Vik wins again.
See this. More farstreaming success. Mainstreaming is a proven failure; farstreaming is a proven success. Der Movement promotes mainstreaming. The Sallis Groupuscule promotes farstreaming. Is anyone surprised about who is consistently right and who is consistently wrong?
Let us define these terms.
Mainstreaming is when a more extreme political figure attempts to broaden their base of support by moving toward the political center, moderating their positions, compromising their principles, diluting their ideology, so as to attract what they believe to be a winning coalition of moderate voters who would be repelled by “extremism.”
Farstreamng – a term that I invented – is when a political figure moves toward more extreme political positions, away from the center, embracing a more radical ideology with uncompromising principles. In the context of right-wing politics, it means someone on the center-right moving in the direction of, at the very least, hard right populism, if not the Far Right itself (that would be optimal and a more extreme example of farstreaming). It could also mean someone who is already far on the right moving either farther to the right – e.g., right-wing populists, including civic nationalists, moving to the Far Right and becoming overt racial nationalists..
Mainstreaming would seem to make sense on a superficial level, but the weaknesses of this approach are obvious upon reflection. A mainstreamer alienates their friends and dispirits their base, while never winning over their enemies, who will never trust the mainstreamer, and will have only contempt for this pandering to the center. The mainstreamer can become outflanked by a centrist modifying some positions for the sake of an election. Why should the average voter support a mainstreaming ex-“extremist” when they can vote for a “safer,” more established centrist candidate who now has approximately the same political positions as the mainstreamer? Thus, by mainstreaming, a politician eliminates the only reasons for favoring them over the centrists, while the centrist still enjoy the advantages of being “more electable,” lacking the “baggage” of an “extremist” past. If you are going to have the “baggage,” you may as well accompany that with actual policy positions that clearly distinguish you from your centrist opponents. Mainstreaming politicians also have credibility and character perception issues – can they be trusted if they so cavalierly change their most fundamental political positions? At least a farstreaming politician can more realistically claim that they have “seen the light” and are embracing more “extreme” positions, moving away from the centrist mass, because that is the right thing to do, but someone moving toward the bland center, moving toward the mass of the voters, has around them the stink of unprincipled political expediency. And even if a mainstreaming politician wins, they have achieved victory in such a manner that they have likely compromised their ability to effectively leverage that victory for doing any sustained good.
Let’s consider some real-life examples.
I used to mock Orban as “Chicken Wire Vik” – a center-right politician posturing at immigration enforcement (with a flimsy chicken wire border fence) to win votes away from the Hungarian hard right. But over time Orban realized that the further he moved to the right, the more popular he became. He farstreamed so far to the right that he outflanked the mainstreaming “Far Right” Jobbik party, and afterwards Orban has gone from success to success, while Jobbik’s mainstreaming has been a dismal failure. The prime example of failed mainstreaming is Marine Le Pen, who as drifted so far to the center that in many ways her positions are indistinguishable from that of Macron, and she has been outflanked on her right by a North African Jew. I note that the “breakthrough personality” mentioned here is Zemmour and not LePen. It is astonishing that Le Pen has mainstreamed herself right out of the conversation about immigration and French demographics. Thus, even if – IF! – she ever wins an election, she’s compromised her positions so much that such a victory would mean little for the French Right and the long term prospects of French survival.
Donald Trump, in the past widely seen as a socially liberal New Yorker (“New York values”), at most center-right in his overall politics, farstreamed to the right in 2015-2016, running as a right-wing populist, and outflanking the rest of the GOP field on the right, particularly with respect to immigration. This not only led to an unexpected victory to the GOP nomination over more established political figures, but led to a shocking and unexpected victory in the 2016 Presidential election. Trump then spent the next four years betraying his base and governing center-right, and mainstreamed during the 2020 Presidential race, losing (whining about “electoral fraud” aside) to the widely unpopular, dementia-ridden walking cadaver Joe Biden. Food for thought, eh?
Of course, I am talking about general trends here. Mainstreaming may occasionally garner electoral success. Farstreaming may sometimes fail. Laws of politics are not as stringent as, say, the laws of physics. Nevertheless, the broad trends, the empirical real world evidence, strongly suggest that, in general, mainstreaming is a losing proposition, and farstreaming is a more likely road to success.
I can anticipate one objection. If farstreaming is best, then why don’t more extreme political parties routinely win elections? One must be careful to understand the argument being made in this post. Mainstreaming vs. farstreaming focuses on the direction of political change – should a “dissident” politician move more toward the center or should they move to (or at least maintain their position in) the more extreme end (right or left, depending on what type of “dissident” politics we are evaluating) of the political spectrum. In most majority White countries, it is true that more moderate parties dominate. But this is not stable over time, since the definition of “moderate” changes, countries differ, and situations change. America has drifted so far left since WWII that Eisenhower’s immigration policies would now be “Far Right Nazi” and today’s mainstream social policies would have shocked libertine Hollywood communists of the 1950s. The centrist racial attitudes even as late as the 1980s and 1990s would be considered “hard right” today. So the Far Left of the past has become “moderate” and “centrist” today. In contrast, Hungary has shifted to the right, so Orban’s right-wing populism is now mainstream. Even in today’s leftist America, the White population retains sufficient rightist sentiment as to allow for Trump’s initial success; therefore, there can be internal divisions within a country as to what “centrist” really means. The fact of national political change over time means that even if an “extremist” party has no chance of victory today, they may exhibit success in the future, if they stay the course and stay true to their principles, and if a changing political climate moves the central mass of voters in their direction. Finally, real leadership consists of leading, not following; the principled politician stakes out authentic positions, based on a sound ideology and certain uncompromising principles, and then attempts to convince the electorate to come in that direction. The effective leader leads the populace in the right direction and builds upon a solid base of supporters, they do not abandon that base in a vain attempt to follow the populace to the center (a “center” that is in any case constantly shifting). So, yes, today, “moderate” has more success than “extreme” – but farstreaming is still the best long-term strategy. You should stake out an attractive position away from the milksop middle and entice the electorate to follow you to the “extremist” “promised land.”
eginotes 
You must be logged in to post a comment.