And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.
— Judges 12:5–6
We, as a species, like to organize things, to group like with like. This may seem like a broad generalization, but open the utensil drawer in most peoples’ homes and you’ll likely see categories, small spoons, large spoons, small forks, large forks, etc. It’s neater this way and makes it easier to find things so why would we do things differently? Scientists are similar in this way, classifying animals by domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.
It simplifies the complex and adds order to what is often a chaotic world. The fact that the average person does not necessarily know the details of this system is not a major concern as it is not readily open to abuse. We don’t need a detailed understanding of Phylum to know it’s not wise to pet strange dogs or that some animals are more dangerous than others.
There is however a fine line between categorizing and generalizing. Categorizing assists with understanding, generalizing frequently does the opposite. The press and politicians love to generalize. Sometimes it’s to simplify, but often it’s to muddy the waters and advance an agenda. A perfect example is the Left’s use of the term “anti-vaxxer.” To most people this brings to mind close-minded individuals and conspiracy theorists irrationally opposing masks and vaccine mandates. While there are likely people who fit this description, many who opposed the vaccine mandates did so in defense of personal freedom and a desire to resist government overreach. By grouping everyone under the umbrella of “anti-vaxxer” the Left dishonestly portrays the rational and irrational alike in order to promote its pro-mandate stance and discount all opinions that don’t align with the desired narrative.
The “anti-vaxxer” ploy has seen a decline of late as life returns to (a closer approximation of) normal following the end of the Pandemic. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that the Left isn’t up to its usual tricks. Most recently, the left-wing politicians and the liberal media, have been attempting to portray many conservative politicians as “Far-Right.”
What is “Far-Right?
To many, if not most of us, the term “far-right” brings to mind images of World War II and goose stepping nazis. This is both the point and an oversimplification. All Nazi’s are far right, but not everyone who’s far right is a nazi. The far-right is typically associated with radical conservatism, ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, nativism (anti-immigration), and may also include xenophobia, racism, homophobia, etc. The term is used for both scientific and political reasons and it is the latter that we are concerned with as that is why the left uses it. In the words of Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg, “the concept is generally used by political adversaries to ‘disqualify and stigmatize all forms of partisan nationalism by reducing them to the historical experiments of Italian Fascism [and] German National Socialism.’" The association of “far-right” with National Socialism and Fascism means that if the left can successfully associate a conservative party or politician with the far-right, they can equate the target with the nazis. This is why so many on the left have begun to use the term so liberally (no pun intended), including against Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the official opposition in Canada and Javier Milei, the recently elected President of Argentina.
In the last few months, Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, has been accused by several prominent Liberals of engaging in “far-right rhetoric” and of undergoing a far-right radicalization. While the Conservatives differ in many ways from the Liberals, as one would expect in a multi-party democracy, accusing Poilievre and the Conservatives of being far right is dishonest, if not outright ludicrous. An examination of the party’s Policy Declaration, presented to party delegates on Sept 9, 2023, contains, among other things:
A statement regarding “the importance of building a long-term partnership with Indigenous peoples.”
Promotion of “legislation designed to protect freedom of expression.”
A desire to reestablish “the Office of Religious Freedom in order to promote the universal right of religious freedom.”
These hardly seem the policies and aspirations of a far-right party. If Poilievre is guilty of anything it is in disagreeing with the Liberals, and others on the left who prioritize ideology over merit and criminals over law-abiding citizens. That, and wielding slogans, such as “Axe the Tax” and “Trudeau, he’s not worth the cost,” more effectively than the Liberal government. Some may see the slogans as crass or associate them with something that Trump might say, but sloganeering is hardly new nor exclusive to the far-right.
President Milei is another interesting example. He defeated Sergio Massa in the run-off election in November of 2023, and while some saw his election as a sign of discontent with the status quo rather than support for his policies, winning 56% of the 77% of the electorate who voted is a clear mandate for change. His proposals include cutting public spending and lowering taxes, charging people for using the public health care system, and closing/privatizing state owned enterprises. He is also opposed to abortion and euthanasia. While these are in-line with common conservative positions, and he identifies as a small government social conservative, the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, and Reuters have all labeled him as far-right.
Taken together, Poilievre’s and Milei’s positions represent those held by run-of-the-mill conservatives, not far-right radicals. You likely know many people who would support these positions, and it’s possible one stares right back at you from the mirror every morning. Did we all become far-right extremists when we weren’t paying attention or is there something else going on?
What is going on?
Could our old friend the “Good Person” meme be at play again?
While the meme is no doubt one of the most accurate of all time, recognizing what is going on does not help us understand why. One simple explanation, as I alluded to earlier, is that those on the left are simply doing what has always been done in politics, branding the other side as “untrustworthy” or “evil” in order to win an election. In a “standard” election between Center-Left vs. Center-Right this explanation would likely be sufficient and, given that so many claim “both sides are essentially the same,” the stakes would be low enough not to matter that much. However, as progressives and others on the far left have shown with their support of Hamas, elevation of equity over merit, and failure to prioritize common citizens over criminals, more is at stake, and we must consider the possibility that there is something else going on.
It’s all about power!
Postmodernism, a belief that many of the Far-Left subscribe to, rejects concepts of rationality, objectivity, and universal truth and allows adherents to dismiss what appears to be a lie (that all conservatives are “Far-Right”) as simply a difference of opinion. If there is no “objective truth,” how can labeling conservatives as “Far-Right” be a lie? Afterall, words mean what we decide they mean and “far” is a relative term (see the meme again). Of course, it is not a simple disagreement of opinion for one clear reason, and that is that the vast majority of us understand that there is a clear definition of “Far-Right” and associate it with Nazis, White Supremacy, etc., not our conservative neighbors. Branding conservatives as “far-right” is only possible when the term is used without an explanation of what makes the individual in question “far-right.” This is done in the hope that readers will just take the word of the activist, politician, or “reporter.”
Why do this at all? Why not just present the facts and let the reader decide? Progressives are no different than any other movement, they have an agenda. The difference is the extent to which they believe that no lie is too big to advance the cause. To progressives and other adherents of postmodernism, everything comes down to power. By labelling everyone to the right of the center-right – and frequently even to the right or the center-left – as “far-right,” progressives hope to attract the votes of those on the center-left without having to make concessions to their differing viewpoint (ex. the existence of merit). If the choice comes down to progressives or “nazis,” progressives hope the choice will be obvious. It is also hoped that the ploy will also have an impact on the center-right. While it’s unlikely that anyone on the center-right will vote progressive, it is possible that successfully tarnishing conservative politicians as far-right will do the next best thing, cause center-right voters to stay away in disgust.
Shibboleth – Ok, it’s not all about power.
There is another factor at play, and it is one centered on identity. While accusations of “far-right” are an exercise in branding opponents, they also signal one as a member of the group, it is a “shibboleth” of the progressive movement to be included alongside the use of such terms “systematic racism,” “patriarchy,” and “settler colonialism” as well as the use of pride/trans flags in social media bios, and pronouns in email signature blocks. Failure to use these or to insist on more honest and accurate use of terminology, identifies one as an “enemy” of the progressive movement while the dishonest use of “Far-Right” identifies one as a member of the in-group, or as a “fellow-traveler,” as the Bolsheviks once called those intellectually sympathetic to their ideology.
Conclusion
We live in the modern world and so, unlike the Gileadites, Progressives and others on the far-left are not intent of slaying those who fail their “shibboleth” test. The goal is not to kill those of us who profess the “wrong” beliefs or use words “incorrectly,” but rather to banish us from “polite” society and from the community of people whose ideas are worthy of debate. Their intent is to muddy, to confuse, to deceive, and ultimately to convince you that those who are slightly right of you and who hold many of the opinions that you do, are in fact no better than Nazis. They rely on your inattention and your belief that they are, in the words of CNN, “the most trusted name in news.”
It can be difficult today to tell the difference between what is news and what is propaganda, between what is a true description of events and what is manipulation. Those wishing to deceive or manipulate are clever, they rarely lie outright, preferring to weave some truth into their web of lies. They claim to have our best interests at heart and that they are possessed of a revealed wisdom that will usher in a better world but seem more intent on villainizing their adversaries and judging people based on skin color. I am not a particularly religious person, but I am reminded of Matthew 7:15:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.”
In some ways we are fortunate that the left has taken the approach they have, as the “shibboleth” test works both ways. It enables them to identify who they wish to vilify and ostracize but it enables us to identify them as well…and if you pay attention, if listen carefully to their words, they will tell you who they are.