How the Far Right Shield Themselves from Reality
It’s always a puzzle when you see people supporting candidates and parties that logic dictates, they should not.
France just had legislative elections on Sunday, July 7, and the New Popular Front left coalition in France finished first, President Emmanual Macron’s center coalition finished second, and the far-right National Rally third. This was not predicted, as the National Rally (NR) just last month performed very well in the European Parliament elections. What was fascinating, is that a poll at that time showed 33 percent of women voting for the National Rally as opposed to 30 percent of men. Over the past five years, the National Rally has seen a 12-percentage point increase in women voters. The NR has tried to freshen themselves up a bit from the old days of Jean-Marie Le Pen, and it seems to be working. The Fondation des Femmes, the largest women’s organization in France, is horrified at this and has vowed to try and stop them.
Women organizations, historically and universally, have defined their cause in terms of rights. The National Organization of Women (NOW) lists Reproductive Rights and Justice, Economic Justice, and Ending Violence Against Women as their top three action items. Reproductive rights and ending violence against women are also the main causes of the Fondation des Femmes. Currently, the two most important issues in France are purchasing power (inflation) and immigration. As long as women continue to define their cause in terms of rights, support will come and go.
There is something underlying this argument that is far more powerful. I suspect the best way to get people to vote against their “real interests” is to shield them from reality. The far-right, either by luck or design, has figured out ways to do this.
Living in the Real World
The incredibly underrated Austrian Political Economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) once wrote in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942): “The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes primitive again.”
For Schumpeter, “real interests” are evident in economic choice; buying a new house or car takes “disciplined effort.”. Public choices, what we do when we vote or form a political opinion, is the product of automatic response or what comes “off the top of our head.” While the terms “infantile” and “primitive” are dated and may scare you a bit, he is making an important point. The issue isn’t the change in issues; it’s the change in how we think about the issues.
The far-right focuses on narratives and stimuli that generate internally based perceptions, things we imagine that are not subject to verification. Women’s organizations, and all those who define the women’s cause and identity, tend to draw a distinction between mind and reality. They look at the real world and attempt to make useful inferences about what is best for themselves, and draw conclusions based on evidence and reasoning.
Let’s look at two applications.
France and the National Rally
The National Rally is well aware of its reputation and it is trying to soften this public perception. If you look at the recent election campaigns, they are quite vocal in expressing themselves as defenders of women’s rights. Jordan Bardella, the Rally’s leader recently took to social media to tell women he’d be a “prime minister who guarantees the rights and freedoms of every woman and girl in France.” He adds that “his party supported advances for women’s rights, from medical support to protection for women suffering domestic abuse.” And: “No woman should ever have to fear going out into the streets, whatever the time of day or nights.”
You can see where he is going. Anne-Cécile Mailfert, the founder of Fondation des Femmes, offered this specific response to Bardella’s post:
“This is a political strategy that they have been implementing for several years and that is winning. In fact, the National Rally is going to analyze everything through the prism of immigration. It does not deny that sexual violence exists, for example, but it says: it is because of immigrants. And since we are going to send immigrants back home, don’t worry ladies, you will be safe. The problem is that in reality, sexual violence is committed most of the time by those around them, by their colleagues, their families, their friends, their husbands. Femicides are committed by spouses or ex-spouses.”
Bardella and Mailfert share a reality-based premise: sexual and gender-based violence exists. Where they differ is in how they use this reality. Bardella is trying to win elections, an arena where perception and reality are the same thing. Mailfert is the head of an organization that is trying to help women. Her objective is to base action on proper inference-making; she is not interested in just telling a story.
The World Health Organization claims that most violence is intimate partner violence, that the leading cause is inequities, and that prevention should be based on “addressing systemic economic and social inequalities, ensuring access to education and safe work, and changing discriminatory gender norms and institutions.”
This focus on addressing the underlying causes of violence against women describes the operational directive of Fondation des Femmes. The problem is that people like simple stories, with villains and victims. Scapegoating immigrants offers a compelling, emotionally charged story.
The United States and the Far-Right
There is more than one way to disengage people from reality.
Kansas City Chiefs (American football) placekicker Harrison Butker gave a commencement address at Benedictine College, a Catholic liberal arts school in the state of Kansas. In his address, he denounced “abortion rights, Pride Month, COVID-19 lockdowns and the tyranny of diversity, equity and inclusion.” Not surprisingly, there was a strong reaction; much of it not very positive, even from parts of the college community. Nothing like telling a bunch of nuns that being a wife and having children is the highest calling.
But he also had defenders. Tavia Hunt was one of those; she is the wife of Kansas City Chiefs Chairman and CEO Clark Hunt. She issued the following statement:
“I’ve always encouraged my daughters to be highly educated and chase their dreams. I want them to know that they can do whatever they want (that honors God). But I also want them to know that I believe finding a spouse who loves and honors you as or before himself and raising a family together is one of the greatest blessings this world has to offer. Studies show that committed, married couples with children are the happiest demographic, and this has been my experience as well.”
Children raised in a family with two parents may have some advantages over those from single-parent families, but married people with children are not happier than married people without; this is pretty consensual.
This is a religious-centered belief for her and part of the pro-family far-right agenda. When she talks about the “commitment” of a man and wife, she is not just talking about each other, but commitment in “the eyes of God.” It is God who has “blessed” this man and woman. Like Bardella, she is not separating perception from reality.
Information or evidence that doesn’t mesh with an existing belief makes one uncomfortable. People with strong beliefs tend to avoid the real world because data that disconfirms creates dissonance, discomfort, and psychological distress; not to mention, it’s embarrassing to be wrong, it cuts into one’s self-esteem.
Religion is a great emotional regulator; it keeps your spirits up, and puts you at ease. It also shields you from reality; it’s why it fits wonderfully with politics.
Calvin is a retired Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
