The Politics of Paranoia
The global right’s pro-Putin sentiment is giving way to conspiracy theories
Francis Fukuyama, rarely hesitant to proffer bold predictions, has already seized on the Russian attack on Ukraine as an occasion for grand generalization, with the same confidence that led him in 1989 to use the slow dissolution of the Warsaw Pact as a pretext for proclaiming “the end of history.”
Writing in American Purpose earlier this month, Fukuyama proposed that,
The invasion has already done huge damage to populists all over the world, who prior to the attack uniformly expressed sympathy for Putin. That includes Matteo Salvini, Jair Bolsonaro, Éric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, and of course Donald Trump. The politics of the war has exposed their openly authoritarian leanings.
In an interview for The Washington Post, Fukuyama built on this argument, contending that, “A moral clarity has been imposed on populist politics. Many of these populists, including Donald Trump, have been able to pretend they’re really tribunes of the people, that they’re channeling a democratic urge.” He added, “That’s the reason every one of them — except for Trump, evidently — has been trying to backtrack from the support they gave Putin.”
Not for the first time, Fukuyama is confusing one swallow for the whole spring. There’s an element of truth to his observation. Putin’s adventurism has in many parts of Europe strengthened centrist politicians while bringing discredit to right-wing populists who had allied themselves with Putin. Matteo Salvini’s Lega, which had been running as high as 35 percent in polls in Italy, has crashed and is now at 16 percent.
In France, Éric Zemmour, a far-right pundit turned presidential candidate, surged at the end of last year and looked like he was well positioned to be one of the two top contenders in the first round of the presidential election, alongside the incumbent Emmanuel Macron. Fredrik Segerfeldt in The UnPopulist notes:
The war in Ukraine has changed all this, at least for now. Europe’s extreme right has traditionally maintained good relations with Russia and Putin, and Zemmour and Le Pen have been no exception. Now, they are both busy backtracking on admiring statements they’ve made about Putin in order to limit the political damage. Zemmour’s support in the polls has fallen to 11% to 12%, a six- to seven-point drop in a few weeks, and it seems likely voters will punish him at the polls in April for his Russophilia.
Yet, Segerfeldt cautions that this change might only be temporary. It’s by no means clear that the populist right is going away anytime soon. Victor Orbán, perhaps the most politically successful of right-wing authoritarians in the West, is likely to be reelected this year. He’s cagily used the crisis to mend his arguments with EU and to take on the mantle of defender of the Hungarian nation. The general spirit of nationalism and militarism that the war encourages is likely to be fertile grounds for all sorts of right wing movements.
The populist right is adapting to the new environment. Subsequent to Fukuyama’s comments, Trump has become more critical of Putin but also turned his fury to Joe Biden, arguing that his alleged weakness created the crisis. In other sectors of the right, the earlier explicitly pro-Putin arguments have largely disappeared but a kind of anti-anti-Putinism is still strong. This is most clearly evident in the spread of conspiracy theories, like the notion of “Ukrainian bioweapons labs” which was born in the fever swamps of QAnon websites but was quickly taken up by Fox News, especially Tucker Carlson. The bioweapons lab story is particularly noteworthy because it shows how easily paranoia born of the Trump era and the pandemic can be repurposed to spread wartime disinformation.
As I’ve noted often in this newsletter, the hard right in the United States is increasingly attracted to authoritarian politics. (Trump’s formerly frequent praise of Putin was one symptom of this tendency, which has far deeper roots.)
On a podcast with Hillary Clinton, Anne Applebaum of The Atlantic offered this assessment of Tucker Carlson:
I don’t know exactly where Tucker gets his information but some of it is quite specific. He’s made specific comments about things the Ukrainians have done that someone is feeding him information about how to describe the war and giving him ideas. Then, of course, that information is very, very useful for the Putin regime to play it back on Russian TV. Tucker Carlson appears quite frequently and it’s used as evidence that ‘we have support in America’. He’s literally a useful idiot. He’s getting information from someone with ties to Russia. I don’t know who that is and I don’t want to speculate.
Applebaum is right on one level. Carlson’s position can fairly be described as anti-anti-Putin. But in countering Carlson’s conspiracy theories, Applebaum concocts some of her own. There’s no reason to think Carlson is being fed information from a Russian source. Quite the reverse. Carlson’s bioweapon lab theory had organic roots in the true homegrown kookery of QAnon. It makes sense for Carlson to gravitate towards such fantasies of secret plots. Carlson deals in anti-system politics. His whole brand is about building suspicion of liberals and Democrats. Naturally he'll gravitate towards theories that allow him to brandish his oppositional brand.
The fact that Carlson so quickly found fanciful narratives to suit his politics is an indication that right-wing populism isn’t going to go away anytime soon. In fact, the uncertainty and chaos of wartime conditions is likely to offer even more opportunities for anyone peddling the politics of paranoia.
(Edited by Emily M. Keeler)
Share and Subscribe
If you enjoyed this post, please share:
Or subscribe:
"There’s no reason to think Carlson is being fed information from a Russian source. Quite the reverse. "
I suspect Carlson is in fact being fed information from a Russian source: his staff is reading the Russian propaganda, and he's email/txting with the various R's who are still into this stuff. (The trumpy types. Like Rod Dehrer.) He doesn't NEED anymore than that. Dig it:
"Subsequent to Fukuyama’s comments, Trump has become more critical of Putin but also turned his fury to Joe Biden, arguing that his alleged weakness created the crisis."
This is Vlad 'It's a Desk! Not a Table! A Desk!' Putin's argument for why Russia and echoed it against Biden, while pretend-yelling at Vlad. It's a day of the week ending in a y so Trump's full of shit and carrying water for his favourite dictators. They are in need of new content each day to chum the rubes, and the Russians very helpfully provide that content.
"Not for the first time, Fukuyama is confusing one swallow for the whole spring."
Fukuyama went and said he was gonna be bold and predict total Ukrainian victory, and I said, 'Well, THAT'S not a good sign for Ukraine.' Hopefully the Ukrainians can overcome the additional handicap. (💙🌻💛)
"In fact, the uncertainty and chaos of wartime conditions is likely to offer even more opportunities for anyone peddling the politics of paranoia. "
A nice summary of the oughts and the war on terror.
Which is to say, we've been here awhile, so we're getting the worst right now. Especially if you take into account the various supposed allied foreign powers who are no-doubt-about-it outright stabbing us in the back. Like Saudi. That sounds paranoid, that IS paranoid, and it just happens to be true. At least it is out in the open where it can be dealt with, which should help reduce free-floating paranoia over time.
elm
then we can just maintain the focused paranoia