The author reflects on the persistence of outdated political battles, noting how individuals clinging to ideologies from their youth, like defending Fidel Castro or lamenting bygone media monopolies, seem increasingly irrelevant in the face of contemporary challenges. This clinging to the past, while understandable given the significance these issues held at the time, raises questions about the ability to adapt and address current realities. The author points to the rise of extreme right-wing populism, epitomized by Donald Trump’s presidency and his alliance with immense wealth, as a stark contrast to these outdated concerns, highlighting the potential for significant societal upheaval. This new political landscape demands a reassessment of values and priorities, forcing a confrontation with the present rather than a retreat into the past.
The author invokes Anne Applebaum’s article in The Atlantic, “History Will Judge the Complicit,” to examine the motivations of those who abandon their previously held values in the face of populist movements. Applebaum, drawing parallels to those who collaborated with dictatorial regimes in 20th-century Europe, analyzes the justifications offered by individuals aligning themselves with figures like Trump. These justifications, ranging from the belief in leveraging power for good to the rationalization that the opposing side is worse, echo the self-deceptions employed throughout history by those complicit in authoritarianism. While acknowledging differences between Trump and figures like Hitler, Applebaum focuses on the troubling trend of accepting or adopting views that contradict previously held principles, highlighting the corrosive effect on democratic values.
Applebaum, referencing the Polish Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz, categorizes these collaborators into distinct subgroups based on their rationalizations. Some believe they can manipulate the powerful figure for positive ends, while others claim they are working from within to mitigate harm. Still others adopt a cynical ”nothing matters” stance, fueled by figures like Elon Musk, embracing chaos and relishing the provocation caused by their actions. Another group engages in whataboutism, deflecting criticism of their chosen side by pointing fingers at perceived flaws in the opposition, often resorting to outdated stereotypes and grievances. This analysis provides a framework for understanding the complex motivations behind supporting populist leaders, shedding light on the psychological and social dynamics at play.
The author criticizes those who remain fixated on past grievances, particularly regarding immigration, arguing that they are fighting yesterday’s battles. These individuals, often stuck in a perception of a bygone era of open borders and purportedly overly sensitive social justice movements, fail to recognize the shifts in public opinion and policy. The author cites a debate between Peter Wennblad and Henrik Jönsson as an example of this disconnect, where Jönsson’s reliance on outdated examples from 2015 to criticize migration reporting ignores the current consensus on stricter immigration controls. This disconnect between perception and reality demonstrates the difficulty in adapting to evolving circumstances, leading to the rehashing of irrelevant arguments while ignoring present-day concerns.
The author contrasts this clinging to the past with the evolving stance of some right-leaning figures like Olof Ehrenkrona and Gunnar Hökmark, who have publicly challenged the new right-wing ideology characterized by a disregard for truth and an emphasis on self-interest. These individuals, by acknowledging the shifting political landscape, represent a potential for resistance against the erosion of democratic values. Their willingness to confront the dangers posed by this new wave of populism, even at the risk of alienating former allies, signifies a critical turning point in the ideological battle. Their actions highlight the importance of intellectual honesty and the courage to stand against dangerous trends, even within one’s own political sphere.
The author concludes by emphasizing the importance of basic decency in navigating the turbulent political climate. Quoting Wladysław Bartoszewski, a member of the Polish resistance during World War II, the author underscores the simple yet profound imperative to “try to be a decent human being.” This call for decency resonates as a powerful counterpoint to the cynical maneuvering and self-justifications of those complicit with populist movements. The author suggests that the outcome of the coming years hinges on the willingness of the traditional right to uphold decency, implying that the future of democracy rests on the choices made by individuals to prioritize ethical principles over political expediency. This final appeal to decency serves as a moral compass, reminding readers of the fundamental human values that underpin a just and stable society.
