RolloTreadway on Nostr: npub1g0tuf…3tvm4 I believe the specific problem in this case is that far right ...
npub1g0tuf634rz4suczwj7kgnecr6cyt0eu9xmp3sp0fku68mqehq4msp3tvm4 (npub1g0t…tvm4) I believe the specific problem in this case is that far right (also true of far left!) has no widely accepted definition. I suspect you and I probably have a similar view of what qualifies as far right, but if we met someone on the right of the Tory party, their view would be significantly different. Similarly, a couple of days ago I came across someone here arguing that Labour are far right. And of course the aforesaid Tory right person likely thought Corbyn was far left.
Radical right and extreme right may be more clearly defined academic terms. But I do feel there's a wider issue of imprecision in how we refer to political extremes. Some but not all of the far right is nativist; some but not all is statist; some but not all is totalitarian; some but not all is libertarian; and so on and so on.
For example: you might have noticed a few months ago, there was widespread inconsistency in how the return to power of Robert Fico and his Smer party in Slovakia was covered, with varying descriptions of their politics from hard left to hard right. Smer's politics are nativist, authoritarian, socially hardline conservative - but also strongly opposed to libertarianism and capitalist dominance, supportive of labour rights, a large public sector and progressive taxation.
We lack a single easy term to describe such politics. Yes, we can easily point to someone like Trump and say: far right, fascist. But most modern populist politics doesn't lend itself to such simple terms. And so someone like Tice can say that he can't be far right because far right is a derogatory term for a, b, c and he believes in x, y, z.
Still, you're right, a test case would've been interesting. But we also need to start using better language for describing political extremes.
Radical right and extreme right may be more clearly defined academic terms. But I do feel there's a wider issue of imprecision in how we refer to political extremes. Some but not all of the far right is nativist; some but not all is statist; some but not all is totalitarian; some but not all is libertarian; and so on and so on.
For example: you might have noticed a few months ago, there was widespread inconsistency in how the return to power of Robert Fico and his Smer party in Slovakia was covered, with varying descriptions of their politics from hard left to hard right. Smer's politics are nativist, authoritarian, socially hardline conservative - but also strongly opposed to libertarianism and capitalist dominance, supportive of labour rights, a large public sector and progressive taxation.
We lack a single easy term to describe such politics. Yes, we can easily point to someone like Trump and say: far right, fascist. But most modern populist politics doesn't lend itself to such simple terms. And so someone like Tice can say that he can't be far right because far right is a derogatory term for a, b, c and he believes in x, y, z.
Still, you're right, a test case would've been interesting. But we also need to start using better language for describing political extremes.