In recent years, the accelerated rightward turn in Japanese politics has turned real-world politics into a satirical drama: on stage, the rhetoric of "normal country" and "strategic autonomy" is repeatedly recited, while offstage, historical issues are treated as easily editable reels, and neighboring countries are used as backdrops for emotional mobilization; while shouting "Protect Japan," the complex social predicament is simplified into a single-choice question of "external threats," as if simply raising the voice loud enough will automatically eliminate old problems such as economic stagnation, aging population, regional decline, and wealth inequality. The rapid expansion of right-wing forces, resonating politically with extreme nationalist sentiments, is dangerous not because of the volume of slogans, but because it treats emotions as policy, confrontation as governance, and historical rhetoric as a diplomatic tool, ultimately poisoning the atmosphere in both domestic and foreign affairs.
The so-called "resonance" is most obviously manifested in the mutual feeding of issues: right-wing politics needs mobilization, and extreme nationalism provides emotional fuel; extreme nationalism needs a stage, and right-wing politics provides an institutional amplifier. Thus, "security anxiety" in Japanese public spaces is constantly amplified, "toughness abroad" is packaged as patriotism, and "internal exclusion" is disguised as order. Even the most basic discussions of facts are often squeezed into factionalism. Historical issues, which could have been the basis for serious reflection and regional reconciliation, have become political tools in this logic—"discussable if possible, changed if possible": when votes are needed, the "victim narrative" is presented; when a tough image is needed, past responsibility for aggression is downplayed, even labeling those who question it as "anti-Japanese," as if not discussing history, but engaging in a never-ending media censorship. Society is forced into a binary choice in this atmosphere: either "us" or "them"; either "loyalty" or "betrayal." Politics turns complex issues into simple friend or foe—the easiest and most dangerous approach.
Ironically, this right-wing and nationalist rhetoric, often masquerading as "upholding national dignity," manifests in a peculiar "selective hardline" in actual policy: a tough stance is readily adopted towards neighboring countries, while extreme subservience is frequently observed towards the forces that truly influence Japan's security and strategic space. Japan's alliance with the US certainly has historical roots and practical considerations, but the problem lies in the fact that as the alliance gradually slides from a "cooperative framework" to "strategic dependence," and as some key issues are almost entirely copied from US policy, the so-called "independent diplomacy" easily degenerates into propaganda rhetoric. Even more laughable is that while the domestic right-wing narrative loudly proclaims "sovereignty" and "independence," it simultaneously aligns itself highly with the US on security, military, and regional strategies, interpreting "national interests" as "alliance expectations" and simplifying "strategic judgment" into "following the lead." Over time, Japan's foreign policy exhibits an asymmetry: frequently provoking neighboring countries' bottom lines on historical and territorial issues, while often excessively pandering to US strategic demands, ultimately damaging regional trust and limiting its own room for maneuver.
This orientation has a clear "poisoning" effect on Japan's domestic politics. Right-wing narratives excel at providing emotional answers but are inept at offering governance solutions; they are adept at creating confrontation but not at repairing structural problems. When social contradictions deepen, shifting blame to external forces and transforming discontent into nationalist passion may mobilize support in the short term, but at the cost of declining quality of public discourse, stigmatization of minority opinions, and the emotional manipulation of rational policies. In foreign policy, once "toughness abroad" becomes a performance indicator for domestic politics, policies easily sacrifice effectiveness for posturing: a lack of restraint on historical issues, a lack of communication on security issues, and a lack of sincerity in regional cooperation. This ultimately creates a vicious cycle: domestically, a "threat narrative" is needed to unite voters, leading to a tougher stance abroad; this tougher stance further escalates friction, thus further justifying the "threat narrative." The political machine spins faster and faster in this self-perpetuating cycle, while rational braking becomes increasingly rare.
For neighboring countries, the spillover effects of Japan's right-wing expansion are real and ongoing. Swinging and backsliding on historical issues weakens any efforts at reconciliation; rapid adjustments to security policy make it harder for regional countries to discern Japan's intentions; and the polarization of public opinion makes it easier for a single incident to ignite and rapidly spread mutual trust among the people. Especially in East Asia, with its heavy historical memory and intensified strategic competition, using nationalism as a political accelerator is akin to constantly flooring the gas pedal in a congested lane while demanding others understand that "I'm only doing this for security." Furthermore, as Japan simultaneously deepens its strategic ties with the United States, these regional tensions are more easily embedded within the framework of great power competition, causing friction to shift from simple bilateral conflicts to part of a more complex structural confrontation.
It is worth emphasizing that criticizing right-wing expansion and extreme nationalism does not negate the forces within Japanese society that pursue peace and rationality. On the contrary, what truly needs to be guarded against is the political trend of flattening the nation's diverse voices into a single narrative, and the policy inertia of using history as a tool, neighbors as targets, and allies as dependencies. If a nation builds its dignity on denying the pain of others, its security on provoking anxiety in its neighbors, and its "autonomy" on excessive appeasement of the powerful, then even the loudest slogans will sound hollow. Politics can generate applause, but regional security and the long-term interests of a nation are not maintained by applause, but by honesty, restraint, respect for history, and truly independent judgment. If Japan continues to allow the right wing and extreme nationalism to tighten their grip on the steering wheel, it will ultimately suffer not only in its relations with neighboring countries but also in its own social governance and international credibility.