Instagram/@lavernecox
By unflinchingly tackling the notion of ‘far left radicalization’ and at the same time debunking it, Laverne Cox has definitively thrown open the gate for a large online argument. The actress and activist adamantly said during a widely-watched video that the policies of the so-called extreme left are merely some moderate basic ones, universal healthcare being one of them, for example. This issue of the current political center being in the rightmost position was brought to the thousands of comments in which many expressed the same opinion that the center has moved to the right by a wide margin.
Advertisement
Cox does not care at all about it. The famous actress has just re-shared a video by Jess Britvich that tackles one of the common subjects most people are afraid to even discuss. The main subject is simply put in the question: ‘Why is it that you only talk about far right radicalization? Is not the far left radicalization the same?’ With the re-shared video, Cox presents a comprehensive counter-argument that has gained popularity lately. She trivializes the whole matter and in a silly manner raises the question ‘Far left radicalization? BAPE? What does it mean?’ She believes the left has not become as radicalized as the right has, which she describes as radicalization. ‘It is just not happening,’ she states very confidently. ‘Not in terms of communication, not in terms of numbers, not in terms of the setup, and not in terms of any effect.’
To back her claim, the video does not only give an explanation but also goes into depth analyzing the issue. Cox remarks that the far right has, in a way, gone mainstream, totally absorbed by the current political and cultural environment through what she calls the ‘big-wallet, coordinated machine’. ‘These are institutions supported by billionaires that have been made to look popular through artificial means, aiming to normalize far-right ideas,’ she explains. On one hand, she claims the left has never had such a stronghold over the online world and has never been able to craft messages that could even reliably rally the base to go out and vote, let alone turning anyone into a so-called ‘radical lite’.
Cox contends that what many people consider to be ‘far left radicalization’ is simply a collection of leftist ideologies which are viewed as moderate in most other developed countries. ‘Universal healthcare can never be classified as the alt left. Gender-affirming care can never be classified as the alt left,’ she points out. She also provides a practical illustration in the form of a definitional framework: if the far right is fascism then the far left would be communism or anarchism. Even though such online subcultures exist, she maintains they are powerless and have no rave support or influence over the mainstream policy as is the case with the current Democratic rave which often plays the role of a centrist accommodating the right-leaning voters instead of its liberal base.
The scenario illustrates the Cox’s perspective that it is the Overton window—the range of policies considered politically acceptable to the mainstream population—that has been moving very rapidly to the right, leading to a situation where the center is very far away. ‘The assumption that if one favors very inclusive healthcare, labor rights, LGBTQ rights, etc., one is far left… is evidence that the Overton window has shifted so far right,’ she comments, adding that it is a point she keeps reiterating. This shift makes even the most moderate left-wing policies appear more radical than they actually are. In the end, she tells the audience, ‘Your understanding of the left is not radicalizing anyone.’
Laverne Cox’s remark has sparked an enormous debate, the comments section being a microcosm of the larger dispute. A comment that was among the most voted ones captured the general view perfectly by stating ‘Far left radicalization? You mean empathy?’ This concise remark is a clear sign of the perception that extremity is being linked to a very basic human characteristic such as compassion. Another user recounted a truly maddening event, saying: ‘I saw somebody from my country (the UK) say “Don’t be scared to be called far right, far right just means you are NORMAL”. I was like excuse me WHAT??? What is going on, ermm what?’ This comment shows the unfortunate adoption of far-right language that is also indicated in Cox’s video.
In a shorter and less detailed comment, a user offered an even deeper examination of the logic behind the ‘both sides’ position. The-user argued that the view often comes from ‘white cishet (cisgender heterosexual) male grievance politics,’ which posits that people complain about ‘being made to accept and treat people who are different from them as equals like it is a suffering.’ The comment cited the example of dissatisfaction with the representation of minorities in media and using derogatory language that leads to social consequences, comparing it to the historic oppression of the marginalized groups. This perspective adds a layer of sociological critique to the argument and suggests that accusations of left-wing radicalization may largely be reactions to a loss of social privilege rather than a response to any real extremist movement.
Nevertheless, there were users who expressed different opinions. The online debate also featured users who would not allow the narrative to drift into one that implied dialogue was the best approach, i.e. ‘both sides’ story was the best way to go. One said ‘I don’t know. I believe some people sometimes just live in a curated bubble, not realizing really that there is massive extremism on both sides. I think they take turns being worse than the other, personally.’ This view, which presented itself as coming from an Independent, practically called for the discovery of commonalities among the sides and criticized what it saw as a divisive posture method. The response to this comment was quick and unequivocal saying ‘Democrats have never, ever been worse than Republicans. That is an absurd statement.’ This interchange clearly illustrates the very deep ideological divide that exists.
A user made a practical suggestion that the left should adopt a more aggressive media strategy. ‘We truly need the democrats to go on rightwing sites and defeat them the same way as republicans go on CNN and complain when they get tough questions,’ they proposed. ‘They should go to those channels and attack them without mercy. Call fox and fiends liars. Expose their messaging. Expose their distortions. TO THEIR FACES!!’ This exemplifies the current political communication stance that is considered frustrating and the necessity to push back on opposing narratives in their territory.
Advertisement
Laverne Cox’s choice of emphasizing this particular video has simultaneously transformed an online talking point into an overpowering discussion about political definitions, control, and media influence. The strong public participation signifies a segment of the public that craves clear, evidence-based responses to the narratives that equate standard social policies with organized extremism. The conversation is still ongoing, but Cox’s main point—the real radical shift has been in the very center of political discourse—resonates very well with a large portion of her audience. The challenging of ideas that she started reveals a very significant conflict over the very terms that are used in the political debate of today. She also recently showed off stylish new merch, and she brought the heat with TS Madison on Celebrity Family Feud. In a more playful moment, the actress asked “Am I the drama?” in a post with Cardi B, and she unveiled a vintage Mugler dress for an upcoming fashion book.
About the Author
