The climate sceptic discourse of radical-right parties: an appeal to voter attitudes?

How do radical-right parties appeal to voters when discussing climate policy? Psychological research shows that certain attitudes are more common among people who vote for radical-right parties, such as the acceptance of hierarchical relations (or Social Dominance Orientation), conservatism (or System Justification) and intolerance for diversity and complexity (Right-wing Authoritarianism). Right-wing ideology is traditionally described as a worldview where inequality and hierarchical relationships are natural, inevitable and must be upheld. While right-wing politicians might demand change, conservatism and the defence of the status-quo are also often associated with right-wing ideology. Furthermore, this research focuses on radical-right parties, implying a strong presence of authoritarianism in the discourse. Additionally, a vast body of literature has identified the presence of populism in radical-right rhetoric, and political cynics who feel angry and distrustful of the political system could be swayed by populist rhetoric. Is radical-right argumentation consistent and coherent across policy fields given the strong resemblance between this rhetoric and radical-right attitudes? Much research has been published about the relationship between radical-right parties and immigration policy, but this paper asks to what extent their climate rhetoric is an attempt to appeal to the values of their voters. Through the qualitative content analysis of Facebook posts and interventions by four radical-right parties in the lower chamber of their respective national parliament (Alternative für Deutschland, Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, Partij voor de Vrijheid and Vlaams Belang) we can identify how often they share arguments against ambitious climate policy that appeal to one of these attitudes. Furthermore, this paper clarifies whether the prominence of these arguments changes depending on the political context. While the climate issue has been relatively salient in all four countries, the electoral strength and influence of the Greens differs. In Germany, the Greens govern with a strong social-democratic party, in Austria they have a coalition with conservatives and in Belgium they take part in a broad coalition. In the Netherlands, they are not part of the centre-right government. The analysis establishes whether the prominence of thick and thin arguments in radical-right parties’ discourse is stable across the four countries, or whether it depends on the ideological set-up of their opponents (in government). The paper aims to bridge the gap between the study of political discourse and the reception of this discourse by voters by focusing on the supply side. It presents an innovative codebook in which radical-right political values are translated into categories of arguments traceable in political discourse. At the same time, the development of these categories is rooted in longstanding theories of radical-right ideology. Furthermore, the paper presents evidence on the stability of these arguments in the discourse about climate change. Lastly, this research answers the question whether the prominence of the core right-wing arguments differs from the prominence of thin, populist claims in the climate policy field.