Tickling the natural suspicion that a politician may say one thing but mean another, is not new. There’s a languid propensity to think the worst of people in power by those who don’t have that power. I wouldn’t argue with that tendency, if that tendency doesn’t become an absolute cover all. There are good people in power, trying to do their best, often against climate set by rogues, troublemakers and opinionated clowns. [A quick summary of the Tory years from 2010].
Natural suspicion is as much a part of the liberal creed as any part. Questions deserve answers because we don’t give politicians a blank cheque after an election. Putting a robust question about past promises and declarations is fair game. Running away is not an option.
However, it’s difficult to defend the blatant distortions that get played out in the daily media. I’m no fan of the UK’s Labour Prime Minister (PM). I don’t think he’s a rogue or troublemaker or dishonest. He’s portrayed as such by his enemies. That’s no surprise. What’s highly disagreeable are blatant distortions of what a person says in all good faith. Populist media outlets that act as propaganda pamphlets do this frequently.
I may say that the declared policies of a right-wing political party are stupid or dangerous or ignorant. What that says is the words used by a spokesperson of that party fit that bill. It does NOT say that that the people who support, even fleeting support, that party are all stupid or dangerous or ignorant.
Reasons for supporting for X or Y or even Z are multifarious and less stable than for past generations. The assumption that most people of a particular “class” will fit into traditional voting patterns is history. That era has passed.
The word “fleeting” is ever more relevant. Often a spokesperson will indeed say something that is merely flying a kite or designed to stir-up controversy. Whereas if they found themselves in power their whole tune would likely change. Reality would bite. Haven’t we seen and heard that before? I may say; do we never learn?
A study rhetoric is as ancient a study as any. Feelings and impressions are as likely to influence us as facts and figures. Performative gestures and colourful language obscure dry reasoning almost always. This basic lesson had to be relearned because of Brexit. There the established facts were clearly against the UK leaving the EU, but it happened anyway. Lots of people regret what happened in 2016. Sadly, such damaging acts are difficult to reverse.
Earthquakes happen because pressure builds up and then there’s a dramatic release. That happens regardless. Events can be quite anarchic and destructive. I guess the trick is to sense that pressure and ensure it doesn’t build up or is redirected. That’s an area where the current PM hasn’t shown a great deal of competence. I wonder if he will learn and adapt.
John Vincent 