When looking at the foreign policy stances of the far left and the far right, we generally find some strange areas of consensus between the two ostensibly opposed groups.
For example, far-left influencers are extremely critical of Israel’s strikes against the Iranian regime. At the same time, far-right figures like Tucker Carlson are siding with Iran, an avowed enemy of the Western world:
We see a similar dynamic when it comes to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Both the far-left and the far-right are unified in blaming Ukraine for Russia’s invasion, and absolving Russian dictator Vladimir Putin of all responsibility for the war he launched.
Both the far left and the far right simply ignore all aggressive threats and aggressive actions by authoritarian states, and save their outrage for whenever democratic nations defend themselves.
But what is the unifying thread here?
Why would both the far left and the far right want to see Russia and Iran succeed at the expense of countries like Israel and Ukraine?
Because the far-left and the far-right are both pro-authoritarian and anti-democratic.
Consider the following:
Studies have shown that our political views are influenced in part by our brain structure. It stands to reason that, on average, those in the centre, centre-left, and centre-right have brain structures more amenable to the level of nuance and consensus-building necessary to maintain democratic systems. Meanwhile, those on the far-right and far-left have brain structures that push people towards extreme and rigid ideologies, and a complete intolerance for other views.
Events also shape our political views, which is that moments of economic crisis often lead to the rise of extremism, as stressed populations gravitate towards the more extreme ends of whatever ideology they hold.
Thus, both the far-left and far-right side with authoritarian regimes, because those regimes offer them the hope of being able to impose their will through fear and violence, rather than persuasion and democratic elections. It’s the “I can’t wait for society to collapse so my ideology can rise from the ashes” meme brought to life. At some level, extremists sense they will never get their way in a democracy, so they hope to see the forces of democracy weakened.
A victory for Russia over Ukraine weakens the free world and benefits authoritarianism, and thus the far-left and far-right want Russia to win.
A victory for Iran over Israel would mean the loss of the freest and democratic nation in the Middle East, and would enable Iran to spread its terror network further and sow fear and violence in other free nations.
This understanding leads us to recognize a deeper truth: Democracies are morally superior to authoritarian states.
Any functioning democracy is a system in which power is legitimately held and can be transferred peacefully through elections. By contrast, power in authoritarian states was seized by a group of extremists who then built a system to make it impossible for that power to be transferred to others. In democracies, the vast majority of reasonable and relatively moderate people are largely in control, whereas in authoritarian states, extremists rule and oppress others.
Democracies, even when deeply flawed, ultimately represent the broad will of the populace and thus act with the consent of the populace, while authoritarian states represent the will of those who seized power and refuse to give it up.
This fundamental moral difference is often obfuscated by moral relativists (who are often far-left and far-right ideologues masquerading as ‘realists’). They claim it is wrong to judge another system or to declare democratic systems superior. Some claim that certain cultures are not compatible with democracy, a claim that is undermined by the fact that there are democracies run by people representing all of the world’s races and religions.
Wars between democracies and non-democracies also present a stark moral choice, because democratic nations’ war goals tend to be limited (and even beneficial to their opponents), while authoritarian war goals tend to be maximalist and highly destructive, even genocidal.
For example, were Ukraine to defeat Russia, Russian troops would simply go home. Were Russia to defeat Ukraine, Ukraine’s democracy and civil society would be destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, would be tortured, imprisoned, and killed.
If Israel were to defeat Iran, the Iranian People would have a chance to overthrow the regime and become a freer and democratic nation. If Iran were to defeat Israel and achieve its stated goals, Israel would be destroyed, and the Israeli People would be subjected to genocide inflicted by the Iranian regime.
We saw this in World War Two, where the war goals of the Axis included killing tens of millions of people, while the defeated Axis powers benefited from their defeat in the long run by being integrated into Allied economic and military structures that built long-term freedom, prosperity, and security.
This is not to say that nations like Canada, the UK, France, the United States, and others are perfect. We are seeing democratic backsliding in many parts of the world. Our sovereignty has been questioned by a democratically elected leader south of the border. We have been naive and complacent for far too long. But none of this changes the fact that democracy is a truly astounding human achievement that is worth defending and promoting.
Instead of listening to extremists who side with hostile regimes while undermining our democratic system, we should be confident in the moral superiority of democracy (without veering into arrogance), and use that confidence to inspire the defence of our freedom and the aspirations of people around the world to escape oppression.
Spencer Fernando
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.