if I remember correctly).
Perhaps I did say that (though I don’t know if exactly in those words), and if I did, then I apologize for it. That was not my intent.
No, apologies are mine. That was not you. I’m not sure why I thought it was! Anyway, I have defamed you! Sorry!
https://substack.com/@helenpluckrose/note/c-191841378?r=1nm3qt&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
No problem. I know I did make a few spicy comments before, so I don’t blame you for suspecting my intent.
I’m going to ignore the part about “refusal at self-improvement,” because I’m honestly not sure what that’s meant to refer to here.
I think you’re actually making my point for me. The disagreement seems to hinge on what standard we’re using to decide what counts as “far.” From where you’re standing, labeling anti-imperialism or social democracy as far-left may feel obvious. From other national or historical contexts, those positions sit well within the mainstream.
So the real question is: far by what axis? Economic policy? Attitudes toward state power? Individual rights versus collective obligation? Secular versus religious authority? Willingness to tolerate coercion or violence? Or is “far” simply shorthand for ideas that feel threatening or uncomfortable relative to one’s own position?
This is why I’m skeptical of left/right labeling in the first place. It assumes a shared center that doesn’t actually exist and collapses very different dimensions into a single line. The result is polarization into “my side” and “the other side,” rather than discussion of specific policies, institutions, or moral commitments and how they actually affect people, both domestically and globally.
If we want clarity, I think it’s more useful to talk about concrete positions and their consequences than to argue over who sits where on a spectrum whose midpoint shifts depending on who’s drawing it.
The lines of extremism on the right are drawn by those the establishment left consider to be beyond the pale. On immigration/ ethnicity that tends to be those who believe there is such a thing as indigenous Britons, are in favour of mass deportations, fly a Union Jack or George Cross, or hold that there is discrimination against white kids. On men’s rights, those who hold that there is such a thing, or that they matter, or who arse on about gynocentrism, or want women out of the workplace. On gender identity ideology, those who hold there is no such thing as trans. The centre right generally agrees.
On the left, the centre left doesn’t really believe there is such a thing as the far left at all, whether it’s about supporting terrorism, destroying people’s livelihoods for wrongthink, transitioning kids or demanding trillions for reparation. The centre right thinks the left is so demented and inconsistent anyway, that there’s no point in trying to make a distinction.
Excellent, as usual, from Helen.
Couple of observations from behind the sofa of the culture wars.....(and from another more "scientific" discipline)
1. Terminology needs to be sharpened. There are several aspects subsumed in many commonly-discussed concepts ("extremist", "racist", "leftist", "wokeist"). (I've always thought of extremism as a function of what cost/harm/risk someone is prepared to enact to their ideological opponents, or to realise their own vision of society, than of any one stance. But there are other aspects of "extremism" too e.g. "someone's who pursues a political or religious doctrine with literal purity, disregarding context or cost".).
2. Criteria need to be clearly defined as the basis of any argument (e.g. arguments are had without a common basis for discussion: So, are we making the case for a certain policy/action to maximise wealth equality, because it grants fair opportunities, because it makes human beings more equal, because it generates greater social acceptance of more people, because it makes life better now, because it makes life better tomorrow... and for who, at whose expense?). And if someone wishes to pursue a certain life that will harm then in some way, who gets to say what takes precedent. (I would say most of our actions/choices are trade offs between health, wealth, freedom, status, social-acceptance, indulgence-of-interests, now and in the future).
3. If you (would like to) have a social conscience, but are not from the identarian movement, then it might be useful for some more evidence-based discussions on the forms of inherited disadvantage that society might care to compensate. All of this is reasonably well documented and quantified, even, in the social sciences: parental education, parental health, location of upbringing, age, gender, weight, height, attractiveness, IQ, EQ, psychological typology, accent, values-alignment with others, own education, events/life shocks, choices, religion, peer group influences and socio-economic background, access to information/economic opportunity.....