The term “far right” is increasingly used to describe political positions that were considered ordinary, and held by people across the political spectrum, until relatively recently. Its overuse has blurred the line between normal democratic disagreement and genuine extremism, making the label less precise, less credible and less useful.
When did it become far right to support secure borders, safe streets, lower taxes, free speech, merit-based opportunity and strong national defence?
Not very long ago, most of that was simply called politics.
People disagreed over how far to go, how much to spend and which policies would work, but the basic principles weren’t treated as evidence that someone was dangerous, racist, extremist or halfway to fascism.
Now the phrase “far right” gets thrown around so casually that it’s becoming almost meaningless.
Why Musk’s Economist interview reopened this argument
I was reminded of this while listening to an interview with Elon Musk conducted by Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist.
At one point, she accused him of supporting the populist right and parties she described as far-right or very fringe.
Musk rejected the label.
He said he supported normal people and argued that many of the political positions now described as far right would’ve been considered completely normal 10 or 15 years ago.
He then listed some fairly basic principles: secure borders, safe cities and sensible public spending.
Which of those, he asked, is far-right fringe?
Now, to be fair, that didn’t quite answer the question he was asked.
The interviewer was questioning his support for particular parties. Musk responded by talking about individual policies. Those aren’t necessarily the same thing.
A party can support a perfectly reasonable policy and still hold other views that deserve much closer scrutiny. Saying you want secure borders doesn’t automatically answer questions about every organisation or politician you’ve endorsed.
So yes, he dodged the exact accusation slightly.
But what he said was still true.
Why border control was never extreme
The idea that a country should control its borders isn’t remotely extreme.
That’s one of the most basic functions of a sovereign state.
A government should know who’s entering the country, whether they have a legal right to be here, how long they’re entitled to remain and what happens when those rules are broken.
A functioning border system doesn’t require entirely shutting the country off, hating all immigrants or judging people according to where they were born.
It means having a system that works.
For most of my life, that would’ve been accepted across large parts of the political spectrum. People argued about numbers, skills, asylum, labour shortages, refugees and enforcement, but the principle of border control itself wasn’t considered morally suspect.
Nowadays, merely expressing concern about immigration levels can be enough to get someone labelled racist or far right.
What they actually said, the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and the effects on housing, healthcare, schools, wages, integration, infrastructure and social cohesion can all be ignored once the label has been applied.
That’s the point of using it.
Why safe streets shouldn’t need a political label
Wanting people to feel safe where they live isn’t far right either.
People shouldn’t have to accept violent crime, intimidation, antisocial behaviour, theft or streets where the police have effectively lost control.
That shouldn’t require a particular political identity.
It should be one of the first things any government is expected to deal with.
Yet concerns about crime are often treated as though they’re coded language for something darker.
Of course, sometimes people do use crime selectively. They highlight offences committed by one group and ignore similar behaviour from another. That deserves challenging.
But it’s also possible for ordinary people to look around their neighbourhoods, notice that something has become worse and say so without secretly belonging to an extremist movement.
People notice when they no longer feel safe, shoplifting has become routine, certain areas feel lawless and official reassurance bears little resemblance to what they can see around them.
Telling them their concerns are far right won’t make those concerns disappear.
It’ll simply convince them that nobody in power is prepared to listen.
How the political centre shifted while people stayed put
One of Musk’s wider points was that people who now get described as far right may not have changed very much at all.
The political ground around them has moved.
Someone who supported controlled immigration, freedom of speech, lower taxes, equality of opportunity and strong national defence 20 years ago might still hold broadly the same views today.
Back then, they might’ve been described as a liberal, a centrist, a moderate conservative or even centre-left, depending on the rest of their beliefs.
Now they can find themselves described as radical.
Perhaps they stayed broadly where they were while the people applying the labels moved further away from them.
Parts of the modern left have shifted considerably on borders, identity, culture, language, crime, gender, state power and the limits of acceptable speech.
Positions that were once argued about within mainstream politics are increasingly treated as moral tests.
Agreement with the approved view is treated as compassion, while questioning it makes you suspect and pushing back firmly risks earning you the far-right label.
It’s a very convenient system because it avoids the need to persuade anyone.
Once the person raising the issue has been categorised, there’s no longer any need to explain immigration levels, defend weak law enforcement, justify restrictions on speech or answer concerns about taxation and spending.
Once they’ve been placed in the wrong category, their argument no longer needs an answer.
How “far right” is used as an instruction, not a description
Political labels used to offer at least some clue about what a person believed.
Conservative, socialist, liberal, libertarian, nationalist, communist, fascist and social democrat all pointed towards recognisable traditions, even if there was disagreement around the edges.
“Far right” is increasingly used in a different way.
It often functions as an instruction.
The implied message is to dismiss the person, avoid listening too carefully, never consider that they might have a point and keep enough distance to avoid being associated with them.
The term carries the weight of fascism, racial supremacy, authoritarianism and political violence. That’s why it’s so useful as a weapon.
You don’t need to prove that someone holds any of those beliefs.
You merely need to place them close enough to the label for the association to do its work.
The accusation becomes the evidence.
Why the logic behind the label runs in circles
A policy is described as far right because parties labelled far right support it.
Those parties are then labelled far right because they support the policy.
The boundary is rarely defined, and little effort is made to explain when ordinary conservatism becomes extremism or whether the policy itself is authoritarian, racist or anti-democratic.
The reasoning becomes circular: controlled immigration and lower taxation are called far right because supposedly far-right people support them, while those people are given the label because they support those policies.
Concern about crime is treated the same way.
So is criticism of political correctness.
So is opposition to censorship.
So is support for national sovereignty.
Eventually, “far right” comes to mean little more than a person who disagrees strongly with the modern progressive consensus.
That’s not a political definition.
It’s name-calling. Simple as that.
Why a genuine far right existing makes the label’s misuse worse
Genuine far-right movements do exist, including racial supremacists and people who despise democracy, support political violence, favour authoritarian rule or believe citizenship should depend on ethnicity.
That’s precisely why the term shouldn’t be used lazily.
Apply the same label to neo-Nazis, racial separatists, voters concerned about illegal migration and ordinary conservative politicians, and the category becomes so broad that people eventually stop reacting to it.
Then, when the warning is justified, nobody pays attention.
The media has spent years wearing out the words it might one day need.
What questions actually tell you about someone’s politics
The obvious solution is to stop relying on labels and start asking specific questions.
Which policies do they support?
Which parties have they endorsed?
What is it about those parties they agree with?
More useful questions would examine whether they support elections, peaceful transfers of power and equal treatment under the law; whether immigration policy is based on legal status rather than ancestry; whether they defend opponents’ speech; and whether they favour democratic institutions over violence, intimidation and unchecked power.
Those questions tell us something.
“Far right” often doesn’t.
In the Musk interview, the better exchange would’ve required both sides to be more precise.
Musk should’ve answered directly about the parties he supported.
The interviewer should’ve explained which policies, statements or actions justified the far-right label.
Instead, the label was presented as though the case had already been proven.
That happens constantly now.
The accusation comes first.
The evidence is optional.
Why normal people haven’t disappeared
Most people don’t spend their lives thinking in political categories.
They want to work, support their families, feel safe, keep more of what they earn, speak without fear and live in a country that can protect itself, with controlled immigration, competent public spending, recognition for effort and ability, and effective action against crime.
None of that makes someone far right.
It makes them fairly normal.
Perhaps some people and parties currently described as far right genuinely deserve the label. That should be examined carefully, with evidence, rather than assumed.
But if secure borders, safe streets, sensible spending, free speech and national defence are enough to qualify, then “far right” no longer describes a political fringe.
It describes millions of ordinary people.
And perhaps that’s why millions of ordinary people have stopped taking the term seriously.
What Actually Makes a Political View “Far Right”?
Is wanting secure borders a far-right position?
No. Controlling who enters a country, and under what conditions, is one of the basic functions of a sovereign state. Wanting a border system that actually works isn’t the same as opposing immigration or judging people by where they were born.
Why do ordinary political views now get called far right?
Positions like secure borders, lower taxes and safe streets used to sit across most of the political spectrum without controversy. As parts of the political centre have shifted, views that stayed roughly the same are increasingly relabelled as extreme.
What’s the difference between the far right and genuine extremism?
Genuine far-right movements support things like political violence, authoritarian rule or citizenship based on ethnicity. Applying the same label to those groups and to voters worried about immigration or crime blurs a distinction that actually matters.
Has the political centre moved, or have people’s views changed?
For many people, their views haven’t shifted much at all. What’s changed is where the political centre sits, meaning positions once called liberal or centrist can now get described as radical, even though the person holding them hasn’t moved.
Why does it matter if “far right” gets used too loosely?
Overusing a serious label wears it out. If secure borders and safe streets count as far right, then so does almost everyone, and the term stops carrying any real warning when it’s genuinely needed.