Why the Far-Right Wins

When anti-immigrant (‘far right’¹) parties do well, the left should take an inquiring posture and learn from it. Instead of blaming it on racism.

I’ve already made that case. But now, with the latest far-right win in the wave that’s sweeping steadily across Europe, there’s fresh data to back it up. Austria went to the polls a few days ago. And as expected, the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) came out on top. Whereas parties towards the left experienced a sharp drop in support.

So for DiEM25, I interviewed my friend Konstantina Zoehrer, a political scientist based in Vienna, to analyse it. Full video below.

The video has many actionable suggestions for left-leaning parties in general, so I hope you’ll check it out.

But if you don’t have time to go through a 40-minute chat, here are my main take-aways. Based on our discussion, but also the analysis emerging from political commentators. Let’s go.

They’re. Not. All. Racists.

A (largely predictable) reaction to the win from parties to the left of FPÖ, as well as during the campaign, is that racism and xenophobia drove their success.

But with the election behind us, that doesn’t stack up. Vienna is the region with the largest migrant population. Yet it voted mainly for the centre-left Social Democrats (SPÖ), while the FPÖ’s anti-immigration stance didn’t resonate. So more voters who were exposed to diversity supported pro-immigration policies.

In contrast, rural regions like Upper Austria and Carinthia, with fewer migrants, leaned toward the FPÖ, driven more by fear about the theoretical effects of immigration.

Looking deeper, it’s clear that not all FPÖ voters were motivated by racism. Their environment, exposure (or lack thereof) to migrants, and local concerns shaped their choices. The variation in voting patterns across regions demonstrates a complex set of motivations, likely a mix of concerns about immigration, national identity and security, economic conditions, how the government handled issues like COVID, and other policy areas.

Sure, some voters likely supported the FPÖ simply because they hate immigrants². But the reality is always more nuanced. By painting entire segments of the population as being motivated by racism, the left alienates large portions of these voters who might otherwise be receptive to our messages.

It’s frustrating because this response from the left is not just misguided — it’s intellectually lazy. It plays into stereotypes; it creates discord. And it conveniently absolves us of needed to change anything we are doing. Because if voters have hatred in their hearts for migrants or foreigners, they’ll never be persuaded.

Saying racism is the only explanation might offer therapeutic release. But just because it feels good, doesn’t make it smart.

Simple, tangible, emotional proposals

Three things stood out in the FPÖ’s political messaging. It was:

• simple
• offered tangible solutions, and
• provided emotional connection

As is common for far-right parties, Herbert Kickl focused largely on a single issue: a promise to reduce migration. His banner polices were things like “remigration” and “Fortress Austria”. He claimed that Austria needed an EU remigration commissioner to reverse immigration trends, particularly for what he called “uninvited foreigners.” His vision included suspending asylum rights through emergency law and implementing strict border controls to achieve a more “homogeneous” nation.

While these solutions were simplistic and controversial, they resonated emotionally with voters by offering clear and immediate promises — in contrast to the left’s often intellectual, long-term goals. They spoke to the concerns of large parts of the Austria electorate, especially around migration and national identity. They offered certainty in an uncertain time.

On the other hand, the left-leaning SPÖ and Greens struggled to connect with Austrian voters’ day-to-day concerns. The SPÖ emphasised improving access to education and healthcare, and reducing inequality. The Greens focused largely on tackling climate challenges. Of course, these are vital topics. But their messaging felt more abstract and long-term to many voters, compared to the FPÖ’s action-oriented stance.³

Balancing ethics and security: difficult but possible

We on the left need to start taking the far-right seriously instead of demonising them. We must engage with their voters — including the working class. We should acknowledge their fears, and present a clear, emotional, and actionable alternative.

This means offering both humane and secure solutions that resonate immediately. By putting forward proposals that serve both humane values and national interests. By presenting policies that are compassionate, but also reassure the public by addressing security concerns. By demonstrating how migration is a net benefit to the economy. And by focusing on integration to help ensure social cohesion, making migration work for everyone.

It’s a challenge. But the good news is, there are many examples of left-leaning parties who have pulled it off and won power. From the PSOE in Spain, the Social Democrats in Sweden and Denmark, the socialists in Portugal and even the Labour party in New Zealand.

Yes, every country is different and yes, we might not agree with every proposal of these parties and yes, some of these parties had to walk these campaign promises back when the realities of power hit win.

But if we don’t win, we’ll never change anything.

TL;DR

The left has the ideas — now it needs to find a way to make them resonate. Every far-right victory provides a useful chance for introspection and to work out how.

The sooner we start having that conversation, instead of the one where everyone’s racist, the better.

Notes