In recent years, a curious convergence has emerged between certain factions of the right and left in Western politics. This unlikely alignment is driven largely by a shared opposition to what is vaguely referred to as "the establishment." Despite its frequent use, the term remains elusive, rarely defined with any precision. The fact that people from opposite ends of the political spectrum can rally against it only adds to the confusion. What is not so confusing, however, is their mutual disdain for liberal centrists whom they regard as the guardians of "the establishment." Although the contempt is certainly justified, the underlying reasons differ significantly between the two camps.

For those on the left, the issue is not with the liberal values that centrists claim to uphold. Their disdain arises from the perceived hypocrisy of centrists who, despite professing progressive ideals, serve the interests of the most oppressive forces in the world. Some elements on the right recognize this hypocrisy as well, but they don't see it as the primary evil of centrists. For them, the real problem lies in the liberal values themselves – values which, unbeknownst to them are based on a very narrow and superficial interpretation promoted by those very same centrists.

Of course, the labels "right," "left" and even "center" don’t mean much to people who take it seriously and pay attention to what is going on in the world at the moment. Nevertheless, their colloquial use may be useful in describing certain phenomena in global politics, and hopefully, addressing them insightfully, especially within the context of anti-establishment movements.

Now, we ask the following basic question: Why oppose "the establishment"? The anti-elitist sentiment behind the opposition is understandable, yet opposition is meaningful only if it is rooted in truth, that is, only if the elites are really opposed, but not merely replaced with others. Anti-establishment figures on the left like Jeremy Corbyn, a former member of the Labour Party in England and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the France Unbowed Party (LFI), appear to be much more consistent in this regard than those on the right like Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, for instance. The latter simply do to their supporters what centrists do to theirs: Both abuse the legitimate concerns of the people they pretend to represent, weaponize their concerns for political gain and rely heavily on propaganda to consolidate support. In a word, both are opportunists. And unlike Corbyn and Mélenchon who apparently can never be trusted with power, right-wing populists occasionally find the opportunity to govern – of course, on the condition that they wouldn’t fulfill their promises to the people who expect from their leaders a true anti-establishment stance.

In 2022, when Meloni campaigned for premiership in Italy on the promises of nationalism, conservatism, immigration reduction, and crucially, anti-establishment politics, centrists portrayed her as a literal fascist, hoping to attract support from the so-called liberal left against a common enemy. Those on the left with a more acute understanding of politics, however, quickly realized what centrists were up to, and consequently, refused to join the mainstream attacks on Meloni. Not because they thought highly of Meloni, but because their politics was based on a genuine anti-establishment position that is usually, and wrongly, claimed by right-wing populists. And it is wrongly claimed so because if we look at Meloni’s policies since she came to power, for example, we see that not only has she followed the orders of "the establishment" word by word, but she has also become, at times, its most fervent defender, particularly when it comes to Russia.

While Hungary’s Orban seems to have been more resistant to the idea of sustained hostility toward Russia and more stubborn in his anti-immigration rhetoric and conservatism, he has never put up a real fight against "the establishment" either. Of course, Orban’s criticisms of "the globalists" are praised as anti-establishment in right-wing circles. To bolster this perception, he attacks the likes of Hungarian-American businessperson and philanthropist George Soros and accuses them, quite rightly, of forcing policies on sovereign nations with no regard for their individual identity. However, Orban’s otherwise reasonable and plausible critique (and his emphasis on the sovereignty of individual nations) is really limited to his social conservatism. He is not in the least reluctant to embrace a conservative hegemon in the person of former U.S. President Donald Trump. In other words, his resistance consists not in disobeying "the globalists" but in finding the kind of globalists that can be obeyed more conveniently and comfortably. As long as he is given permission to cherish "traditional values" in Hungary, for example, Orban is happy with joining "the globalists" in their efforts against Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro.

And hasn’t this been the case for the last couple of years at least? Similar to the ones above, Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) in Holland, Javier Milei, the president of Argentina, and many others like them have presented themselves as "the forces against the global elites," only to form themselves a global network of socially conservative elites supported by billionaire oligarchs like American businessperson Elon Musk and American entrepreneur Peter Thiel who are deeply embedded in "the military-industrial complex" that has been a core element of "the establishment." That these people are enthusiastically supported by the most hawkish neoconservatives in the U.S. is really not a surprise.

Ironically, some of the victims of "the establishment" of Western imperialism in the global south seem to be easily tricked into believing that the right-wing politicians and commentators in the West are seriously fighting against "the globalists." In reality, however, what they are actually doing is instead trying to replace the liberal globalists with socially conservative ones who have always been at least as aggressive in their policies against the rest of the world.