Wow nice article. You are one of the few that is both critical of the right and of the left. Please keep up the good work. We in the whole of the EU and UK need more people like you who are consistent and honest in their reasoning!
It would be helpful to me if you were more specific about how to differentiate between legitimate conservatism and what you call “the far right” and therefore “out of the Overton Window of acceptability” for some of the more controversial issues. It is fine to pick some obnoxious comments on social media as examples, but I think policy statements are more important to political discourse.
For example, would you consider the following statements far right?:
1) UK should stop immigration immediately.
2) UK should deport all illegal immigrants.
3) Illegal immigrants should not get government funding for housing, education, benefits, etc.
4) Immigrants who have arrived in the UK since 1990 and their children should not get government funding for housing, education, benefits, etc.
Those sorts of statements are typically defined as “far right” by many leaders of British institutions. Many of them go further and say such views should be censored and never uttered by anyone in Parliament. Do you agree?
To be clear, I know that you do not agree with those statements. The question is whether you believe the statements are far right and outside the Overton window.
I think that NONE of those statements, qua statement, is unacceptable, given the fact that Helen is promoting public debate as a fundamental principle of liberal democracy. Apart from statements that directly incite violence, what is "extreme" is behaviour: namely, when statements are banned from public discourse, deemed undebatable, criminalized, or punished (with fines, loss of job, "cancellation," social ostracism, etc.). In such cases, we are entering the domain of intolerance and authoritarianism.
My take on Helen's opinion (Sorry if I'm wrong, Helen) and my own would be that your statements 1, 2 & 3 are not "out (of) the window" but statement 4 is.
None of them, however, should be banned from public discourse, neither parliamentary nor extra-parliamentary.
Stephanie Slade noted this same phenomenon in the US back in 2022, in her article, “Both Left and Right Are Converging on Authoritarianism” (Reason Magazine, 2022 <https://reason.com/2022/09/13/the-authoritarian-convergence/>) The idea that extreme versions of left and right political ideologies (e.g. Stalin and Hitler) resemble each other more than either resembles its moderate (liberal/democratic) version was first articulated by the postmodernist Jean-Pierre Faye, and came to be known as the “horseshoe theory.” Helen is right to highlight the contradiction between the tolerance of viewpoint diversity – an essential characteristic of liberal democracies – and the intolerance of opposing viewpoints – be they left or right – that characterizes authoritarian societies. Thank you, Helen, for continuing to warn us of the dangers of our excessive enthusiasms and the threat they pose to our democratic values.
This is on my mind a lot. First off I'm constantly concerned that my anger toward the woke left's betrayal of all the principles that drew me to the left in the 90s is making me irrational or dismissive of conservative problems, but that's a separate worry.
In reference to your piece, I'm worried that human nature doesn't allow for a calm, rational, golden mean to prevail, and that the only thing that can stop group A from rampaging is an equally powerful (and often equally awful) group B. I'm not a historian so I'd be delighted to be proven wrong here, but history reads like one group of bastards eventually mellowing out, only to be supplanted by the newer, more energetic group of bastards. Power abhorring a vacuum and all that.
Does that mean the UK needs angry soccer (yeah I said it!) hooligans to combat the Muslim rape gangs? I honestly have no idea, but right now the government seems (from the outside at least) bizarrely intent on letting outsiders abuse their own population. That leaves people to defend themselves, and no mass movement I've ever learned about gained critical mass with slogans like, "Be reasonable and fair!" or, "Take your time and check your first principles!"
I guess the underlying question that I don't want to confront is, is there any way to confront aggression, even evil, without committing aggressive and/or evil acts? How pure can we stay before becoming the guy in the bar who's still thinking he can avoid a fight when the other guy's fist connects with his face? Is there any way to stop abusive people without abusing them back so they feel the same pain?
I'm not happy about asking those questions. I don't like any of this.
I honestly believe that are the people like you, Helen, that can stand for a new progressive left that can avoid the far right tendencies.
Far right extremism is never ever a solution, but a reaction based on fear and anger.
The problem is, that it seems to me that Starmer, for example (that I love in international policy) he seems really compromise to this absurd blindness of not imposing the same rules (for example that rape is a serious crime!) to people from other cultures that then, in exchange vote for labour even if they are absolutely against LGBTQ rights and multiculuralism.
Maybe I am to much on the right, probably, but for me, the solution is draconian:
Is it really true to say that 'we have a problem with the far-right'? What are the problems created by the far-right? Where is the far-right in power? Where is the far-right abusing its power?
My perspective is that people like Tommy Robinson are much more likely to tell the truth than the mainstream media, and it would be wise to start listening to what he has to say.
Reform have been at pains to distinguish themselves from Tommy Robinson (who has now joined Advance UK). The Conservatives have consistently defenestrated anyone who strays over the line into racism. The onlineosphere is as mad as a box of frogs, as ever.
You’re not a conservative, so it’s difficult to see who your argument is aimed at, and who is meant to take heed of your lecturing. Or is this one for your US readership?
Jim, I'd say it's highly relevant to all (Anglo-sphere) audiences. While specifically aimed at UK circumstances, it is relevant here in Australia with a bit of name changing.
I think Jim's point is that this is a message that mainstream conservatives in the UK don't appear to need since they have already independently decided to draw lines in the sand against various far right figures.
Agree that decorum and respect for it is crucial Helen, but... this is all theater. The world is a stage. Food for thought:
"There is something way bigger going on when you can divide everyone in the entire world into an 'us vs them' mentality on almost every single subject." —Prevensilk
Wow nice article. You are one of the few that is both critical of the right and of the left. Please keep up the good work. We in the whole of the EU and UK need more people like you who are consistent and honest in their reasoning!
I appreciate you Helen!
Excellent article, as always. I shared it.
It would be helpful to me if you were more specific about how to differentiate between legitimate conservatism and what you call “the far right” and therefore “out of the Overton Window of acceptability” for some of the more controversial issues. It is fine to pick some obnoxious comments on social media as examples, but I think policy statements are more important to political discourse.
For example, would you consider the following statements far right?:
1) UK should stop immigration immediately.
2) UK should deport all illegal immigrants.
3) Illegal immigrants should not get government funding for housing, education, benefits, etc.
4) Immigrants who have arrived in the UK since 1990 and their children should not get government funding for housing, education, benefits, etc.
Those sorts of statements are typically defined as “far right” by many leaders of British institutions. Many of them go further and say such views should be censored and never uttered by anyone in Parliament. Do you agree?
To be clear, I know that you do not agree with those statements. The question is whether you believe the statements are far right and outside the Overton window.
I think that NONE of those statements, qua statement, is unacceptable, given the fact that Helen is promoting public debate as a fundamental principle of liberal democracy. Apart from statements that directly incite violence, what is "extreme" is behaviour: namely, when statements are banned from public discourse, deemed undebatable, criminalized, or punished (with fines, loss of job, "cancellation," social ostracism, etc.). In such cases, we are entering the domain of intolerance and authoritarianism.
My take on Helen's opinion (Sorry if I'm wrong, Helen) and my own would be that your statements 1, 2 & 3 are not "out (of) the window" but statement 4 is.
None of them, however, should be banned from public discourse, neither parliamentary nor extra-parliamentary.
Stephanie Slade noted this same phenomenon in the US back in 2022, in her article, “Both Left and Right Are Converging on Authoritarianism” (Reason Magazine, 2022 <https://reason.com/2022/09/13/the-authoritarian-convergence/>) The idea that extreme versions of left and right political ideologies (e.g. Stalin and Hitler) resemble each other more than either resembles its moderate (liberal/democratic) version was first articulated by the postmodernist Jean-Pierre Faye, and came to be known as the “horseshoe theory.” Helen is right to highlight the contradiction between the tolerance of viewpoint diversity – an essential characteristic of liberal democracies – and the intolerance of opposing viewpoints – be they left or right – that characterizes authoritarian societies. Thank you, Helen, for continuing to warn us of the dangers of our excessive enthusiasms and the threat they pose to our democratic values.
This is on my mind a lot. First off I'm constantly concerned that my anger toward the woke left's betrayal of all the principles that drew me to the left in the 90s is making me irrational or dismissive of conservative problems, but that's a separate worry.
In reference to your piece, I'm worried that human nature doesn't allow for a calm, rational, golden mean to prevail, and that the only thing that can stop group A from rampaging is an equally powerful (and often equally awful) group B. I'm not a historian so I'd be delighted to be proven wrong here, but history reads like one group of bastards eventually mellowing out, only to be supplanted by the newer, more energetic group of bastards. Power abhorring a vacuum and all that.
Does that mean the UK needs angry soccer (yeah I said it!) hooligans to combat the Muslim rape gangs? I honestly have no idea, but right now the government seems (from the outside at least) bizarrely intent on letting outsiders abuse their own population. That leaves people to defend themselves, and no mass movement I've ever learned about gained critical mass with slogans like, "Be reasonable and fair!" or, "Take your time and check your first principles!"
I guess the underlying question that I don't want to confront is, is there any way to confront aggression, even evil, without committing aggressive and/or evil acts? How pure can we stay before becoming the guy in the bar who's still thinking he can avoid a fight when the other guy's fist connects with his face? Is there any way to stop abusive people without abusing them back so they feel the same pain?
I'm not happy about asking those questions. I don't like any of this.
I honestly believe that are the people like you, Helen, that can stand for a new progressive left that can avoid the far right tendencies.
Far right extremism is never ever a solution, but a reaction based on fear and anger.
The problem is, that it seems to me that Starmer, for example (that I love in international policy) he seems really compromise to this absurd blindness of not imposing the same rules (for example that rape is a serious crime!) to people from other cultures that then, in exchange vote for labour even if they are absolutely against LGBTQ rights and multiculuralism.
Maybe I am to much on the right, probably, but for me, the solution is draconian:
Same country = same rules for everybody.
That's it.
Is that simple, for me.
Am I too simplistic?
Is it really true to say that 'we have a problem with the far-right'? What are the problems created by the far-right? Where is the far-right in power? Where is the far-right abusing its power?
My perspective is that people like Tommy Robinson are much more likely to tell the truth than the mainstream media, and it would be wise to start listening to what he has to say.
Reform have been at pains to distinguish themselves from Tommy Robinson (who has now joined Advance UK). The Conservatives have consistently defenestrated anyone who strays over the line into racism. The onlineosphere is as mad as a box of frogs, as ever.
You’re not a conservative, so it’s difficult to see who your argument is aimed at, and who is meant to take heed of your lecturing. Or is this one for your US readership?
Jim, I'd say it's highly relevant to all (Anglo-sphere) audiences. While specifically aimed at UK circumstances, it is relevant here in Australia with a bit of name changing.
I interpret your difficulty here as knowing which team Helen is on. I'd refer you to Danielle Sassoon's article on the inanity of teams in this sense here: https://www.thefp.com/p/what-justice-scalia-taught-me
I think Jim's point is that this is a message that mainstream conservatives in the UK don't appear to need since they have already independently decided to draw lines in the sand against various far right figures.
Agree that decorum and respect for it is crucial Helen, but... this is all theater. The world is a stage. Food for thought:
"There is something way bigger going on when you can divide everyone in the entire world into an 'us vs them' mentality on almost every single subject." —Prevensilk