The Anti-Fascist does not see it this way. Danger is constant. If we aren’t careful there will be legions of burly men in black uniforms jackbooting down London before we know it. This attitude ensures that tiny nationalist groups receive an entirely disproportionate amount of attention, when their very behaviour and ideas is what keeps them tiny and insignificant. That isn’t all.

There is an old story, possibly apocryphal, that involves Margaret Thatcher claiming that the setting up of a new Government department to solve a particular problem is never a good idea, as the problem will never go away. The employees of the new department have an interest in ensuring that it won’t. A similar principle is at hand in Anti-Fascism. Once the inevitable splits and falling outs occur, the Anti-Fascist must find a new bunch of extremists to get angry with and justify their existence. The result is that the definition of Fascism becomes increasingly flexible. New enemies must be found that fit the mould. Those who choose to stray too far from politically correct orthodoxy will do just fine.

See the treatment meted out to Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). UKIP, for the uninitiated, is a ragtag collection of disaffected conservatives, working class ex-Labour Party voters, and anyone who happens to resent the political establishment in general. They are not too fond of the European Union and mass immigration. In the popular parlance this makes them ‘a bit right-wing’ and therefore wrong. Unsurprisingly, Farage is a frequent target for harassment. Last year he was barricaded inside an Edinburgh pub. In another incident he was not even able to enjoy a pub dinner without protesters barging in, forcing him and his family to flee by car. He doesn’t have much luck with pubs.

As far as these protesters are concerned UKIP represents a dream scenario: an increasingly popular movement that stands in opposition to views that are socialist totem-poles. Genuine fascists are usually isolated and powerless, too strange and incompetent to reach the mainstream. National Action, for example, is an operation (operation might actually be a little too kind) of around 50 members who appear happy to do nothing more than put up offensive graffiti and photograph themselves giving Nazi-salutes – albeit with their faces covered. National Action stays in the shadows. UKIP are irresistibly open and easy to find. The choice is obvious and so the game goes on.

Anti-Fascist groups do have a purpose. They fill an important need for their members. This is the desire to feel noble and special and pure in soul. After all, Fascism is bad. And they are anti-Fascists. So they must be good. Watching these protesters in action we are invited to witness a psychodrama of good versus evil. It is political peacocking at its very worst, a narcissistic display of self-righteousness. They may claim their objective is the protection of the most vulnerable, but this rings more hollow the closer you observe them. What they are really after, and I suspect, so are the people they oppose, is the validation that comes from being part of the group.

At your typical event, the Anti-Fascists and whichever motley crüe they happen to be squaring off against will be cordoned by lines of Police officers. Each side will then shout abuse at the other until they get bored and go home. Isolated scuffles will break out among those who successfully dodge the attention of the police (this is a tantalizing aspect of protesting, the chance to commit violence yet feel virtuous) but on the whole the big showdown is an anti-climax. There might be a couple of press articles and the odd news report – and that’s it. The memory of the protest fades and the bulk of the public probably do not even realize there was one.

What the protesters are searching for is Cable Street. The Battle of Cable Street is the favorite legend of British left-wing lore. One day in October 1936, Oswald Mosley and his blackshirt followers are about to enter London’s East End. But then a band of brave socialists and anarchists strike back: Mosley and his gang are chased out of the East End to the cheers of the townspeople. The truth is a little more complicated. The Anti-Fascists attacked the Metropolitan Police, who were trying to escort the outnumbered Moseley and co. The Police then tried to restore order until Moseley gave up on his plans to march. This fable, however, loose it is with the facts, is what draws the modern day Anti-Fascists onto the streets. They desperately want the glamour of their own Cable Street story, choosing to ignore that the political atmosphere of England in the 21^st century is rather different from the England of the 1930s. No matter, the game will just keep running. The allure is too strong.

The post The Anti-Fascist Psychodrama appeared first on Social Matter.

However, Bork’s work should not simply be categorised as merely a rant, a diatribe on the consequences of poorly considered socio-political policy and the negative side-effects this has on wider culture. At its heart, the book is a serious reflection on the idea of Liberalism itself – an idea that, as Bork sees it, caused the vices of yesterday to morph into the virtues of tomorrow. Offering to define Liberalism succinctly, Bork calls it the belief that taboos are made to be, and must be, broken for the sake of ‘progress’; whatever this happens to be at any given time. This, Bork adds, is why the attitudes of modern day Liberal have little in common with the Liberals of decades gone by. Admittedly, it is hard to imagine someone like Woodrow Wilson unfurling the rainbow flag.

This summary also demonstrates a depression aspect of the linear, Whiggish view of history. Nothing is timeless. There is no wisdom in ‘going backwards’. What is done is done and the only real taboo is traditional values and perspectives. It is these passages that the reader is perhaps most likely to dwell on and the student of intellectual history will find the most illuminating. Bork’s definition leads the reader to ask a few questions: What are the next taboos to be broken? What is the next cause celebre? The next value to deconstruct?

It seems that in modern politics there are two camps that form with every bellwether issue. The first are the self-described enlightened proponents of change and the second are the Neanderthal bigots who, for reasons known only to themselves, do not appreciate nice things. It is easy to find this trope through pundits in the media, but to witness it in front of you is something else entirely.

During my university days a friend and I were enjoying a night out in the days before the start of the new academic year. My friend spoke with one of his friends and somehow the conversation turned to politics, specifically gay marriage. My friend expressed moderate doubts. This did not go down well. The girl he was having the conversation with responded by pressing her hands against her ears and announced, in an unnaturally loud voice, that she would not be speaking to him any longer. She repeated this action to make sure everyone understood how offended she was.

That the topic of debate was gay marriage is practically an irrelevance. The same dynamic will come up again for the next special interest issue. And the modern world has no shortage of fringe movements clawing for mainstream approval. There are the transgender, the transracial, the ‘otherkin’ (you don’t want to know), the hebephiles and so on. These are currently regarded as either weird or morally perverse, possibly both. In the future that might not matter. At this point I may sound as If I am wading into a slippery slope argument, but my contention is not that these movement will necessarily succeed, it is that the debate for and against will be characterised in the same way.

The progressive-regressive schism, through which new ideas continue to be screened, does not show any signs of slowing down. And why should it? No matter how lukewarm or disapproving the feelings of those confronted by the latest faddish campaign, they will be tempted to withdraw their objections by the social pressure of being unpopular. That’s the tragedy of contemporary debate. The side fighting for ‘progress’ does not have to win deservingly. All that matters is the human desire to stand with the cool people, or risk exclusion. The electioneers know this even if they will not admit it. It’s why any serious election candidate reaches for celebrity endorsements. They want to bask in the warm glow of the A-listers. Change, after all, is rarely driven by the moral majority, but more often a vociferous minority willing to stigmatize those who fail to fall in line.

The post Bork On Liberalism appeared first on Social Matter.