Radicalisation and The Spectator
An analysis of the normalisation of racist language on the British right is incomplete without taking note of the role played by the leading political weekly
In a post on the
Substack, has produced a detailed account of the increasing racism of the language used on the mainstream British right (as distinct from the far right). It’s an excellent piece which I recommend to anyone interested in the subject. But there is a gap which surprised me so I’m posting this in an attempt to fill that, not to criticise the original post (linked below).
Sam refers to the Telegraph and its increasing tendency to print commentators that use or endorse racist ideas, in contrast to the social liberalism of the Tories in the early noughties. But Sam’s article doesn’t refer to The Spectator. I think it’s an important part of this story because it manages to be both a mainstream publication and one that has continued to print articles that any reasonable person would conclude contain racist language, even during the period in which the Tories were distancing themselves from these ideas. The editorship of Boris Johnson (1999 - 2005) allowed this stuff to flourish, including articles by Taki Theodoracopulos, a far-right millionaire. One particular sample is an article from October 1999 by ‘Taki’, as he chooses to be known, which contains the following passage [Warning! this passage contains racially offensive language]:
Only the Daily Mail reported the fact the slime were black. Yet I'm willing to bet my last drachma that the majority of muggings of the old and frail are perpetrated by young black thugs. I simply cannot see many other people — with the exception of the IRA — viciously assaulting the old and the defenceless except for hoodlum macho young blacks, a posture their culture encourages, incidentally.
The article in question remains available on the Spectator website (without any context statement or other explanation). In February 2002, Johnson wrote from his editor’s pulpit of a visit to Uganda [Warning! Again, racist language]:
You would need a heart of stone not to have been moved by the little Aids-ridden choristers… The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more… The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.
The Spectator has fairly often published this sort of thing over the years, whether during the early 2000s, the period
identifies as characterising a more liberal tone prevailing on the British right, or more recently in the context of increasing normalisation of racism. But what’s interesting is that, throughout this period, The Spectator has managed to be treated as a normal, respectable publication by people on all sides of the political spectrum. Its parties are hot tickets for all manner of politicos, its parliamentary awards are coveted as much by politicians on the left as on the right and much of what the magazine prints is written by people who cannot be accused of any kind of racist positioning (and many of whom are excellent, incisive writers). The point is that this magazine is highly influential, both on British conservative thought, and on our wider political and media culture.“It’s a significant part of my job as editor to defend people’s right to be offensive,” is the defence offered by its (then) editor
of platforming racist articles. The magazine purports to be independent of any party line, claiming that its writers’ “only allegiance is to clarity of thought, elegance of expression and independence of opinion. Our writers’ opinions range from left to right, their circumstances from high life to low life. None make any pretence at being impartial: our motto is ‘firm, but unfair’.” The valorisation of unfairness is a tell: I wonder if this, and Nelson’s desire to defend offence may be code for you can reliably find racism on these pages but still be able to read the magazine in polite society.This is not a social-media platform declining to moderate its whackier users. This is a magazine, commissioning and paying for the content it puts its name to.
Free speech obviously includes speech which is offensive, but the editor of what describes itself as “the best-written and most influential weekly in the English language” will have a lot of options on what to print. Merely being offensive is presumably not the only factor that matters to the editor; “clarity of thought, elegance of expression and independence of opinion” are claimed as being important. These are of course subjective, but neither Johnson, ‘Taki’, nor Rod Liddle (to name but three of those given a platform to write racist articles by the magazine) appear to score particularly highly on these measures. To print these articles is an active choice taken by the editor. This is not a social-media platform declining to moderate its whackier users. This is a magazine, commissioning and paying for the content it puts its name to.
A significant part of the job of the editor of The Spectator might be to defend people’s right to be offensive, but arguably a much more significant part of the job is to choose what to print at all. The Spectator’s consistent history of platforming racist language has made it easier for others to break cover in its direction, leading to the normalisation that
so successfully described in his post.