In the current political landscape, right-wing movements across the UK and the USA have perfected a tactical approach that centres on making things up. From fabricated cultural crises to exaggerated policy claims, right-wing politicians and commentators have mastered the art of creating narratives that seize headlines, dominate social media, and shape public discourse. However, the problem lies not just in the creation of these narratives but in how those on the other side of the political spectrum often fall into the trap of responding, thereby legitimising baseless arguments and inadvertently amplifying misinformation. This dynamic not only distorts public perception but also diverts attention from more substantive political issues.
Manufactured Outrage and the Politics of Cultural Wars
The strategy employed by right-wing actors is both simple and effective: manufacture outrage by framing minor or imaginary issues as existential threats to society. These fabricated narratives are designed to energise their base and provoke their opponents into responding. Once their opponents take the bait, the issue is legitimised, and the right’s narrative gains further traction in public discourse.
The UK: The “War on Christmas” and the Perpetual Culture War
In the UK, a prominent example of this tactic is the recurring narrative surrounding a supposed “war on Christmas.” Every year, certain right-wing media outlets claim that local councils or organisations are attempting to cancel Christmas, either by renaming it or by banning traditional celebrations. Despite the lack of evidence to support these claims, the narrative persists, stoking fears of a cultural shift allegedly driven by progressive forces. For instance, stories about the “Winterval” rebranding in Birmingham, a council initiative from the late 1990s meant to promote a series of events during the winter, have been repeatedly distorted to suggest an assault on Christmas, even though the council never sought to replace Christmas with Winterval.
Similarly, the debate over so-called “cancel culture” has become a central theme in British political discourse. Whenever a historical statue is removed or a company rebrands a product due to concerns about racial insensitivity, right-wing commentators declare that British culture is under attack by an intolerant movement. For example, the toppling of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol sparked a broader conversation about Britain’s colonial past. Instead of engaging in a nuanced discussion about history, some right-wing voices framed the issue as an assault on British heritage. This forced others into a defensive position, debating the legitimacy of the statue’s removal rather than addressing the larger questions of historical reckoning and racial justice.
The USA: Critical Race Theory and the Myth of Suburban Decline
Across the Atlantic, a similar strategy is at play. In the USA, right-wing politicians and media figures have turned Critical Race Theory (CRT) into a bogeyman. Originally an academic framework taught in law schools, CRT examines how race and racism intersect with laws and societal structures. However, it has been rebranded by right-wing actors as a radical ideology being imposed on schoolchildren across the country. The narrative falsely suggests that CRT is being taught in primary and secondary schools, leading to widespread public outcry, legislative bans, and even book removals in several states.
The controversy over CRT reached a boiling point during the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election, where opposition to CRT became a central theme for the winning candidate. Although CRT was not part of the curriculum in Virginia’s public schools, the campaign successfully capitalised on fears stoked by right-wing media. This forced the opposing candidate to address CRT on the campaign trail, thus legitimising the issue and allowing the election to be defined by a narrative largely disconnected from reality.
Another example from the USA is the ongoing narrative about the decline of suburban America. During the 2020 presidential election, the Trump administration repeatedly warned that Democratic policies would destroy suburban neighbourhoods by bringing urban crime and chaos into peaceful communities. This rhetoric, often laced with racial undertones, was used to stoke fears among suburban voters. The opposition found themselves compelled to respond, debunking the claims but inadvertently keeping the narrative alive.
The Trap of Legitimisation: How Opponents Fall for the Bait
The common thread across these examples is that the right-wing strategy is not merely about spreading misinformation; it is about setting traps. These traps are designed to draw their opponents into a debate framed on the right’s terms, thereby shifting focus from substantive issues to fabricated or exaggerated controversies. When their opponents engage, they risk legitimising these narratives, giving them more credibility and attention than they deserve.
The UK: Navigating the Minefield of Right-Wing Narratives
In the UK, political parties and figures across the spectrum often find themselves ensnared by these traps. For example, debates over immigration frequently become distorted by right-wing rhetoric. Claims about immigration levels being out of control or about immigrants draining public resources are often exaggerated or baseless. Yet, politicians across the political divide often feel compelled to engage with these arguments, discussing numbers and controls rather than challenging the underlying premises. This can prevent them from offering a positive narrative about the benefits of immigration or from focusing on humane and fair policies that address broader societal needs.
Similarly, the discussion around “culture wars” has ensnared multiple parties in the UK. For instance, debates over the BBC’s alleged bias, or the portrayal of anti-racism education as a threat to traditional values, often force political figures into a reactive stance. By engaging with these manufactured controversies, they risk lending credibility to issues that should have little to no bearing on serious policy discussions.
The USA: The Defensive Posture and Its Consequences
In the USA, this dynamic is also evident. For instance, the debate over environmental policies has been skewed by right-wing distortions. During the 2020 election, right-wing media claimed that President Biden’s environmental proposals included a ban on hamburgers, a complete fabrication. However, the claim gained enough traction that it warranted a response from the Biden campaign. This response only served to keep the story in the news cycle, diverting attention from more important discussions about climate change and the need for sustainable policies.
The same pattern can be seen in the debate over law enforcement and public safety. Following the protests against police brutality in 2020, the slogan “Defund the Police” gained prominence among certain activist groups. Right-wing media seized on this slogan, distorting it to suggest that all opponents of their policies supported dismantling police forces entirely. This narrative was used to paint opponents as extreme and out of touch with public safety concerns. Rather than focusing on their proposals for policing reform, some politicians found themselves on the defensive, trying to distance themselves from the slogan while still advocating for necessary changes. This defensive posture diluted their message and allowed right-wing narratives to dominate the conversation.
The Need for Strategic Silence: Choosing Battles Wisely
Given the effectiveness of the right-wing strategy, the question for their opponents becomes how best to respond, or whether to respond at all. Not every provocation warrants a rebuttal. In fact, there are times when the most effective response is to avoid engagement altogether. This requires a shift from a reactive approach to a proactive one, where the public, politicians and commentators focus on setting the agenda rather than being drawn into debates on the right’s terms.
The UK: Moving Beyond Manufactured Controversies
In the UK, this might mean focusing on substantive policy issues that resonate with the electorate, rather than getting bogged down in endless rebuttals to right-wing fabrications. For example, instead of engaging in debates about the so-called “war on Christmas,” politicians could focus on issues like economic inequality, public services, or environmental sustainability. By shifting the conversation to topics that matter to voters, they can avoid being distracted by manufactured controversies.
Similarly, when faced with right-wing attacks on immigration or multiculturalism, political figures could focus on positive narratives about the contributions of immigrants and the benefits of a diverse society. By refusing to accept the framing of immigration as a problem that needs solving, they can challenge the underlying assumptions of right-wing rhetoric and promote policies that are more in line with public values.
The USA: Setting the Agenda
In the USA, a similar approach could be taken. Instead of responding to every outlandish claim from right-wing media, political figures could focus on their own policy agenda, highlighting achievements and proposals that address the concerns of voters. For example, rather than engaging with fabricated stories about environmental policies, they could emphasise the economic and public health benefits of transitioning to clean energy. By staying focused on their message, they can avoid being drawn into debates that are designed to distract and divide.
On issues like public safety and law enforcement, the focus could be on clear, evidence-based proposals for reform that resonate with the broader public. Rather than reacting to distorted narratives about “defunding,” politicians could articulate a vision for policing that ensures safety, accountability, and community trust. By setting the terms of the debate, they can undermine right-wing attempts to control the narrative.
Reclaiming the Narrative
The right-wing tactic of making things up is not just about spreading misinformation; it’s about controlling the narrative and setting traps for their opponents. By consistently responding to these fabrications, those on the other side of the political spectrum often find themselves caught in a cycle that benefits the right more than it does them. To break free from this pattern, they must learn to discern when a response is necessary and when it’s better to stay focused on their own agenda. By refusing to be distracted by manufactured controversies and by proactively setting the terms of public discourse, they can reclaim the narrative and push forward with more meaningful and productive political conversations.
In both the UK and the USA, the challenge for the public, politicians and commentators across the political spectrum is to navigate this landscape of manufactured outrage without being drawn into the traps laid by their opponents. By choosing their battles wisely and focusing on issues that truly matter, they can avoid legitimising baseless narratives and instead steer the political discourse toward solutions that serve the public good.
Solutions:
- Respond only with facts and then disengage.
- Controlled, intelligent silence.
If the right wing want to spread lies to incite there is little we can apart from reclaiming our space and watching it grow.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
