One year into Donald Trump's second term, political commentators are reflecting on the widespread prediction of a global 'vibe shift' to the right. Many pundits, not typically aligned with pro-Trump propaganda, urged acceptance of this supposed shift, dismissing resistance as 'cringe'. However, the current political climate suggests these assessments were premature.
The concept of 'reactionary centrism', coined by Aaron Huertas in 2018, describes self-proclaimed moderates who claim to oppose both left and right extremes but disproportionately criticise the left. This mindset fuelled a moral panic over 'wokeness' and 'identity politics', creating a false equivalence between Trump's actions and progressive campus movements. While not necessarily decisive in the 2024 election, this framing made Trump's victory appear as a legitimate backlash against left-wing overreach.
Reactionary centrism operates on an asymmetry: only liberals are seen as having agency, while the right merely reacts. This narrative downplays the self-generated nature of far-right projects, such as Stephen Miller's ethnic cleansing agenda, framing them instead as responses to 'legitimate grievances'. After the shocks of 2016, many liberals engaged in performative contrition, apologising for neglecting the 'left-behind' and studying works like 'Hillbilly Elegy'. This narcissistic self-criticism reinforced the right's claim to speak for a 'real America'.
The danger of reactionary centrism lies in its potential to hinder post-Trump reforms. By perpetuating a false equivalence and denying the right's agency, it undermines the urgent changes US democracy requires. As the dust settles on Trump 2.0, understanding this dynamic is crucial for preventing its future influence.
