This is a very readable history of the rise of far right political parties in Britain. As such, some might find it a little too parochial for general interest. Even so, the ideology behind the thinking of these groups is, I would suggest, a common trait wherever they are found. Judging by the apparent shift towards the extreme right in many if not all Western democracies in recent times, Trilling’s report is timely and cautionary.
Most revealing, perhaps, is the methods used by these groups to insinuate themselves into the political system by appealing to the uncertainties, fears and frustrations of ordinary people, suggesting that their lives, jobs, culture, customs, identity and security are all under threat, and by discrediting the ability of democratic governments to achieve any real solution to these problems. The initial appeal is to patriotic pride, and they initially limit their activities in areas where they an sense that such caring and concerned citizens can be shifted, even if ever so slightly, towards a kind of conscientious outrage at the decline in their living standards, their sense of security, and their control over complex and confusing social times. By emphasising these insecurities, and nudging the fears they generate, many people are fooled into believing that the caring, concerned candidate who speaks fearlessly of these things will be able to fix them by voting them in. And then “suddenly” a whole region turns to the right… and the influence on the general state of politics is thus subtly but almost inevitably changed — not necessarily all the way, but almost always contributing to further confusion and distractions which in turn serve to reinforce the biased perceptions.
Scratch this kind, concerned, initial face of the new right, and it is not too long before the blunt ideological “answers” are revealed. All these groups are essentially racist, anti-migration, anti-multicultural, and ruthless in their sheeting all the blame onto the most vulnerable in their society. They are intolerant. They are narcissistic. They are authoritarian. They appeal to the supremacy of their individualism and their “rights” (e.g. their right to free speech, which they use to propound their biases, even to the extent of preventing others from exercising that same right…).
In his analysis, Trilling suggests that it is the very belief in unrestricted individualism that might serve ultimately to split any combined onslaught. The far right is attractive for strong individuals; strong individuals take over the running of the group; inevitably another strong individual will come to disagree on the direction the group is taking… It’s hard to be a controlling individual when everyone else in the group also wants to be a controlling individual, but in a different direction… So perhaps the best aspect of this is that splits will occur, and the power diluted. But Trilling warns against complacency, and rightly so. They should not be dismissed as “looney” — these “looneys” have weakened governments by getting themselves into strategically important political positions which do exert sufficient power to stuff up just about any constructive policy which they see as being not “friendly” to their cause. If they cannot actually rule, then destabilisation may well be their game. We have been warned.