Times have changed and politicians and their supporters have to appreciate and reflect those changes and embrace the future.
With the apparently fratricidal conflict within the British Labour Party now moving to a new and critical stage, which could see the Party either resolutely draw back from the beckoning abyss, or lemmingesquely catapult itself into it, now might be a good time to consider a few of the now rather meaningless phrases politicians continue to use.
Let us consider, for example, the two contenders for the leadership of the British Labour Party; the doyenesque Jeremy Corbyn, and the newcomer, Owen Smith. Mr Smith, in challenging Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership, is packaging himself in garments of 'I can be as 'radical' as Jeremy Corbyn', which he believes should make his leadership appeal attractive to the Corbynites.
Who are sold on Corbyn's largely undiluted 'traditional Labour Party values and philosophical approaches'; irrespective of the fact that probably the majority of the electorate do not believe in those values anymore, or, if they do, they are resigned to them not being realised. Owen Smith, you might have thought, should be aware of the now ambivalent, and negative connotations of the term, 'radicalism', and use the term, 'progressive.'
Realising the 'faith approach', rather that the empirical approach, which many, if not most of the Corbynites seem to be motivated by, Owen Smith, it appears, has astutely adopted what we might call the 'thinking person's Corbynism', by presenting himself in the language of 'radical' reality. In other words, Owen Smith is making his starting point the reality which now exists, whereas Jeremy Corbyn, arguably, wants to ignore or wish away this present reality, and restarts with a 'blank slate' - tabula rasa - with 'reality' having no impact on the doctrinal policies he wants to implement, but which are likely to preclude him from winning the election he needs to win, in order to implement them.
And so we have Jeremy Corbyn speaking about 'making Britain a more prosperous and fairer society'; a phrase we have heard ad nausaum, and the value of which becomes less each time we hear, but no longer register it. How, you might ask, can a society become 'fairer', when it has not yet, and, if we are to be pragmatic, never will, become 'fair'? Might it not be better to speak of a society becoming 'less unfair and unequal'?
Which reminded me of Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, speaking about wanting a society which is not only for the benefit of "the privileged few", amongst whom she must doubtlessly be counted, in showing her token obeisance to the concept - not the practice - of 'one Britain.' Mrs May, is, of course, the same Prime Minister who stood up in the British Parliament and told the Shadow Cabinet that she would have no hesitation about pushing the nuclear arms button, because the 'nuclear deterrent would not be a deterrent, if the country's 'enemy/ies' did not believe that she would use it.'
She did not cite the fact that, if it had to be used, it would no longer be a 'deterrent.' The Prime Minister, we can assume, was being 'pragmatic', which might not sit comfortably with someone who genuinely have an issue with not governing the country in the interests of 'the privileged few.'
The day we begin to take politicians - like the religious clergy - at their words and stop treating them as, sometimes, a necessary evil, is the day we become more at risk of losing our objective reasoning and more of our humanity.
Strive to making your living as consistent as possible with your worldview, while endeavouring to avoid allowing your aspiration for unachievable perfection, to blind you to achievability of a less idealistic goal/s; if only you were not so uncompromising.
After awhile the 'tablet of stone' doctrine looses its appeal, because it no longer reflects the reality in which we live, and its 'guardians' refuse to update it and make it relevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment