As 2024 comes to a close, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the liberal right is rallying to defend the woke left. Signs of this alliance are already visible in the UK. Media platforms like Spiked and Triggernometry have started to muddy the waters on critical issues such as immigration and social cohesion. This development poses a problem for upper-class populist movements like Reform UK, which are particularly vulnerable to accusations of racism.
A recent Spiked article, The Poison of White Identitarianism, exemplifies how the liberal right steps in to bolster the woke left when the latter begins losing ground in debates around multiculturalism. Fortunately, the language used is neither novel nor persuasive—it is as worn out as the left’s rhetoric. History shows that repeatedly defending a crumbling position over a long enough timeline eventually helps undermine it.
Immigration: Framing the Debate
Regarding immigration, the article misrepresents legitimate concerns by conflating them with the “Great Replacement” theory. This tactic dismisses reasonable critiques of immigration policy, particularly its impact on social cohesion and resources. By oversimplifying a range of viewpoints, the article marginalises valid arguments, branding anyone who speaks out as an extremist:
“Identitarian rightists are not expressing legitimate concerns… They are criticising immigration on the dubious grounds that it is a means to dilute white British culture…”
This dismissal creates a false dichotomy, ignoring the complexities of the immigration debate. It also conflates identity with identity politics, a critical error. While they may overlap in certain aspects, they are far from interchangeable. To suggest otherwise is both lazy and unsophisticated.
“It shares striking similarities with woke identitarianism. These advocates share so-called progressives’ racial essentialism, their obsession with identity, and their conspiratorial mindset.”
These strawman arguments, false equivalencies, and ad hominem attacks are not new tactics for the liberal right. For decades, liberals of all stripes have relied on intellectual dishonesty to bolster their own positions. What stands out, however, is the ideological bias running through the entirety of the article.
Moral Absolutism and Extremism
The tone of moral absolutism in the article is striking, particularly in its framing of opposition to multiculturalism as inherently regressive or dangerous. Ironically, this approach mirrors the woke left’s tendency to dismiss calls for cultural preservation as xenophobic without engaging with the nuances of these arguments:
“Claims that a multiethnic society is inherently destructive are not only factually incorrect but also alienate people of goodwill…”
Another similarity to the woke left is the selective focus on extremism. By amplifying the views of a fringe minority, the article attempts to discredit broader criticisms of liberal orthodoxy. This tactic sidesteps the tangible realities of cultural friction and the erosion of native traditions, instead painting critics with a broad and misleading brush.
Civic Nationalism: A Convenient Escape Hatch
The article’s endorsement of civic nationalism aligns with the woke left’s discomfort with discussions of ancestry and cultural heritage:
“Reform UK… has explicitly rejected ethnic nationalism in favour of civic nationalism…”
This framing parallels the left’s portrayal of nationalism as exclusionary or bigoted. Furthermore, both camps share a tendency to attribute the breakdown of social cohesion and belonging to “socioeconomic conditions,” never questioning the role of progressive liberal policies. Liberalism, in this framework, remains infallible—much like the woke left’s go-to scapegoat of economic stagnation:
“Socioeconomic conditions in the UK and the West more broadly have created a fertile environment for extremism to flourish.”
The Woke Right in Disguise
Ultimately, the author inadvertently makes the case that the so-called “woke right” is a projection. The real woke right is the liberal right—progressive conservatives who uphold liberal orthodoxy under the guise of critique. Their selective outrage, moral absolutism, and alignment with civic nationalism betray a deeper ideological kinship with the woke left.
As the year ends, it is clear that the woke left no longer needs to defend its positions. The liberal right has gladly taken up that mantle.
