In front of the rise of populism and extreme parties, will we truly gain legitimacy in the political landscape by simply out voicing the opposition? Being louder will never make our arguments more compelling or valid, and might do the opposite instead. The only way we can counter the far-right effectively is through clear, intelligible argumentation. Leave the megaphones and projectiles behind, all we need is convincing claims.
As I head towards the Strand building, an incomprehensible superposition of chants makes me remove my headphones, intrigued. The scene ahead of me is a caricature of the current political landscape: two extreme opposites, face to face, speaking on top of each other. On my (far) right is Nick Tenconi, Chief Operating Officer of Turning Point UK, most likely calling out students for giving out to socialist propaganda, and on my left, a group of students chanting on top of him.
Despite the urge to add my voice to these shouts, I couldn’t help but feel it was the wrong response. In front of the rise of populism and extreme parties, will we truly gain legitimacy in the political landscape by simply out voicing the opposition? Being louder will never make our arguments more compelling or valid, and might do the opposite instead. The only way we can counter the far-right effectively is through clear, intelligible argumentation. Leave the megaphones and projectiles behind, all we need is convincing claims.
Of course, I hear the argument that groups which can arguably be labelled as “fascists”, do not deserve a space in the political landscape in the first place. In front of claims as aggressive as Tenconi’s, our instinctive reaction is to try and shut them down by refusing him access to our learning space. Watching Turning Point UK set up a tent on our campus, where nearly half of students are international, to argue immigrants should be expelled can only make us burst with rage. It is normal that our first reaction is to demand their prohibition on campus.
But in our increasingly polarized world, TPUK’s views can no longer be dismissed as those of an isolated minority. They reach more and more people by flooding social media with provocative debates to humiliate students. Ultimately, their goal is to demonstrate that we are “extremists [that] have been emboldened by leftist politicians”, as elegantly phrased on their Instagram. Because of these radical stances, it is tempting to reject outright TPUK for promoting hate. But if we ban them from campus, it would reinforce their arguments that they are victims of a supposedly “radicalized” education system who refuses to hear them. Their presence should be an opportunity for us to prove that are best positioned to face contemporary issues, and that their opinions have no logical or sensible basis. If they hand us a microphone, it is in our best interest to seize it. Then to defend our views until they flinch.
We will not succeed if our response solely consists in humiliating TPUK through shouting and throwing yoghurt. A quick look at their social media after their confrontation with KCL students explains why: the yoghurt incident made Tenconi appear like a victim of a “far-left thug […] consumed by hatred”. The leader of TPUK also posted a video telling his followers that that he already expected students to “scream and shout” rather than debating. Undeniably, we gave them exactly what they wanted: a caricature of ourselves. Progressive students who seem to refuse to leave their ideological bubble. If someone who doesn’t know Tenconi’s stance watches these scenes, they would probably consider us at fault for blocking TPUK’s attempt to debate.
Of course it is far easier to give out to our bursts of rage when TPUK’s tent enters our space. I felt that inidgnation too, and cannot blame any of the students who took part in the counter protests. But if we want to lead this political fight reasonably without discarding our cause, it is in our best interest to leave the impulsive backlashes behind. One solution would obviously be to simply turn our backs to them, and let their arguments fall into the void. But that could once again deepen the gulf between both parties. Perhaps this is the inevitable outcome. But I want to believe we can avoid it by keeping confrontations rhetorical. When Charlie Kirk debated students in Cambridge, he didn’t always win. Coherent, logical voices such as Tilly Middlehurst’s unsettled the far-right activist, as seen in videos that went viral on social media.
This is the image of students we want to project: informed young citizens who stand by their convictions, which are supported by rational arguments. TPUK wants to debate with us? Fine. It is up to us to prove that we hold all of the moral and intellectual tools to win these confrontations. This is how we can effectively convince the general public watching online that we are on the right side. In front of populist rhetoric based on racist myths, we have to represent today’s youth with dignity. We must lead the debates that shape today and tomorrow’s politics.
Have an opinion on this? Join the conversation. Write for ROAR
About the author
