The recent electoral success of the Alternative für Deutschland in Saxony-Anhalt has sparked a familiar and fierce debate over language. As the party celebrates its surge in popularity, its leaders and global allies are spending less time discussing policy and more time fighting against a specific set of words. Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the AfD, has been vocal in her denial that her party belongs to the far right, taking to social media to blast news organizations for using the descriptor. She is not alone in this crusade, as figures like Elon Musk have jumped into the fray, claiming that legacy media uses the term as propaganda to paint normal common sense values as extreme.
This pushback extends well beyond German borders, forming part of a broader international effort to rebrand ultranationalism. From British activists like Tommy Robinson to American political figures such as Senator Mike Lee and Donald Trump Jr., there is a concerted argument that what was once called far right is now simply the mainstream center. By framing themselves as the voice of ordinary citizens or merely reflecting current public opinion on immigration and national identity, these actors attempt to strip the label of its historical weight and moral urgency.
However, historians and political scientists argue that this sensitivity toward labeling is a calculated strategy rather than a linguistic misunderstanding. Experts note that challenging terminology is a classic tactic used by extremist groups to gain legitimacy and move away from associations with authoritarianism. When critics look past the branding, they find evidence that justifies the label: members of the AfD with ties to East Germany’s Stasi security service, officials who have used banned Nazi slogans, and voices openly criticizing Holocaust memorials.
Ultimately, the fight over whether These movements are far right or simply right reflects a deeper shift in Western politics. While scholars define the far right through core ideologies of nativism and authoritarianism regardless of how many votes they win, practitioners of these politics see labels as hurdles to power. By insisting that their platforms are standard normalcy, they aim to erase the boundary between democratic conservatism and ethnic nationalism, turning a descriptive academic term into a battlefield for cultural dominance.
