The article argues that the rise of far-right movements is partly a reaction to decades of illiberal tactics and identity-driven politics on the left. It contends that identity-based policies, zero-sum framing, cancel culture, and institutional pressure have eroded trust in neutral rules and encouraged a siege mentality among many conservatives. The piece calls for renewed commitments to mutual forbearance and classical liberal norms, and for greater self-awareness from the center-left to reduce polarization.
How Left-Wing Illiberalism Helped Fuel the Rise of the Far Right
A rainbow flag waves over the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. | Valery Sharifulin/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
Over the past several weeks, the public emergence of the "Groypers" has refocused attention on a broader crisis within American conservatism. Having covered these debates for years, I argue that the recent surge of reactionary energy on the right cannot be fully understood without recognizing a parallel, decades-long illiberal turn on parts of the left. To a significant degree, today’s radical right-wing currents are a response to that shift.
Perceived Asymmetry and the Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Problem
Supporters of President Donald Trump and many online reactionaries share a persistent grievance: mainstream institutions appear quick to excuse or minimize left-wing excesses while treating every right-wing misstep as an existential threat to democracy. That asymmetry has created a boy-who-cried-wolf effect, where repeated alarms about threats to the rule of law can be met with skepticism, fatigue, or indifference.
Psychology, Rationalization, and Norm Erosion
Humans are wired to excuse wrongs committed by allies and harshly judge identical behavior by opponents. Rationalizations that once seemed defensible can, over time, teach others that playing by the rules is for losers. The cumulative effect of selective enforcement, or the appearance of it, erodes trust in institutions and fuels a zero-sum worldview.
Identity Politics and the Rejection of Classical Liberalism
As Matt Yglesias recently observed, some strands of contemporary identity-focused activism depart from classical liberal premises that place the individual at the center of moral concern and emphasize neutral rules, due process, and individual rights. Instead, identitarian approaches sometimes assign collective blame or collective benefits by demographic category, elevating group labels above individual merit.
That logic can produce “victimhood competitions” and deepen the salience of tribal identities. Predictably, those who find themselves lowest in adjudicated hierarchies—often straight white men—feel resentful and excluded, a development that has helped energize white nationalist and Christian nationalist currents among younger conservatives.
Zero-Sum Framing and Backlash
Jerusalem Demsas has described a "peasant logic"—a perception that there is only a fixed amount of jobs, status, and opportunity, so one group's gain necessarily means another's loss. While Demsas links this to MAGA politics, that zero-sum framing has also been present in some left-wing rhetoric and tactics. When social change is presented as redistribution of scarce status rather than expansion of rights, it produces backlash and empowers extremist voices.
Institutional Pressure, Cancellation, and Eroding Trust
Campaigns of public shaming, pressure on banks and platforms (sometimes called "debanking"), aggressive corporate or civic responses to controversial voices, and targeted regulatory or social pressure against institutions (for example, religious hospitals or wedding vendors) have contributed to a perception that elites will use private and public power to enforce ideological conformity. Legally permissible or not, these tactics can damage institutional trust across broad swaths of the public.
Hypocrisy, Weaponized Tools, and Political Escalation
Many tools once used by center-left actors—investigations, regulatory pressure, publicity campaigns, and corporate persuasion—were later adopted by Trump allies to different ends, prompting cries of hypocrisy. This demonstrates a broader dynamic: when one side breaks norms or reshapes institutions to advantage its agenda, the other side is likely to respond in kind, which escalates polarization and further degrades mutual forbearance.
Not an Excuse for Extremism
None of this absolves extremist actors such as Nick Fuentes, the Groypers, or promoters of white nationalist ideas from responsibility. Their racism, antisemitism, and eagerness to exploit grievances are morally and politically condemnable. But understanding why these movements find recruits requires grappling with the grievances and perceptions that make such messages resonate.
A Path Forward: Renewed Liberalism and Self-Awareness
Classical liberalism—as a practice of mutual forbearance and neutral enforcement of rules—offers an alternative to tribal warfare. Restoring trust requires greater self-awareness from center-left actors: moving away from punitive, zero-sum tactics; reaffirming due process and equal treatment under neutral rules; and framing social progress as positive-sum expansion of rights and opportunities.
Bottom line: The growth of the far right is not reducible to a single cause. But the left’s illiberal moves—real or perceived—have helped create the conditions in which reactionary movements can grow. Addressing that reality responsibly means rejecting extremes on both sides and recommitting to liberal norms that protect pluralism.
Sources and commentators referenced include Matt Yglesias, Jerusalem Demsas, Christopher Lasch, Jack Goldsmith, and commentary by Ryan P. Williams. Survey figures cited refer to post‑2020 election polling of Trump voters that registered high levels of cultural grievance.
