The Orwellian Nature of Transatlantic Populism

The contradiction inherent in transatlantic nationalism has long produced odd, if not outright antagonistic, bedfellows. It is hard to imagine individuals who share nothing in common except mutual animosity toward immigrants and political liberalism forming a cohesive alliance. The 21st century’s explosion of digital disinformation, conspiracism, and half-truths—in the guise of opposing the “establishment”—has indeed produced mutually exclusive realities for Western citizens.

The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Gonzalez’s recent article on the emerging “pro-freedom alliance” between European and American populists serves as a stark example of these dueling realities. The article is notable for relying on factual omissions to construct a political inversion, one recognizable only to those initiated in the “anti-woke” movement. It presents a simplistic, overused metanarrative: multiculturalists, environmentalists, and immigration advocates are blamed for diluting the once pure cultures of the West. Nations that once possessed, presumably, homogeneous “national identities and cultures” were disrupted by social pluralism, cultural libertarianism, and the “woke” concept of tolerance for everything from migrants to transgender citizens. According to this narrative, “leftists” infiltrated national and global institutions, ending conservative golden ages by imposing environmental regulations, loosening border controls, and promoting globalization.

Today, many on the European hard right hope that the “Trump tornado” will move east—breaking institutions along the way and restoring the West to a time of social cohesion, widespread prosperity, and traditional cultural values. They claim this does not equate to Trump and America “dictating to Europe,” a curious assertion given JD Vance’s infamous comments at the Munich Security Conference.

I have two objections to Gonzalez’s argument. First, his “freedom” coalition openly opposes Lockean liberty by presenting it as an affront to tradition. Second, the conservative golden age that populist rhetoric alludes to exists only in the minds of figures like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and Mike Gonzalez.

The populist metanarrative begins with the claim that globalization was largely driven by leftists—a notion that would surprise activists who fought the World Trade Organization and transnational corporate power from the Battle of Seattle to Occupy Wall Street. It is hard to ignore the conservative-driven imposition of global neoliberalism—so well documented by both the right and the left—that any suggestion to the contrary raises questions about what Gonzalez is referring to at all. 

Perhaps it was the “woke” policies of USAID, cited in his piece as evidence against a typical right-wing target, billionaire philanthropist George Soros. The evidence marshaled is that the Soros-led Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project criticized Republican members of Congress and even Gonzalez himself. This is hardly a smoking gun, given that over 700 individuals have been arrested, indicted, pled guilty, and sentenced in connection with the corruption revealed by the OCCRP—a inconvenient truth that Gonzalez’s article overlooks.

USAID is also responsible for funding media outlets opposed to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. This is where the article seems to dial the clock back to 1984. Orban, a self-proclaimed “illiberal democrat” who rejects American-style social libertarianism, has undermined the Hungarian rule of law—a situation that Heritage now equates with “freedom.” His government regularly meddles with the independent judiciary, influences journalists’ editorial decisions (no, not to stop the spread of pernicious or violent misinformation), blocks the press from essential information and meetings, and even uses Pegasus spyware against dissident journalists and politicians. As one embattled journalist put it, "I lost sources after the Pegasus incident... It's harder to work now because people are afraid to talk. This phenomenon has increased more than it did before Pegasus. Meeting me now comes with extra risks."Given USAID’s stated mission of supporting “independent media to promote transparency, fight misinformation, and empower citizens with reliable information,” funding anti-Orban media appears quite fitting.

Orwell's take on dystopian absurdity

Gonzalez also discusses a meeting of far-right parties in Madrid earlier in February, where populist groups celebrated Trump’s victory and vowed to “Make Europe Great Again.” Once again, Gonzalez omits much of the meeting’s intent, although some of the article’s illiberal tone emerges—for example, when quoting Danish politician Geert Wilders, who stated, “We refuse to surrender to the guilt-tripping of the multiculturalists!” This is similar to Elon Musk’s argument that “multiculturalism dilutes everything,” made to a gathering of the far-right Alternative for Germany on the eve of the 80th anniversary of Auschwitz’s liberation. The billionaire tech mogul insisted there’s “too much of a focus on past guilt” to his German audience. The drive for conservative monoculture was so strong that, at the same Madrid meeting, a fight against “population replacement” was also central to the group’s agenda. Great Replacement theory—the racist conspiracy that claims powerful elites (often Jewish) are deliberately diluting the white population through non-white immigration and interracial unions—has fueled mass murders on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as over 400 episodes of Tucker Carlson.

Persecuted Innocence underwrites nearly all forms of right-wing identity formation. Nationalists frame their intolerance as self-defense against a socially antagonistic, morally inferior force rather than as a product of their own prejudices or desire for power. This perspective enables figures like Wilders to rally supporters against a conspiracy he calls “Eurabia,” which he claims is attempting to “Arabize” Europe. Viktor Orban received a warm reception at CPAC after warning that “race mixing” degrades the Western world into a “post-Western” state. Marine Le Pen asked, “How can we be OK with seeing our adversaries ruining the country economically and morally, with the organized replacement of our population?” Within this hard right-wing upside down, ethnic and racial nationalism is often overlooked—perhaps because many supporters champion it—while the transgender community is portrayed as an undefined threat to Western identity, a point of daily obsession for populists.

Gonzalez’s article also raises a question: Whose culture are populists promoting? For better or worse, the sociological history of the United States has resulted in a wide range of cultures, each with diverse and sometimes opposing traditions. Over 40 years ago, journalist Joel Garreau presented a compelling case that North America is divided into nine distinct “nations,” eight of which are within the US. A similar argument can be made for most European nations. The disparities between America’s multicultural ethnic groups are almost too evident to need mention—just take a walk through Harlem in New York City and then through any town in rural Iowa for a reminder. Beyond traditional cultural indicators, Americans are now deeply divided by their adopted values—a point noted by figures such as conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and geographer Bill Bishop in his work, The Big Sort.

It is understandable why Heritage opposes critical theories, as these theories undermine the political myths of past golden ages and cultural unity. Freedom naturally leads to a multiplicity of outcomes, including culturally. One of the difficult consequences, as noted by social scientist Jürgen Habermas, is a fragmented social sphere defined by ideological echo chambers. Political liberalism and cosmopolitanism were designed to welcome all identities, except those that are intolerant of tolerance—a trait that authoritarian populists have paradoxically turned into a virtue.

One aspect of Gonzalez’s piece is undoubtedly true: “European and American media…often decry the parties and politicians that compose patriots as racist, xenophobic, extreme right, and fascists. But the same insults were used against Trump, and the American voter just didn’t buy it.” This is clear among the 49% of Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, yet this statement does not fully explain why. On a meta-level, Gonzalez’s article serves as a clear indication.

How many Fox News viewers have realized that they were deceived by the network about the 2020 election being “stolen,” when the network drastically underreported the issue? How many of Gonzalez’s readers, in this age of informational bubbles, will notice his omissions of hate-driven conspiracism and cultural history or his misrepresentations of globalization as a left-wing endeavor? If the data is to be believed, not many.

Over time, more right-wing leaders may follow the example of Canadian Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and turn against Trump once their nations face economic warfare similar to what Canada is experiencing; Trumpism risks breaking an already sluggish European economy. Even more, a proverbial right-wing civil war may ensue—recalling the incident when an MEP from the Danish People’s Party told Trump to “Fuck off” in response to his expansionist ambitions in Greenland.

Regardless of what the future holds, Mr. Gonzalez shows us the Orwellian lens through which the right views the world: freedom of the press and speech matter—but only for conservatives. Freedom of choice and action matter—as long as they are not used to marry outside one’s race, adopt non-traditional gender roles, or express too much concern for the environment. Freedom of thought is crucial, provided it leads to the same conclusions as those endorsed by the Heritage Foundation and Viktor Orban. Freedom for the nationalists. Authority for the dissenters. “Up is down, black is white, two plus two equals five…”