A harsh, right-wing authoritarianism is rising, casting a shadow of unfreedom as classic conservatism fades.
Across the globe, a stringent, right-wing authoritarianism is gaining momentum, threatening to eclipse traditional conservatism with a new “iron curtain” of unfreedom. This emergent ideology, variously analysed as “legal authoritarianism,” a novel form of “fascism,” or even authoritarian libertarianism, fundamentally represents what can only be described as a “crazy right.”
This movement thrives on the amplification of societal problems to the point of absurdity. Nations are portrayed as being on the brink of collapse, while “wokism,” often a marginal influence on daily life, is inflated into a phantom of left-wing totalitarianism. Migration is depicted as an “invasion” by destructive hordes, and normal, liveable cities are twisted into nightmarish landscapes of purported horror, rife with murder and manslaughter.
Genuine hardships are layered with countless fabricated terrors, fostering an atmosphere of madness within the political life of nations. The ideology of post-liberalism exaggerates the complexities of liberal democracy to such an extent that its proponents openly advocate for dictatorship, often with little attempt at concealment. Alarmingly, this ideology has gained traction within the United States, a leading Western democracy.
Similar trends are evident across Europe, though their manifestations differ based on varying political cultures and electoral systems. Multi-party systems exhibit distinct dynamics compared to first-past-the-post systems, which frequently result in de facto two-party arrangements.
In Europe, right-wing populist and far-right parties are on the ascent, seeking to pull traditional conservative and Christian Democratic parties in their wake. Should these conservative parties succumb to this temptation, they risk their own decline. Conversely, resisting this pull could alienate the more radical and frustrated segments of their support base, pushing them towards the “crazy right.” This objectively presents a precarious situation.
Recent months have seen two European nations respond to these challenges in contrasting ways. In Austria, the far-right FPÖ emerged as the dominant force in parliamentary elections. Initial attempts by conservatives, social democrats, and liberals to form a government faltered. Subsequently, the conservative People’s Party initially agreed to join a government led by the extreme right-wing agitator Herbert Kickl. However, when these negotiations also collapsed, the conservatives, social democrats, and liberals successfully formed a coalition government.
This tumultuous process appears to have been instructive for the three parties. They not only agreed on a joint government programme but also established a shared rhetoric of reasonableness. This coalition, uniting centre-left and centre-right forces, has, at least for now, operated with a remarkable spirit of “reasonable centrism.” Even the conservative People’s Party, which had sharply veered to the right in recent years, engaging in a competitive drive with right-wing radicals, has seemingly retreated from this dead end. Those familiar with Austrian political norms have been pleasantly surprised by this development.
The “crazy right” consistently elevates the temperature of political discourse through vicious polemics, fearmongering, the dissemination of fake news, and the manufacturing of outrage. Engaging in a contest with them on these terms is a losing proposition. Therefore, to continue the metaphor, it is crucial to lower the temperature of the debate. The three Austrian parties recognise the necessity of successfully implementing this strategy to prevent the “crazy right” from seizing power.
Germany, a leading European democracy, recently found itself in a situation with striking similarities, though not identical. The now officially far-right extremist AfD emerged as the second strongest party, securing 20.8 percent of the vote. Media discourse exhibited a favourable inclination towards them, fixating on issues such as migration and crime.
Following the election, realistic government formation options were limited, primarily pointing towards a coalition between the conservative Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats. While some conservatives may have entertained the notion of an alliance with the right-wing radicals, practical political considerations have, for now, blocked that path. Consequently, the conservatives and Social Democrats have formed an alliance, with Friedrich Merz, the leader of the CDU, becoming Chancellor, and Lars Klingbeil, the SPD’s leading figure, assuming the role of Vice-Chancellor.
However, following the debate of recent weeks, concern is mounting. Have the future government partners genuinely learned their lesson? Mere days after the alliance agreement was signed, disagreements arose regarding its interpretation. The conservatives have nominated several government members who echo the rhetoric of the “crazy right.” Christoph de Vries, known for his racial classification of people and for promoting ethno-nationalist positions barely distinguishable from those of the extreme right, has been appointed as a form of Deputy State Secretary for the Interior.
Wolfram Weimer has been selected as Minister of State for Culture. Confronted with modernisation, liberalisation, and the heterogeneity of contemporary societies, he voices fears of the Untergang des Abendlandes (the demise of the Occident), a long-standing right-wing conservative panic that has historically served as a rallying cry for the paranoid and extreme right. His socio-political views would position him as a fitting commentator for right-wing Fox News.
How can the heated and absurd discourse be calmed when it is being fuelled by figures within a centrist government? Attempting to render the extreme right superfluous by mimicking its tenets and thereby legitimising them has historically proven ineffective and is unlikely to succeed this time.
Ultimately, the alliance between Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, much like its Austrian counterpart, is an emergency coalition. The Berlin alliance has already pushed through a significant decision even before its formal establishment: one trillion euros are to be allocated for armaments, as well as urgently needed infrastructure and climate protection measures, through a reform of the strict German fiscal regulations. This move is also intended to stimulate the economy, ensure growth and jobs, and modernise the economic landscape. Such measures are urgently required, as Germany is not only in a persistent recession but is also grappling with a structural crisis within its economic model.
This context underscores the critical importance of the government pursuing a spirit of unity and refraining from engaging in the bitter culture wars that the extreme right so eagerly promotes. However, there is a tangible risk that German conservatism, currently facing a profound crisis of orientation, may attempt to combat radicals while simultaneously adopting key elements of the “crazy right.” This approach is destined for failure and would lead to a familiar and detrimental consequence of such coalitions: parties would govern together in an alliance, yet in reality, they would govern against one another.
Ultimately, the sole beneficiary of such a scenario would be the “crazy right.” It is hoped that all parties involved are acutely aware of this potential outcome.
This is a joint column with IPS Journal
Robert Misik is a writer and essayist in Vienna. He publishes in many outlets, including Die Zeit and Die Tageszeitung. His awards include the John Maynard Keynes Society prize for economic journalism.