0:01

Welcome to the new Books Network. Thinkers

0:05

on the far right have

0:08

in recent years appropriated the

0:10

language of liberal democracy but

0:23

with the aim of superseding it. They've

0:26

grown influential in certain circles. Are

0:28

they a threat to democracy? Should

0:31

we be worried about them? Welcome

0:33

to International Horizons, a podcast of

0:35

the Ralph Bunch Institute for International

0:37

Studies that brings scholarly

0:40

and diplomatic expertise to bear

0:42

on our understanding of a wide range

0:44

of international issues. My name is

0:47

John Torpy and I'm director of the Ralph Bunch

0:49

Institute at the Graduate Center of the

0:51

City University of New York. Today

0:54

we discuss the role of far

0:56

right thinkers in the contemporary political

0:58

landscape with Jim McAdams of the

1:00

University of Notre Dame. A.

1:03

James McAdams, his full name

1:05

is the William M. Scholl

1:07

Professor of International Affairs at

1:09

the University of Notre Dame. For

1:11

16 years he was director of

1:14

the Nanovic Institute for European

1:16

Studies there. He's written widely

1:19

on European affairs, especially on Central

1:21

Europe as well as on global

1:23

communism. His books

1:25

include Germany Divided, Judging

1:28

the Past in Unified Germany, and

1:31

Vanguard of the

1:33

Revolution, The Global Idea of the

1:35

Communist Party, published by Princeton University

1:38

Press, first in 2017. And

1:42

that book was named by Foreign Affairs as one of

1:44

the best books of 2018. He's

1:48

recently published a volume on contemporary far

1:50

right thinkers and the future of liberal

1:52

democracy and will soon publish an edited

1:55

volume, Far Right Newspeak

1:57

and the Future of Liberal Democracy with

1:59

the political theorist, Sam Piccolo

2:02

of Gustavus Adolphus College.

2:05

Thanks for being with us today, Jim McAdams. My

2:08

pleasure. Great to have you.

2:10

So you're about to

2:13

publish this book on far-right newspeak and

2:15

the future of liberal democracy. It

2:18

seems to me certainly very much like a

2:20

continuation of the work that you did in

2:22

the previous book on contemporary far-right thinkers. Can

2:25

you tell us what you mean by

2:27

far-right newspeak and who uses it? I

2:31

sure think, first of all, the

2:33

book is out and I have

2:35

it right here on my desk. So

2:38

it's available to everybody.

2:42

The difference between the two books is

2:44

that in the first we were shining

2:46

a light on major contemporary

2:49

far-right intellectuals, some

2:54

of whom weren't known or some of

2:56

whom weren't understood well, and

2:59

we try to compare them in a systematic

3:01

way. This is

3:03

the follow-up to that project in

3:06

that we're focusing

3:08

on a substantive theme

3:12

which is the use and abuse

3:14

of the language of

3:16

liberalism and democracy in

3:19

such a way that its propagators

3:23

may undermine or follow

3:25

out liberal democracy.

3:29

Far-right newspeak, well, it is

3:31

a reference to George Orwell with

3:34

a twist. What's

3:38

interesting if you compare our use of

3:40

newspeak, far-right newspeak and

3:42

Orwell's is that

3:45

Orwell was concerned about

3:47

the replacement of

3:50

the old-speak language of

3:52

liberalism and democracy and

3:55

those values with

3:57

a new-speak emphasis on dictatorial

4:01

values. In

4:03

contrast, the

4:06

people we're talking about are

4:08

using the language that

4:10

Orwell was

4:12

so determined to defend. They're

4:15

using the language of liberalism

4:17

and democracy in

4:19

ways that all of

4:21

our contributors believe represent

4:25

a serious threat. Okay.

4:28

And I note that the

4:31

book is coming out in a series that has

4:33

the term fascism in it. And I have

4:36

to say, I'm always kind of uncertain

4:38

about the use of that term and what

4:41

it means. I mean, I tend to be

4:43

a, I guess, a purist of some sort

4:45

who thinks of fascism

4:47

as a particular kind

4:50

of unique historical

4:53

event coming out of particular circumstances,

4:55

the First World War, and

4:58

the clash basically of communism and fascism. So I

5:00

wonder if you could talk about to

5:03

what extent you see this contemporary

5:06

far-right newspeak as coming

5:08

out of a similar kind of contest

5:12

or is it

5:14

a backlash against what's going on on

5:16

the left and

5:19

how you see the context?

5:23

John, we completely agree about

5:26

the nature of fascism. The

5:29

full title of the series is fascism in

5:31

the far right. And

5:34

like you, I understand

5:37

fascism or at least most of

5:39

its manifestations to be historically

5:44

specific, particular

5:46

to the period of the 1920s

5:48

to the 1940s, which

5:52

is not to say that there weren't

5:55

fascist parties afterwards, but

5:58

that we're talking about something. very

6:00

different. And in fact,

6:04

anybody who looks at the thinkers

6:06

that we cover in this book

6:09

will find that, at least in our

6:11

view, none of them can

6:14

be legitimately called fascists. And

6:20

just to give you and others a sense

6:23

of how I look at this historically,

6:28

and both of us are

6:30

historically minded social scientists, fascism

6:36

emerged at

6:38

a time when liberal democracy was

6:40

not well established at

6:43

all, in which it was

6:45

weak, and in

6:48

which the defenders of

6:50

liberal democratic ideas, values, institutions

6:54

were incapable of finding the support

6:56

they needed to maintain

6:59

their fledgling regimes, particularly

7:01

in places like West

7:03

Germany. The

7:05

circumstance is very different today, and this

7:07

is why it's so important not

7:11

to fall into the

7:13

temptation of

7:15

describing these things. Now,

7:18

there are other people

7:20

that one could talk about, that are legitimately

7:22

called fascists, but the people

7:24

that we cover are, after

7:27

all, people

7:30

who have grown up

7:32

in societies in which liberal

7:35

democracy is well

7:38

established. It's not,

7:41

at least until recently, it has not been

7:44

threatened in the way it currently

7:46

is. And so, at least for

7:48

the people we cover, it's

7:51

important to emphasize that

7:54

they are part of the

7:56

world after World War II. What's

8:00

also interesting to recognize here,

8:02

and I consider very important,

8:05

is the fact that certainly

8:08

there were fascist

8:10

parties after World War II. One

8:13

can still find them. There

8:16

were extremists of that ilk.

8:19

And

8:22

these people were around, are around.

8:26

They use words like democratic. But

8:31

until recently, they could

8:35

not reach audiences. Whereas

8:39

the people we're calling

8:41

far right, and it's

8:44

a tricky term, but the people we're calling far right,

8:47

are notable because they have

8:49

reached very broad

8:52

audiences using this language,

8:54

the language of liberalism

8:56

and democracy. And

8:59

importantly, those audiences are

9:01

mainstream. And

9:06

that's where we see a very

9:08

different threat. So

9:12

mainstream audiences

9:14

who vote, mainstream

9:17

audiences who would

9:21

normally never throw

9:24

their support to people

9:26

that, in

9:28

fact, are racist, people

9:32

who are propagated

9:35

as hateful for

9:37

politics based upon hatred.

9:40

Normally, these audiences wouldn't support them.

9:44

So a good way of thinking about the contrast

9:46

is if you

9:49

think about somebody like Alexander

9:51

Dugan, for example, it's clear.

9:54

There are many traits of

9:57

Dugan's thinking that are easy

9:59

to call fascist. and

10:01

in fact the Dugan

10:03

argues that his truly

10:08

fascist as if

10:10

it weren't realized before. But he's

10:13

very different from

10:15

the people we look at, people

10:17

like Marine Le Pen, like Tucker

10:20

Carlson, like

10:22

Jordan Peterson, like

10:24

Peter Thiel. These

10:28

people are not appropriately called

10:30

fascists I think. Right. Well I'm

10:32

glad you mentioned Tucker Carlson because

10:35

I know we're both interested in

10:37

Europe and Alexander Dugan is

10:39

familiar certainly to people who pay

10:41

attention to Russia but maybe not

10:44

so well known here. But maybe

10:47

you could talk about a

10:49

little bit about Tucker Carlson

10:51

and his use of this

10:53

newspeak and who was

10:56

he appealing to successfully and you

10:58

know that kind of thing. Yes

11:01

well I mean it's a great contrast

11:03

with Dugan because you know

11:05

Dugan interests intellectuals but otherwise people don't listen

11:07

to him at all. Hundreds of

11:09

millions of people are interested

11:12

in Tucker Carlson. He has a

11:14

tremendous weight in

11:16

American politics. He

11:19

uses fascist tropes

11:22

on occasion like the

11:24

great replacement theory. He

11:27

deliberately and consciously interviews

11:30

fascists like

11:35

Curtis Yervin, he

11:38

does not tell his

11:41

audience that these people

11:43

endorse slavery for example. But

11:48

Tucker Carlson is primarily a

11:50

person and an opportunist who

11:53

uses the language

11:55

of liberalism to

11:59

reach all audiences who are

12:01

for a variety of reasons agreed.

12:05

So Tucker Carlson will say, I'm

12:08

completely for equality, and

12:11

I believe that everybody

12:14

should be equal in the United States.

12:16

Everybody should have equal rights. And

12:19

it's fine that we're

12:21

paying attention to people of color

12:25

and other minorities to guarantee

12:27

that they have equal rights. But then Tucker

12:29

Carlson will say, well, because I believe in

12:32

equality. What about white rights? What

12:34

about white people? Aren't majorities

12:37

equally, shouldn't

12:40

they equally be guaranteed the

12:42

right to equality? And

12:44

it's a fascinating position because

12:47

it is essentially subversive. Because

12:50

what Carlson does not talk about

12:52

is the fact that the

12:54

people in the majority have the power, and

12:57

they have the ability to define agendas that

13:00

people without power do not have. And

13:03

that's why we have programs like affirmative

13:06

action, for example, which

13:09

Carlson has

13:11

certainly criticized all

13:14

diversity and inclusion programs.

13:16

He certainly criticized. But again, let's get

13:19

back to the idea of

13:21

the appeal. So when

13:23

Tucker Carlson sends this to his

13:25

audience, don't white people have rights

13:28

to, shouldn't everybody be

13:30

treated equally? What

13:33

he's doing is he's tapping into

13:35

a constellation of

13:37

liberal values and all

13:40

the contradictions within

13:42

those values in

13:44

a way that appeals to mainstream

13:48

audiences. Because

13:50

one can imagine many

13:54

Caucasians who are unemployed

13:57

or underemployed. or

14:00

having a job, a hard time getting

14:02

the job that they feel they deserve,

14:05

one can immediately imagine these people saying, well,

14:08

yeah, I have the right to equality too.

14:10

So why are all these other

14:12

people being treated equally and I'm not? And

14:15

that's Dr. Carlson's power, but

14:17

it is a language, again, far

14:19

right newspeak concept

14:21

that Sam and I have coined,

14:24

far right newspeak, it

14:26

is a way of using liberal

14:29

language to undermine

14:31

the values that

14:33

undergird liberal demand. Eat

14:35

stress-free this spring with factors delicious ready

14:37

to eat meals. Every fresh never frozen

14:40

meal is chef crafted, dietician approved and

14:42

ready to eat in just two minutes.

14:44

Choose from a weekly menu of 35

14:47

options including popular options like calories marked

14:49

keto, protein plus or vegan and veggie.

14:51

Get chef prepared meals on the table

14:53

in two minutes with factors ready to

14:55

eat meals so you can go back

14:58

to doing what you love this spring.

15:00

Looking for gourmet meals? Try meals that

15:02

feature premium ingredients like filet mignon, shrimp,

15:04

truffle butter, broccolini and asparagus. And

15:07

this is the part I really

15:09

like. No fuss, no mess meals.

15:11

Factor meals that'll eliminate the hassle

15:14

of prepping, cooking or cleaning. You

15:16

simply heat and savor the good

15:18

stuff. Factor the solution for fast

15:21

premium meals without the need for

15:23

cooking. Head to factormeals.com/nbn50 and use

15:25

code nbn50 to get 50% off

15:29

your first box plus 20% off

15:31

your next box. That's code

15:34

nbn50 at factormeals.com slash

15:37

nbn50 to get 50% off

15:39

your first box plus 20% off your next

15:41

box while your subscription is active. I mean

15:44

one of the things that I've been struck

15:46

by and that you address a little bit

15:48

at least in the introduction

15:51

to the book is you

15:53

know goes beyond these issues of

15:55

newspeak to I

15:58

mean Tucker Carlson is following the book. following

16:00

in many ways, Victor Orban, or

16:02

at least many people have made

16:05

that argument. Carlson's made a

16:07

pilgrimage to Budapest, et cetera, et cetera.

16:12

But one of the ways in which a lot of

16:14

this seems to me to be playing out is a

16:16

kind of global culture war. I mean, you talk about

16:19

those who kind of defend

16:21

or promote traditional values,

16:23

the return of the

16:25

church, the promotion

16:27

of the family, those kinds of

16:29

ideas as against what,

16:33

say, somebody like Dugan sees

16:36

as the destruction,

16:39

really, in a way, of the

16:41

human personality that is a product

16:43

of liberal individualism. And

16:47

so I wonder whether you could talk a

16:49

little bit about that. And

16:51

is that a correct kind of diagnosis,

16:53

or for whom is that a correct

16:56

diagnosis? Well, I think it's

16:58

a correct diagnosis. Certainly that's

17:00

the case. I think it's important to

17:02

emphasize when we're talking about people

17:04

like Carlson and Orban is

17:06

that these people are opportunists.

17:10

And their goal in

17:12

Orban's case is to maintain and

17:14

increase his power. In Tucker Carlson's

17:17

case, it is to massage his ego and

17:19

to make tremendous amounts of money.

17:24

And so it's not so

17:26

much that we

17:29

have a culture war in which

17:31

both sides have declared war on

17:33

each other, as it is a case in

17:35

which policies have

17:37

been implemented based upon values to

17:40

address historical

17:42

injustices. And

17:45

people like Carlson and Orban have

17:47

swooped in to go

17:51

to war, in effect, with these

17:54

positions. And

17:57

they're very, very effective. as

18:00

opportunists, but I think

18:02

there's a

18:05

lot of shallowness to their claims.

18:08

After all, you know, nobody on

18:10

the left is saying, well, we're

18:12

opposed to families. Nobody

18:15

on the left is saying we're

18:18

opposed to traditional values or

18:21

to all traditional values. But

18:26

so it's more the right that's declared

18:28

war on the

18:30

left and I think

18:33

grotesquely exaggerated

18:37

the issues.

18:40

I mean, if you take affirmative action,

18:42

for example, the

18:45

right portrays it as this massive

18:47

injustice inflicted upon white

18:50

people and that's

18:54

just not the case. It

18:57

is simply an attempt to

18:59

address historical injustices. So

19:02

the opportunism is future and

19:05

Orban is very interesting and

19:07

quite cynical. Orban

19:09

talks a lot about the importance

19:12

of the family and that, you

19:15

know, traditional values. And

19:17

so he's attracted a lot of fans in

19:20

the West. But at the

19:22

same time, Hungary has very liberal

19:24

abortion laws and Orban

19:26

certainly is in the position, has

19:29

the power to go out and

19:32

change the laws. He's

19:35

a great manipulator of the courts and

19:37

the Constitution, but he doesn't

19:39

talk about it. Right. Well, you

19:41

see, people are not always consistent, let's

19:43

put it that way. No, they're

19:46

not. And as you said,

19:48

there are cynical reasons perhaps. But yes,

19:51

the people that we focus on,

19:54

not maybe all of them, but almost

19:56

all of them are quite cynical, although,

19:59

you know, So, this

20:01

is a scholarly publication and

20:04

our articles are written by scholars

20:07

and I think it's important to

20:10

emphasize that we take everybody

20:12

we read and we read

20:14

everything. I've read enormous

20:16

amounts of George

20:18

Jordan Peterson's work. I've read

20:21

his books which

20:23

is an ordeal. I've

20:25

listened to his videos. I've

20:28

done the same thing with Tucker Carlson.

20:31

There's one chapter in the

20:33

book in which

20:36

one of our colleagues examines

20:39

the feminist perspectives

20:41

of Marine Le Pen. And

20:46

so, this is scholarship. We're

20:48

not out to indict

20:51

anybody or condemn anybody. We're

20:54

simply interested in how does

20:56

their manipulation of language

20:59

affect liberal democracy and

21:01

does it threaten liberal

21:04

democratic norms and institutions

21:07

and in one way

21:09

or another, we're

21:11

all convinced that it does. Yeah,

21:14

clearly the book is concerned

21:16

about our future and it's

21:21

self-consciously a kind of defense or

21:23

an attempt to promote the defense

21:26

of liberal democracy. And

21:29

one of the things that you get

21:32

into at least in a sort of limited sort

21:34

of way is the question of

21:37

violence. And it seems to me

21:40

historically fascism obviously had a lot to

21:42

do with violence, the use of political

21:44

violence. So, I'd like to ask you

21:46

to talk a little bit about your

21:49

assessment of what's going on

21:52

particularly in the United States, but problems

21:55

of political violence have been cropping up

21:57

elsewhere, not least in Germany. So

22:00

I wonder, you know, how, you know, I

22:02

think this is a question you ask in

22:04

the book, how worried should we

22:06

be? I

22:09

think we should be very worried about the

22:11

future of liberal democracy, and I'll

22:13

say something about that in a minute. But

22:16

most of the people that

22:19

are covered in our book couldn't

22:22

be accurately described as

22:24

advocating violence. It

22:28

would be more appropriate to say

22:32

that they are laying the ground,

22:35

the ideational grounds,

22:38

if you will,

22:40

for people who

22:43

are very much interested

22:45

in committing violence. And

22:49

so what we're talking about here

22:52

is a recrafting

22:56

of the language of liberalism

22:58

and democracy in such

23:01

a way that it can be

23:03

tapped into for just

23:07

about any systemic attacks on

23:11

the system that one can imagine.

23:13

And, you know, because without saying

23:15

that Donald Trump is

23:18

much taken by this language, he

23:21

argues that he's the real Democrat

23:23

and Joe Biden, isn't the real

23:25

defender of democracy. But

23:28

of course, Donald

23:30

Trump has clearly played

23:32

a major role in inciting

23:38

violence with his

23:41

language, and

23:43

also nowadays pretty

23:46

much laying the grounds for its

23:49

legitimation. So

23:52

if you look at the

23:55

way that January 6 is now

23:57

described by him and many Republicans,

24:00

It's as if it

24:02

were some noble

24:05

patriots who simply walked into the

24:07

Capitol and in good

24:10

patriotic fashion defended American

24:12

democracy by standing up

24:14

to a vote on

24:17

an illegitimate election.

24:19

So we can see there how

24:22

the language can spill over

24:24

in ways that make liberal

24:28

democracy well,

24:32

that weaken liberal democracy and potentially,

24:36

Brad, you and I know

24:38

as historically minded sociologists that

24:41

there's no guarantee that liberal democracy

24:44

will be with us forever. In

24:47

fact, historically speaking, we know

24:49

it won't be. So

24:52

the question now is simply

24:54

how long does it last? What kind

24:56

of staying power does it have? And

24:59

in our book, one

25:02

of the major themes that we

25:04

emphasize is that institutions are not

25:07

enough, that democratic

25:09

institutions need to be

25:12

infused with liberal

25:14

values and

25:16

liberal attitudes or

25:19

they can be easily undermined. I mean,

25:21

I guess let me try this on

25:23

you since we've raised

25:25

the Trump issue. It

25:28

seems to me that what Donald Trump

25:30

has done above all is to assert

25:32

the kind of notion of

25:35

homo economicus is

25:38

the only kind of human

25:40

being that really is around, that

25:42

everybody basically has an angle and

25:45

there's no sense of the

25:48

greater good or the common good. Those

25:51

are for suckers and losers. And

25:54

What he's done is to destabilize

25:56

people's belief in these institutions, which

25:58

I certainly. You are

26:01

crucial to maintaining this

26:04

way of slice cove

26:06

lit liberal democracy. About

26:10

that and of com and is that

26:12

word not com and to I mean

26:15

some as it is unlikely to be

26:17

very calm and to various European populations

26:19

at least that he about this is

26:22

not something most people will not the

26:24

way most people would think about the

26:26

world but in the United States he

26:29

succeeded in a. Destabilizing people's beliefs

26:31

in a com and in a

26:33

cloud. That's absolutely right. I mean,

26:35

it's the it is. Case

26:38

that. Ah, I'm. I'm

26:41

in my view and for my

26:43

experience gravity or of regularly of

26:45

or to think serb of look

26:47

much or impact much worse here in

26:50

the United States than in Europe

26:52

which. Is not to

26:54

say that everything so are

26:56

graded Europe because it's not.

26:58

I think was is what

27:00

you're describing. The case

27:02

of prob. Harm is

27:04

cynical manipulation of our

27:07

public institutions. Ah to

27:10

serve you know his

27:12

private purposes. Ah,

27:15

it's cynicism, add an opportunism.

27:17

And and the other thing

27:19

that I dad here is

27:22

simply that. Oh, you know

27:24

that it isn't simply. Up

27:26

one individual. Or

27:29

group of particularly dangerous

27:31

individuals. Ah but

27:33

it is also reflects what

27:36

has happened with liberal democratic

27:38

institutions of in in recent

27:40

years. I'm. So

27:43

if if parties if politicians

27:45

ah or bought out because

27:48

it's the on. Li.

27:50

Opportunity. Money is the

27:52

only opportunity that they

27:54

have to get reelected

27:56

and then they're easily

27:58

manipulate. And and

28:00

we see this particularly now of. Of

28:03

I have my concerns about the laugh

28:05

but the particularly now and the right

28:08

that to. Your cynicism has

28:10

been turned into a virtue.

28:13

And on. Many.

28:15

People: Many Republicans

28:18

who work under

28:20

normal circumstances. In

28:22

this country, be much more moderate,

28:24

much more reasonable. I feel that

28:26

they had no choice. But.

28:28

To take the stance has they do? And.

28:32

So. amidst. This

28:34

climate of cynicism. Oh, do

28:37

we can see why this

28:39

or why. Far right newspeak.

28:42

Work today and on a couldn't have

28:44

worked in the past. I am. I

28:47

mean if if you took the. You.

28:49

Know a far right extremist

28:51

group of people like David

28:53

Duke. Ah, in the past.

28:56

Oh and he is this

28:58

language everybody would still say

29:00

is racist. Ah,

29:02

but today if you use language

29:05

which is in fact racist. A.

29:09

Millions. Of people say.

29:11

Well. That's not racist at all. Of

29:14

that language is about equality.

29:16

It's about defending fundamental liberties.

29:18

and hum, so we're gonna

29:21

vote for it. And

29:23

so Period seizes kind

29:25

of ah, you know,

29:27

incestuous relationship developing between.

29:30

Have the desire to. Gain.

29:33

And maintain political power for the

29:35

one hand and the corruption and

29:37

abusive language but thanks for that

29:39

are been busting. Confirm and I

29:41

tell my students it's also for

29:44

to be hot gas you know?

29:46

And I think I mean we

29:48

live in a world in which

29:50

it's easy. it's easy to fall

29:52

of falsify far as optimism. And

29:54

it's it's easy. You. Know to

29:57

be pessimistic because after off all things

29:59

and. On the other hand, if we

30:02

emphasize hope, then

30:04

we can motivate people,

30:07

particularly the younger students

30:10

that you and I teach to

30:13

go out and defend our values

30:15

and our system. Right. And

30:17

I think the book is helpful in understanding

30:20

the ways in which the path, as I

30:22

think you said, is plowed

30:25

towards real problems down

30:27

the road. So

30:30

thanks for taking the time to talk to us today.

30:32

It's a great pleasure. I

30:35

want to thank Jim McAdams for

30:37

sharing his insights about far-right newspeak

30:39

and contemporary political landscape. I

30:42

want to thank Osvaldo Mena Aguilar

30:44

for his technical assistance and to

30:46

acknowledge Duncan McKay for sharing

30:48

his song, International Horizons, as the theme

30:50

music for the show. This

30:52

is John Torpy saying thanks for joining us.

30:54

We look forward to having you with us for the

30:57

next episode of International Horizons.