Gary Kasparov: If It’s Far-Right vs. Far-Left, The Far-Right Wins

"If people feel they’re being forced to choose between two extremes, the majority will always tack right.

Earlier in the week, I threw this quick observation up on Substack Notes:

Lost elections are rigged, won elections are fair. Good job numbers are real, bad ones are fake. Sex trafficking is bad, unless the traffickers will blame your enemies. Crime is bad, unless the criminals are pro-Trump. This isn’t 4D chess, or even tic-tac-toe, just Autocracy 101.

There were a lot of replies. But one comment from a reader named Edward stuck out to me:

I agree and we were getting the same bullshit from Dems. Yes I am doing whataboutism! DEI is autocracy. MAGA and the Woke are bad.

This is indeed whataboutism, so some credit for your candor.

I won’t argue with the notion that far-right and far-left—far-anything—is bad. However, there are a few fundamental points that a simplistic comment like this misses.

The first is that people are often willing to overlook the most extreme expressions of their own side.

The mainstream left downplays the problems of the radical left. Look how quickly many Democrats rallied around Zohran Mamdani without scrutinizing his support for “seizing the means of production” and “defund the police” or holding him accountable for his dodging on “globalize the intifada.” This wasn’t just a mechanical endorsement because he’s the party’s nominee. In many cases, we’ve seen a bear-hug embrace from prominent Democrats.

On the mainstream right, you have people who privately recognize that the far-right is dangerous, but enable or support it anyway. Some, like our friend Edward, will even publicly concede the point: MAGA is bad, but “MAGA and Woke are [both] bad,” therefore, MAGA is acceptable.

Where is the danger?

The false equivalence between far-right and far-left is practical, not philosophical—again, in theory, both extremes are bad.

Today, the most immediate danger in America and much of the democratic world comes from the far-right. That’s not because the idea of fascism is worse than the idea of communism (reds have killed more people, anyway), but because the far-right holds the levers of power in Washington and is rising across Europe and even in Japan.

More to the point, if people feel they are being forced to choose between one extreme or another, they will swing right. The Nazis never had a majority in the Reichstag, but they were always well ahead of Ernst Thalmann’s communists. Nearly a century later, the Nazis’ successors in the AfD still outpace the Left Party. In France’s 2017 presidential election, leftist Jean Luc-Melenchon finished fourth in the first round of voting. In 2022, he finished in third. He never qualified for the second round. Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen did, both times.

Why the far-right beats the far-left

The far-right positions itself as trying to preserve or restore something, whether some racial-demographic balance or the nation’s bygone glory days. The far-left, by contrast, is seen as trying to disrupt, overthrow—a total departure from tradition.

Understood through this lens, we can see why people, against their better judgement, treat MAGA as a safe bet. The writing has been on the wall for years. In 2019, nearly half of all Americans said that the Democratic Party was moving too far to the left, while only 37% felt the Republicans had moved too far to the right (and Trump was two years into his first term at this point!).

I don’t point any of this out because I like the way things are going, but because it is simply a fact: far-left excess enables far-right overreach.

Democrats gain nothing of strategic value by indulging this wing of the party. Bernie Sanders was never able to secure a presidential nomination among Democrats; to insist he could have won a general election is to deny reality. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the lone representative of the DSA-aligned left among top contenders for the 2028 Democratic primary, and she is polling in the middle of the pack below several more moderate alternatives. If Democrats really want to put up a serious fight against Trump’s demagoguery, then they should stop indulging radicals and remember that the far-left is more loud than it is popular.

P.S. Whether you agree or disagree, let’s continue the discussion—in the comments, and on a Zoom call. Yes, Zoom! I’ve recently announced new Zoom calls for paid subscribers so that we can have a real conversation. Check it out and please consider joining...

Source:Garry Kasparov has a few moves of his own.

From Gary Kasparov

I'm going to get to what Garry Kasparov is talking about here. But last week I argued what I at least would call mainstream socialism. And here is some of what I said about that: 

"I mean if you want to call today's Socialists "Modern Socialists", thats fine. But what the Robert Reich's of the world and many others on the left-wing in America talk about, when they're talking about their own political philosophy, it's what the rest of the world calls social democracy, or even just a democratic form of socialism. Mr. Reich made that clear his blog post about socialism, when he said: 

"Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good...

From The New Democrat

My colleague Erik Schneider wrote his own piece about what Garry Kasparov is talking about here. And here is some of what he said about that on Tuesday: 

"My first response here is: if you don't like the Pat Buchanan's, the David Duke's, the Rick Santorum's, the George Wallace's, (from way back) and today, the Donald J. Trump's of the world, taking over our government and politics in America and giving them so much power over everyone else... you can't ignore and leave behind 10s of millions of Americans, simply because you don't like their culture, or what part of the country their from, where they went to school, etc...

From The New Democrat

What Erik was talking about and arguing is that when Democrats ignore people who for a longtime were loyal Democrats, who voted for Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson... overwhelmingly, these voters look to other alternatives. Especially right-wing demagogues who simply want their votes and money, but wouldn't do a damn thing for them, ever. They wouldn't even spit on 1 of these voters when they're literally burning on fire, to help put the fire out. But they'll be more than happy to take their votes and their money from them. 

When the "Republicans" go far-right, it's because Democrats and even mainstream Republicans ignore blue-collar, working-class, populist voters. But when Democrats go far-left (and Mr. Kasparov got into this as well) it's only in response to counteract the far-rightism of people who call themselves Republicans. And what happens when American voters only have a choice between 2 extremes: the far-right and far-left: 

Since 1972, the Democratic Party has only nominated 1 presidential candidate for President, who could be classified as a left-wing politician, Senator George McGovern. Not just MAGA, but some even mainstream Republicans like to view Barack Obama as a Socialist. But it's hard to even write "Barack Obama is a Socialist", without at least smirking. Socialists certainly don't see Mr. Obama as 1 of them. 

But since 1972, Republicans have nominated 3 far-right candidates for President: Donald Trump in 2016, 2020, 2024. 

My point here is, that the Democratic Party has a whole, doesn't even like Socialists and doesn't want Socialists representing, certainly not for President. And outside of the U.S. House of Representatives, it's hard to find any Socialist who holds any major public office right now. Without Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, there are no even Socialist Democrats who currently hold state office in America right now. And New York City electing Zohran Mamdani as its next Mayor this year, won't change that. 

I think the real point here for Democrats is, if you think you need Socialists to vote for you and you speak to your concerns and try to work out some differences that you have with them and even negotiate with them, (like a big tent Democrat would) that's fine. 

But when you try to use socialism as your own philosophy and try to make it the face of the Democratic Party, (and I think this Gary Kasparov's main point here) it's a big political loser for you. Because Mr. Kasparov said so himself (rightly or wrongly) American voters tend to see even far-rightists, as people who stand up for tradition and protecting American tradition. Whereas they see far-leftists as people who are trying to blow up the system and give Americans something that they're completely unfamiliar with. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.