It is striking to note the extent to which many positions, criticisms and analyzes emanating from the new right have their foundations in the classical economic left, which foregrounded not postmodern cultural and identity issues, but socio-economic issues through the prism of social class dynamics. Three criticisms and a deletion seem to us to be the most revealing of this recent reversal.
First of all, the recent pandemic has highlighted a growing gap between the media and a certain section of the population that is particularly critical of the health measures adopted by Western governments. Who hasn’t heard the unflattering epithet “merdias” being used ad nauseam in recent years? According to these critics, the media are mere transmission belts in the pay of the various governments from which they financially drink various subsidies.
Worse, the media would contribute directly, through their complacency, to the lack of critical thinking within the population. It is difficult not to make connections, even indirect ones, with the criticisms of the progressive intellectual Noam Chomsky, notably supported in his book The making of consent.
Then, the critics of the pharmaceutical industry are part of the same dynamic. In fact, the omnipotence of this industry, its acquaintance with governments and its stranglehold on the practice of medicine have long been sharply criticized by the classical left. However, what some call the medical-pharmaceutical cartel is found today at the heart of conspiracy theses and the arguments of part of the new right.
While progressives have sharply denounced, and in all likelihood with good reason, the blind and murderous complicity of the pharmaceutical industry in the recent opioid crisis in North America, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deconstruct the conspiracy thesis of a pandemic created by Big Pharma.
Rhetorical trap
Third, the new right is taking over key analyzes from the traditional left about the disconnection and distancing of the political and economic elites that govern us. In fact, this new right-wing populism is inspired, partly subliminally, by traditional progressive explanatory schemes. There is a form of appeal to a ” power to the people », historical mantra of the left, which one hardly finds any more within the progressive speech.
Progressives thus find themselves caught in a rhetorical trap. In order to combat the often hallucinated discourse of the new right, they must adopt a funny posture in which they must defend the integrity of our media, the benevolence of the pharmaceutical industry and the semi-blind confidence in our political elites. and medical. This is a very uncomfortable position, even schizophrenic!
It is therefore not surprising that many progressives avoid these debates, which leaves the field open to a marginal right, and instead express themselves in a new identity fight, which is certainly not devoid of interest or foundations, on issues postmodern cultures (gender identity, racism, sexism, climate change). At least, in this game, they probably say to themselves, the contrasts with the right, whether new or classic, have the merit of being frank and clear on these questions.
Finally, the effacement of the new left with regard to national questions leaves all the political ground to the new right. The excesses of ethnic nationalism obviously deserve to be criticized, questioned and combated, but by abandoning the elements of civic patriotism and pride to the new right, the neo-progressives deprive themselves of powerful elements to federate Quebec voters around their political project.