As all political observers must know, the basic political strategy is to be divisive. To be political is to give allegiance to a divisive mythology where susceptible citizens are encouraged to identify with a named political standpoint and its collation of myths, legends, labels and slogans. Then stop thinking.
This is what voters expect and what they get from political parties, although the myths, legends, labels and slogans are usually presented as ideologies sheltering within a fog of extremely implausible virtues.
It all used to work after a fashion, in the days of sober newspaper accounts, TV and radio interviews, rallies, megaphones and soapbox oratory. It was always divisive though, sometimes recklessly and even tragically and grossly destructively divisive, this hasn’t changed.
The use of behavioural psychology to spin the myths isn’t new, but the hour by hour intensity of modern digital communication appears to have pushed political myth-making from reckless radicalism towards insanely divisive nonsense which resists correction through traditional political means.
The chap on the soapbox may now have to contend with unattractive, purple-haired folk screeching threats and slogans while waving ungrammatical placards. Too divisive for debate is too divisive for sanity within the political arena, as we know.
Much divisive nonsense appears to be generated via a shadowy mix of NGOs, fluid activist groups and pop-up outfits tuned to a current cause coupled with opaque funding. Even casual observation tells us that narratives promoted by many major politicians are derived from insanely divisive narratives with complex roots stretching well beyond traditional political discourse.
Whether politicians believe their deranged and divisive narratives is a problematic question, but they certainly advocate them and that’s what we observe. We don’t observe ‘beliefs’ or 'values' whatever they may be. It’s no good trying to tell UK politicians to stop listening to the sirens of divisive nonsense though. It has to stop working for them first.
2 comments:
"waving ungrammatical placards": aye, but produced at such speed and with such uniformity that there's clearly Money behind it all. Whose? Why?
dearieme - yes, there is clearly funding and an outfit able to produce placards using a standard construction with any suitable slogan. At least some of those which look home-made could be produced like this too.
Funding sources must surely be known to security services and maybe some journalists, but there seems to be a preference for many demonstrations to come across as spontaneous even though they obviously aren't.
Post a Comment