Fiddlers on the Hoof: Con Politics Explained

In the 2010s, UKIP pulled Con politics in the UK further and further to the right. From 2016, Trump dragged Con politics in the US in a similar direction. Then Conservative parties across Europe and other parts of the world began to move too, away from declaring adamantly that they would refuse to join forces with far-right politicians, to being ready to form coalition governments with them. Why has this been happening? Is there some special kind of politics that is emerging?

 

The answer is this: strategically, no; tactically, yes.

 

Con politics is still in essence the same old quest to preserve (and wherever possible, enhance) the powers and privileges of the dominant few. But tactically, it won’t rely on one grand narrative about how things should be (as in the glorious old days), instead its focus is to attack opportunistically any positive thing which might bring about a better society for everyone. 

 

Con politics is driven by a self-obsessed elite who despise the idea that power inequalities should be narrowed. Their self-esteem is founded on looking down on the multitude who, in comparison with them, are hopelessly poor and vulnerable. They couldn’t enjoy being at the top of the pyramid if there weren’t so many stuck at the bottom of the hierarchy. For them, the worst enemies are ‘do-gooders’ (democratic, liberal-minded, progressive, caring) who try to bring in reforms that would make society better for all. These ‘do-gooders’ would keep seeking to improve the quality of life for everyone, prioritising those whose circumstances need improving most. And that threatens to undermine the vision of our modern-day pharaohs who just want to denounce the ‘do-gooders’ and quash their attempts at reform.

 

So the Con merchants seize any opportunity there is to turn people against what is actually good for them:

 

·      Brexit: being a member of the European Union is good for the UK economically, environmentally, and on every other measure; but leaving the EU offered a chance to stir up chaos and lower standards, so Brexit they backed.

·      Net Zero scepticism: despite the near universal scientific consensus on what urgently needs to be done to tackle the accelerating climate change problems, Con politics chooses to exploit any reservation about proposed actions to put a brake on their adoption, and allow damages to worsen for people who could do nothing on their own to avoid the dire consequences.

·      Xenophobia: welcoming migrants and refugees has always helped to build more open-mined and productive societies; whereas turning people (especially those disadvantaged by the reigning plutocracy) against those demonised as ‘foreigners’ would help to divert frustration and anger towards fictitious enemies.

·      Austerity: investing in public services would help everyone and revive the economy; but the Con line is to do the reverse, and keep cutting public services so that those with the least end up getting even less, and become even more at the mercy of those with the most.

·      Anti-Woke: showing kindness and understanding to others is a core measure of the civilised mindset; but the Con attacks it as ‘woke’, and promotes thoughtless animosity to facilitate the old ‘divide and rule’ trick.

 

Look around us, if there is any opportunity popping up for Con politics to slyly shift people from embracing sound policies to backing moves that would benefit the powerful few at the expense of the wider public, the fiddlers on the hoof will soon have another announcement to make.

--

From now until 31 October 2023, Henry Tam’s democracy-related books will be available at 50% discount when purchased directly from Policy Press using the code TAM50.

Counter-Enlightenment, Anti-Woke

The ‘Anti-Woke’ bandwagon has been picking up speed in stirring up anger and resentment against ideas that annoy reactionaries. Exposing prejudices, follies, exploitation has always irritated manipulators who fear that the more others know about what they are really up to, the less they could continue to take advantage of them. To retain their oppressive power and sense of superiority, they resort to weapons of mass deception.

 

In so doing, they are carrying forward the dishonourable tradition of the Counter-Enlightenment, which emerged to attack the thinkers who from late 17^th through the rest of the 18^th century, explained why better ways of understanding the world and improving people’s lives could be attained through empirical investigation, objective reasoning, and cooperative deliberations. They argued that knowledge could be more reliably advanced through scientific research than tying it to the teachings of priests and theologians; women should be given the same opportunities as men; no one should be treated as a slave; punishment should fit the crime; the power to rule should be shared more widely. 

 

These and many other ideas characterised the enlightening outlook that became increasingly influential. By late 18^th and early 19^th century, they had provoked reactions that came to be known as the Counter-Enlightenment. People who had their self-importance wrapped up in the status quo detested attempts to get people to see more clearly what was going on around them. These reactionaries championed darkness over light. Their impact spread through the 19^th century. Church leaders must be heeded over scientific findings. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was condemned and many schools were forbidden from teaching it. Calls for equality for women and men were mockingly rejected. In the US, the southern states fought a war when they thought they might not otherwise be able to retain their system of slavery indefinitely. In France, antisemitism rose to new heights as reactionaries rallied to back the false charge and wrongful imprisonment of the Jewish army officer, Captain Dreyfus. Harsh punishment for the poor was trumpeted alongside leniency for the rich. Attempts to extend the right to vote were repeatedly blocked.

 

By the 20^th century, these Counter-Enlightenment tendencies were hardening into fascism, religious fundamentalism, white supremacism, irrationalism, and misogynist politics. As the 21^st century dawned, theocratic politics, anti-science in relation to the environment and public health, defence of institutional racism, and anti-international cooperation, were added to the mix. Peel away the ‘Anti-Woke’ label, it is this pernicious cocktail that is being served up.

 

It is understandable that when one’s journey to visit a sick relative is held up for hours by protestors against fossil fuels on the motorway, or when one is criticised for reading to one’s child an innocuous story by an author who decades ago made an insensitive remark, one might be drawn to the rhetoric of the Anti-Woke brigade. But it is quite a different matter to give one’s political support to scoundrels who are determined to keep the public from realising that their agenda is to advance their own selfish interests at the expense of everyone else’s wellbeing.