Far-Right Nationalism and the Christmas Message
Here’s a serious journalistic take on the issues raised by The Guardian’s editorial on far-right distortions of the Christmas message, grounded in feminist and Marxist perspectives that focus on power, exclusion, and economic inequality — not some glossy “war on tradition” narrative.
The Right’s Appropriation of Religion as a Political Tool
The recent controversy over far-right activists attempting to “reclaim” Christmas by wrapping it in nationalist rhetoric reveals a deeper struggle over who controls cultural symbols and what those symbols mean in a society marked by inequality and struggle. The Guardian’s editorial points out that figures like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, more commonly known as Tommy Robinson, are using religious imagery not to uplift marginalized people but to craft a Christian nationalist identity that excludes outsiders — most notably migrants and Muslims — from the moral community.
From a Marxist perspective, this deployment of religion is not accidental. Marx famously described religion as the “opium of the people,” but that formulation is incomplete without recognizing that religion can function as an ideological tool to justify and sustain power structures. When far-right movements recast the birth of Jesus — a story rooted in displacement, poverty, and flight from violence — into a rallying cry for ethnic exclusivity, they reverse the original narrative. The resulting politics serve to naturalize division rather than challenge economic and social hierarchies that create insecurity for all working people.
This strategy mirrors what many scholars describe as the political economy of culture wars: mobilizing symbolic issues to distract from material conditions such as wage stagnation, housing precarity, and cuts to social services. Instead of focusing on progressive redistribution of wealth or expanding social protections, nationalist movements use religious nationalism to redirect frustration toward vulnerable populations, not the elite interests that benefit from economic inequality.
Feminist Analysis: Who Is Included in the “Moral Community”?
A feminist lens forces us to ask: who is considered a full moral subject in these appeals to tradition? History shows that religious narratives have often been leveraged to maintain existing gender hierarchies and social orders. The far right’s invocation of Christianity frequently doubles down on patriarchal norms — presenting a traditionalist family ideal that marginalizes not just migrants but also women, queer people, and sexual minorities.
This aligns with research on femonationalism, a term coined by feminist theorist Sara Farris, describing how nationalist movements use selective feminist language to justify xenophobic policies. While mainstream feminism champions gender equality and bodily autonomy, its co-optation by reactionary forces can produce exactly the opposite: exclusionary policies framed as protecting women from “other cultures.” This same logic surfaces when religious rhetoric is used to advocate for deportations or border closures under the guise of defending cultural values.
Christianity’s Radical Origins versus Nationalist Readings
The Guardian editorial emphasizes that the story of Christmas is one of compassion for the stranger and solidarity with the dispossessed — themes that stand in stark contrast to the exclusionary politics of the far right. A Marxist analysis would argue that the content of religious teachings often runs against the grain of dominant power structures, pointing toward egalitarian ideals rather than reinforcing class and ethnic boundaries.
Jesus’s own narrative — born in a manger to a family fleeing persecution — challenges comfortable middle-class interpretations of Christianity. Feminist theologians have long highlighted how early Christian communities disrupted existing social orders, offering alternative spaces of belonging for women, the poor, and slaves. To turn that tradition into a cudgel for xenophobia is not just a distortion of theology; it is a political act that protects the interests of a privileged few under the guise of cultural preservation.
The Material Stakes of Cultural Nationalism
Beyond symbolic battles over Christmas, the broader context matters. Ongoing debates about immigration policy, welfare cuts, and austerity measures reveal that religious nationalism is often a smokescreen for defending neoliberal agendas. By rallying followers around cultural identity and fears of “outsiders,” far-right politics deflect attention from policies that deepen inequality.
For example, in the United States and Europe, the same political coalitions that preach cultural nostalgia have also championed deregulation, weakened labor protections, and slashed social spending. These policies disproportionately harm women and working class families, especially migrants and people of color. Cultural nationalism thus functions both as a diversion and a justification for maintaining economic hierarchies.
Who Benefits When Christmas Becomes Culture War?
It is revealing that debates around the “true meaning” of Christmas surface most intensely in moments of economic anxiety and social fragmentation. When people feel insecure about their material conditions — job precarity, stagnating wages, rising rents — political actors often find it effective to mobilize fears about cultural erosion rather than address the real sources of insecurity.
From a Marxist view, this dynamic isn’t a bug; it’s a feature of how power operates. Dividing people along cultural lines weakens collective struggle around shared economic interests. A genuine focus on compassion and inclusion — values embedded in the nativity story — would logically extend to advocating for economic justice, equitable access to resources, and humane immigration policies.
Feminist Resistance and Collective Solidarity
Feminist movements have long emphasized that social liberation requires an intersectional struggle — one that addresses gender, class, race, and nationality simultaneously. When feminist voices challenge far-right co-optation of religious language, they do so not to diminish religious traditions but to reclaim moral frameworks for emancipatory politics. This involves insisting that a truly humane society must extend rights, protections, and dignity to all — including immigrants, refugees, queer people, and survivors of economic exploitation.
In communities where churches and other faith institutions engage with political questions — from immigration to healthcare to labor rights — the most effective advocacy often comes from coalitions that bridge secular and religious commitments to justice. Such alliances reject the framing of moral values as the exclusive property of any single cultural or ethnic group.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Christmas for Inclusion and Justice
The far right’s attempt to rebrand Christmas as a banner for exclusionary politics is more than a culture war sideshow. It reflects a deeper crisis in how societies allocate power, identity, and resources. A feminist and Marxist analysis insists that the fight over symbols like Christmas matters precisely because it reveals where power resides and whose interests are being protected.
Rather than succumb to simplistic appeals to tradition, public discourse should focus on how material conditions and social structures shape lived experiences. A Christmas ethic rooted in compassion — for the stranger, the poor, the oppressed — aligns more closely with movements for economic justice and gender equality than with exclusionary nationalism.
In reclaiming the message of Christmas for all, we resist both cultural chauvinism and economic systems that pit people against one another. Ultimately, the most radical Christmas is not about restoring old traditions but about fostering a world where justice, solidarity, and shared prosperity are not just symbols but living realities.