A showdown between Labour and Reform looks likely after the announcement of a by-election in Runcorn and Helsby, and the advent of a completely new, dark era in America and geopolitics is upon us thanks to Donald Trump’s return to the White House. My thoughts, like many others who contribute to Bylines are: how are progressives to respond to the far right’s growing confidence? An effective response requires a refusal to succumb to a sense of powerlessness, which requires organised action. But what does it require at the basic level of ‘political communication’? Here, I propose that it requires three things: understanding, the right language, and the capacity to convey a sense of hope.
Understand the dangers
The first requirement, then, is an understanding of what Farage and Trump represent. As fellow Italians say: “Se li conosci, li eviti”: “If you understand dangers, you can avoid them”.
This means appreciating that the struggle against Nigel Farage and Donald Trump is a struggle to defend democracy itself. The reason is that they are populist politicians. Populism is an ideology based on the belief that politics is a struggle between a single, undifferentiated ‘pure people’ on one side, and a ‘corrupt elite’ on the other. This implies two things. First, since ‘the people’ is a single undifferentiated entity, the populist leader too is ‘of the people’ and therefore the most authentic representative of its interests against those of the ‘corrupt elite’. Second, anything that obstructs the will of the people and their authentic leader originates outside the people, and is thus the enemy of the people.
Consequently, populists are intolerant of constitutional government, of checks and balances, of the separation of powers and of entrenched minority rights. They oppose pluralism as a political principle. Elections, for populists, serve the plebiscitarian purpose of the direct investiture of leaders, authorised thereby to issue orders with few constraints on the substance or mode of execution of those orders.
Populist leaders tend to change the constitution
I recommend reading Jordan Kyle and Jascha Mounk’s ‘The Populist Harm to Democracy: An Empirical Assessment’, published in 2018 by the Tony Blair Institute. This shows, among other things, that over 50 percent of populist leaders amend their countries’ constitutions; that their attacks on the rule of law open the way to greater corruption; that ‘freedom of the press falls by some 7 per cent, civil liberties by 8 per cent and political rights by 13 per cent’.
The language we use is important
Second, facing down the challenge of Reform Party and Trumpian politics requires having the correct language with which to do so. This means first, being aware that words matter because how we perceive the world depends on the words we use to describe it. Words are not just a ‘woke obsession’.
When we use a term like ‘illegal immigrant’, for example, we imply culpability even though international law recognises the right to seek asylum, regardless of how a person arrives in a country or with what documents. The term helps the far right for example, by drawing attention away from the disingenuousness behind suggestions that so-called ‘criminal gangs’ are responsible for deaths in the English Channel – when it is the UK government that is responsible, as it refuses to make available safe routes for refugees.
Having the correct language to face down Reform and Trump means – second – recognising the power of narratives: stories that explain who we are, where we have come from, where we are now and where we are going. As Mark Laity has pointed out, narratives need to be persuasive on all of three levels: rational argument, moral authority and emotional resonance – of which the most important are the latter two. ‘Take back control!’ for example, effectively captured the narrative of ‘Leave’ campaigners because it was highly emotionally resonant, reflecting something that large swathes of the population were feeling: resentful and without control of their destiny.
Runcorn and Helsby by-election
In the Runcorn and Helsby by-election, my election leaflet would show portraits of Oswald Mosley and Adolf Hitler on one side and of Nigel Farage and Vladimir Putin on the other: crude and vulgar, perhaps; but – given the emotional intensity – effective, I would bet.
Having the correct language to face down Reform and Trump means – third – finding a way to speak to their supporters and potential supporters that avoids leaving them with the feeling that they are under attack. This means being willing to make the effort to engage in respectful, open, and non-confrontational dialogue. Instead of, “Brexit has been a disaster!” try, “Some people argue that Brexit has caused economic difficulties. How do you see it?” People rarely change their minds when they feel forced into a corner. By engaging in dialogue rather than debate, and focusing on curiosity rather than persuasion, you increase the likelihood of a productive conversation where someone might genuinely reconsider their stance.
If understanding and the correct language are the first two requirements for effectively facing down the challenge of Farage and Trump, then the third is hope. Hope is important because without it,anger and resentment prevail: emotions that enable Farage and Trump to offer up ‘the other’ as a scapegoat, cementing themselves as representatives ‘of the people’.
Charisma and firm principles are needed
Hope requires having charisma and firm principles – qualities that appear to be in short supply when the UK Prime Minister endorses actions like disseminating footage of police raids on people accused of immigration offences or publicising deportations, for example. Is it not naïve to think that these things will relieve the electoral pressure from Reform? If you try to appease an extremist by yourself adopting extreme positions, then all that happens is that they become even more extreme. And as Harry S. Truman is reputed to have said, “Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time”.
Offering hope, I would suggest, requires doing the exact opposite. In connection with Europe, for example, it means making the case that EU membership is empowering and not disempowering. It means recognising that Europe is not perfect but a work in progress. It means working with civil-society organisations in the rest of Europe campaigning for a more progressive and democratic EU. It means insisting that there is no more conflict between a British and a European identity than there is between say, a Texan and an American one. Above all, it means remembering the phrase attributed to Massimo d’Azeglio, a key figure in the movement for Italian unification: “Abbiamo fatto l’Italia, ora bisogna fare gli italiani”: “We’ve created Italy, now we have to create Italians”.
We need to feel European to become Europeans
Likewise, if we want to create Europe, we have to create Europeans. There is much more the European institutions could do in this regard. For instance, there was a brief period shortly after completion of the single market, when sudden realisation of its benefits came about – from unrestricted trade to budget airlines, to ‘booze cruises’ and lower prices. As a result, EU membership and a European identity caught the popular imagination in the UK. They can do so again.
We can make certain they do if we embody Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sentiment: “We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon”. Doing this, we can certainly face down the hatred and bigotry of the likes of Nigel Farage and Donald Trump and with them, the threats to democracy that they represent.
