An interesting piece Grant. Frightening to understand that if France ‘enjoyed’ MMP then RN would have been elected to power. One of the issues that is not being addressed in the new body politic is that a large body of nationals in many countries are concerned about unbridled immigration. It was the Achilles heel that lead to Britain leaving the European Union and it arguably is one of the main reasons we still have to endure Winston Peters in NZ. Education is the only way that people, who blame immigrants for their own malaise, can come to understand that their prejudices. Accepting immigrants into their country to live alongside is not who they have to fear. Rather it’s the rich people who have written a narrative that these very same poor disenfranchised immigrants are the reason each nations working poor are disadvantaged. But it’s a simple solution to a complex issue. Goebbels understood this, as does Suella Braverman every time they refer to humans as ‘rats’ or ‘cockroaches’ it’s a passport to dehumanise and vilify people who want nothing more than to escape persecution and lead an ordinary life. The trigger that anyone loses their own identity to another person or group of people who choose to march to the beat of a different drum is the argument of the weak minded, the insecure and those who feel disenfranchised by a government that keeps them in servitude. It’s the racist clarion call of New Zealand First and ACT when they cry for ‘we are all the same’, no special treatments, we are all equal under the law. For anyone who has ever read anything about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or has ever availed themselves of the Native Land Acts of the mid 1850s to early 1900 they would instantly understand that there has NEVER been one law for all, we have never all been treated equally. The challenge for each and every one of us, who feels as I do that this is a false narrative, is to make sure that we draw attention to the lies that are being spread in our name, by party’s across the western democracies who pedal fear and insecurity over immigrants, who blame others for the dire living standards within member countries, and to tell them in short that totalitarianism gains a foot hold where good people remain silent in the presence of wickedness. It will start with immigrants, then people of colour, then religious difference, then sexuality, then unionism and finally it will knock on each and every one of our doors who dares to think differently.
A lot to react to there, thanks Mike! Even under PR, the RN party would still not have a majority though. You may like to look at the Netherlands and see how they've been dealing with Geert Wilders.
Thanks so much for this detailed description of Rassemblement Nationale’s odious policies. I think “pretty far right” is an accurate description. Not totalitarian but not sensible either. Failing to engage with the complexity of the modern world. Dangerously simplistic. Lacking compassion. Etc.
If we were looking for a historical precedent, then, rather than reach for Italian/German fascism, I'd look at French imperialism and mission civilisatrice. Only now they're wanting to reject the influx from the former colonies.
Thanks Grant - good post. Drilling down to get a sense of what RN are actually planning to implement is really useful as it provides sense of where a 'conservative nationalist' agenda overlaps (and differs from) from more centrist approaches.
Thanks Mark. I can't predict how much force they may be willing to use to deport people, nor how many people, if RN got into power. But that's the worry. Perhaps I should check up on Italy.
Yes - the question of deporting so-called illegals is priority for many European parties but it is useful to unpack the policies of RN as when it comes to deportations they are not that far apart from the cruelty of the British Conservatives and their 'Rwanda solution'.
"Neo-reactionary" or "(far-)authoritarian" would be good descriptions. That said, the RN & Brothers of Italy leadership might have sanitised their image to look reasonable, but many of their members & supporters haven't.
Good point about some of those supporters... But are these parties just 'sanitising their image'? The conduct of some supporters (highlighted in media) doesn't tell us where the party is heading strategically.
Good post, I was one of the commenters critiquing your use of the term. The gist of this post seems to me to be "no, probably not far right". In my opinion it is very clear that, to use your words, most people use "the qualifier *far* because [they] don’t like a party, and hence want to typify it as extreme and “unfit to govern”.
Yes, thank you Brandon, that discussion did get me thinking. It's hard to conclude that a party that gets around a third of votes – more than any other – can be called "far" anything, left or right. I think though that "far" might befit a minority party that really seeks to undermine the democratic rule of law. It's all a matter of opinion!
Excellent post
An interesting piece Grant. Frightening to understand that if France ‘enjoyed’ MMP then RN would have been elected to power. One of the issues that is not being addressed in the new body politic is that a large body of nationals in many countries are concerned about unbridled immigration. It was the Achilles heel that lead to Britain leaving the European Union and it arguably is one of the main reasons we still have to endure Winston Peters in NZ. Education is the only way that people, who blame immigrants for their own malaise, can come to understand that their prejudices. Accepting immigrants into their country to live alongside is not who they have to fear. Rather it’s the rich people who have written a narrative that these very same poor disenfranchised immigrants are the reason each nations working poor are disadvantaged. But it’s a simple solution to a complex issue. Goebbels understood this, as does Suella Braverman every time they refer to humans as ‘rats’ or ‘cockroaches’ it’s a passport to dehumanise and vilify people who want nothing more than to escape persecution and lead an ordinary life. The trigger that anyone loses their own identity to another person or group of people who choose to march to the beat of a different drum is the argument of the weak minded, the insecure and those who feel disenfranchised by a government that keeps them in servitude. It’s the racist clarion call of New Zealand First and ACT when they cry for ‘we are all the same’, no special treatments, we are all equal under the law. For anyone who has ever read anything about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or has ever availed themselves of the Native Land Acts of the mid 1850s to early 1900 they would instantly understand that there has NEVER been one law for all, we have never all been treated equally. The challenge for each and every one of us, who feels as I do that this is a false narrative, is to make sure that we draw attention to the lies that are being spread in our name, by party’s across the western democracies who pedal fear and insecurity over immigrants, who blame others for the dire living standards within member countries, and to tell them in short that totalitarianism gains a foot hold where good people remain silent in the presence of wickedness. It will start with immigrants, then people of colour, then religious difference, then sexuality, then unionism and finally it will knock on each and every one of our doors who dares to think differently.
A lot to react to there, thanks Mike! Even under PR, the RN party would still not have a majority though. You may like to look at the Netherlands and see how they've been dealing with Geert Wilders.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd1r0xvn0z5o
Thanks for your interest in the column.
Cheers
Thanks so much for this detailed description of Rassemblement Nationale’s odious policies. I think “pretty far right” is an accurate description. Not totalitarian but not sensible either. Failing to engage with the complexity of the modern world. Dangerously simplistic. Lacking compassion. Etc.
If we were looking for a historical precedent, then, rather than reach for Italian/German fascism, I'd look at French imperialism and mission civilisatrice. Only now they're wanting to reject the influx from the former colonies.
Thanks Grant - good post. Drilling down to get a sense of what RN are actually planning to implement is really useful as it provides sense of where a 'conservative nationalist' agenda overlaps (and differs from) from more centrist approaches.
Thanks Mark. I can't predict how much force they may be willing to use to deport people, nor how many people, if RN got into power. But that's the worry. Perhaps I should check up on Italy.
Yes - the question of deporting so-called illegals is priority for many European parties but it is useful to unpack the policies of RN as when it comes to deportations they are not that far apart from the cruelty of the British Conservatives and their 'Rwanda solution'.
That is a worrisome comparison!
"Neo-reactionary" or "(far-)authoritarian" would be good descriptions. That said, the RN & Brothers of Italy leadership might have sanitised their image to look reasonable, but many of their members & supporters haven't.
https://www.thelocal.it/20240628/italys-meloni-breaks-silence-on-youth-wings-fascist-comments
https://www.politico.eu/article/marine-le-pen-party-france-national-rally-holocaust-nazi-vladimir-putin-racism-xenophobia/
Good point about some of those supporters... But are these parties just 'sanitising their image'? The conduct of some supporters (highlighted in media) doesn't tell us where the party is heading strategically.
These parties claim to have put their Holocaust-denying pasts behind them, in order to broaden their appeal. But certain old habits don't die easily.
Good post, I was one of the commenters critiquing your use of the term. The gist of this post seems to me to be "no, probably not far right". In my opinion it is very clear that, to use your words, most people use "the qualifier *far* because [they] don’t like a party, and hence want to typify it as extreme and “unfit to govern”.
Yes, thank you Brandon, that discussion did get me thinking. It's hard to conclude that a party that gets around a third of votes – more than any other – can be called "far" anything, left or right. I think though that "far" might befit a minority party that really seeks to undermine the democratic rule of law. It's all a matter of opinion!