Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has achieved a remarkable feat: winning a landslide election and doubling Labour's parliamentary representation. However, beneath the surface of this success lies a more nuanced story about the limits of moderation and the dangers of appeasement.

In the aftermath of the 2019 general election, where Labour suffered its worst result in over a century, Starmer took over as leader with the goal of finding a middle ground with the far right on social issues. He implemented a strategy of substantive moderation, which involved hacking apart the party's progressive platform piece by piece. While this approach may have helped Labour win power, it has also led to a series of concessions that have alienated the party's traditional base and emboldened its opponents.

One of the most significant examples of Starmer's moderation is his stance on trans issues. In an effort to appear statesmanlike and avoid controversy, he has taken on more illiberal positions than anything countenanced previously by Labour. This includes swinging rightward on immigration, where he now considers it a duty of his government to address the issue. The apparent goal of this policy shift is to regain votes at the center and pre-empt a future electoral challenge from the far right.

However, Starmer's strategy has been met with catastrophic failure. Reform, the UK's most prominent far-right party, has made significant gains in local elections and now leads the polls nationally by a significant margin. In fact, support for Starmer has collapsed, with less than a quarter of Britons having a favorable view of him.

So what went wrong? The answer lies in a deeper philosophical confusion about what politics is. For Starmer and other reactionary centrists, politics is primarily about policy and pragmatism. They believe that by making concessions on key issues like immigration and trans rights, they can appeal to a wider audience and win elections.

However, this approach neglects the importance of values in politics. Values are not just moral imperatives, but also practical considerations that shape how we understand the world and our place within it. In the case of immigration and trans rights, these issues are not just about policy, but about fundamental questions of identity, equality, and human dignity.

The far-right's worldview is built on a revulsion-based opposition to multiracial, symbolically equal society. They see immigration as a threat to national cohesion and believe that diversity is a danger to social order. In contrast, liberal values like equality, justice, and human rights are seen as anathema to their vision of society.

So what's the alternative? For those of us who value democracy, human rights, and social justice, we must articulate a competing values-based vision that offers a clear and compelling narrative about the kind of society we want to build. This requires a nuanced understanding of the far-right's worldview and a willingness to engage with their concerns in a constructive manner.

However, this is not just about offering alternative policy views; it's also about challenging the far-right's values-based narrative head-on. We must recognize that fascism is not just a set of policies, but a worldview that sees democracy as a threat and seeks to undermine its institutions.

The challenge ahead will require a new kind of politics – one that balances pragmatism with principled stands on key issues. It will demand that we rethink our assumptions about the far-right and recognize that their concerns are not just about policy, but also about fundamental questions of identity and human dignity.

In short, the struggle against fascism is a values-based fight. We cannot afford to let the far-right's narrative become normalized or accept its values as legitimate. Instead, we must draw a line in the sand and assert our commitment to democracy, equality, and human rights.