QT's guests consist of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Charles Clarke, Susan Kramer, Max Mosley, Susan Cramer and Rageh Omah.
Baroness Warsi is easily turning into the prominent figure of hate in the Tory party. If the Tories needed to reinvent that hard-nosed Tory without an ounce of compassion, then they have found that archetypical person in Baroness Warsi. Her constant interruptions and attempts to lecture the audience, Dimbleby and members of the panel, grate beyond belief. It would be nice to see the Tories wheel her out more often, as she can only alienate people.
Susan Kramer is probably as right-wing as David Laws in the Liberal Democrats and thus represents the most extreme right-wing fringe of the Liberal Democratic Party.
Charles Clarke, of course, is also on the right of New Labour (yes, the right of New Labour): Again a member of the hard-right.
Bizarrely, what is noticeable within this environment is that Max Mosley, the son of a fascist, and someone who acted within the legacy of his father (the Union Movement) sounds, relatively speaking, reasonable (within the context of having three right-wingers out-tough themselves).
Rageh Omaar (of whom I don't know what his political views really are, but he seems quite keen on the 'Big Society') is so far off the centre ground (despite of his endorsement of BS) in the presence of essentially an internal right-wing bickering, that his interjections sound like dreamy afterthoughts.
This really highlights how right-wing Britain has become. The basic questions of centre ground and of ideology do not feature, as it seem a fait accompli that the standard conversation is firmly on the right. To be sure, there is clearly a discrepancy with sections of the audience, but who represents them?
19 comments:
All true, but let's not let the liberal-left off the hook here.
Since the 1970s it has worked tirelessly within the broad left as an internal force for self-destruction. Starting with the importation of awful American cultural studies and the equally awful 'Dominant Ideology Thesis' - which essentially argued that there is no dominant ideology strong enough to manipulate the pluralistic majority - it rushed headlong into the pomo denial of truth, reality, class, propaganda, dialectics, historical process, the dominance of neoliberal economic logic and anything else that requires a clear epistemology and firm political intervention. As the USSR fell apart it lost its bottle altogether, with Stuart Hall and the gang calling for 'resistance at the point of consumption'. The liberal-left took a leaf out of the Burkeian conservative book, making the firm decision that real politics were always catastrophic and 'identity politics' were the safe alternative.
The right dominate because we made it so easy for them to do so.
- questionnaire
questionnaire,
really interesting post. Aspects of it remind me of the Lenin's tomb post last month
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/08/collapse-of-consensus-myth-of-popular.html
on the acceptance by the 'mainstream left' of Thatcherite 'realism'.
The complete paucity of political debate as outlined by olching's QT observations makes me wonder just what the gap is between mainstream politics and the political attitudes held by the public at large.
I know there were analyses done through the 80s and 90 by the British Social Attitudes Survey which showed the public to be much more social democratic in outlook than whomever represented them at Westminster.
I do wonder just how popular a Social Democratic party standing on policies such as renationalisation of key industries, higher tax brackets etc etc would fare given a fair platform.
Of course it's hypothetical as the right wing press would destroy any attempt as being Communism as well as being resisted by the mainstream consensus parties.
Hi Questionnaire and 13th Duke and Olching, are there any particular books or articles that discuss the problems with the "liberal-left" as opposed to the social democratic side of the left wing?
Duke
I'm familiar with the LT site, on which there have been some quality postings over the years. However, the site's general meta-discourse seems to be underpinned by a faith in a latent and residual class consciousness.
Such faith has no empirical basis other than crude 'attitude surveys' and suchlike. I have spent the past twenty years or so researching life in and around the margins, using penetrative ethnographic methods. It has been a profoundly depressing experience. The ideological positions of the majority of individuals ranged from rabid Thatcherism - often practiced as predatory and exploitative criminal entrepreneursip - to what Mark Fisher describes as 'anhedonic nihilism', which of course is so ridden with lethargy that it cannot be 'practiced' at all.
I saw no class consciousness. I saw no 'big society'. Just lots of little competitive individuals, some of them quite nasty. The extent of their absorption into post-literate consumerism and celebrity culture was quite breathtaking. The social democratic message, no matter who it came from, would fall on deaf ears.
You're right, of course, the power of the media leaves us in an intractable chicken-and egg situation, and any genuine move towards social democracy would trigger a reaction from global financial institutions that look after the bourgeoisie's wealth (and everyone else's), resulting in a flight of capital and an immediate loss of investment and jobs, followed by further cuts.
We are systematically underestimating the scale of the problem in order to keep our own peckers up, and to continue singing variations on the old political refrains with which we have become comfortable. We have to realy hit the bottom before the torpor will will be disrupted, and we need to be intellectually and politically prepared for it. When Germany hit the bottom after the war reparations had bankrupted the nation and global depression made things worse, the Nazis just pipped the SPD in 1933. We can't allow anything like that to happen again, and when the time comes we have to be prepared to offer a bold vision.
In the meantime, I wish we would stop bickering amongst ourselves in that tragi-comic old factionalist manner.
- questionnaire
Wotcher Arlvy,
Jodi Dean's 'Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies' is a great starter, try Mark Fisher's 'Capitalist Realism', almost anything by Zizek and Alain Badiou's 'Ethics: An essay of the understanding of evil'.
- questionnaire
Hello all,
Questionnaire, you are right, though let's not forget that an alternative, perhaps even more destructive path was The Third Way (albeit slightly later). Initiated as a response by Giddens to problems in social theory, it fundamentally conceded ground to the neoliberal right. In many ways, Australia with Bob Hawke was 'ahead' of what was to follow in the UK, Germany, France, and eventually Hungary, Spain and so on. And yes, I guess it is Burkean to an extent, though I would attribute it more ideological conviction than that (i.e. genuinely enamoured with economic rationalism and neoliberal ideology).
Duke/Questionnaire: I'm not so sure where I place my own views on the political nature of the public. Questionnaire has done research in this respect and your findings are indeed depressing, but I'm wondering if public political attitudes can be categorised as 'political but volatile' (at least sections of the public); i.e. potentially leftish, but very volatile. Perhaps it's overly optimistic.
Questionnaire, you mention the example of the late Weimar Republic, and that's why I mention this idea of political but volatile, which describes political discourse quite well, I think, of Weimar in general (after all, electoral turnout was in fact much higher - no surprise - than the UK at any point since Weimar).
Hello Arlvy, I wouldn't really add to Q.'s suggestion, other than to say that Zizek and Badiou are both strong and accessible to read.
"right-wing lurch in British politics"
Well, this all depends on your perspective, doesn't it?
Someone made the comment in your last piece that Ed Milliband was to the "right" of Macmillan and Heath, which is no doubt true if you consider economics only. However, if you look at social and cultural matters, you could say that David Cameron is to the "left" or Wilson and Callaghan, and that would be equally valid. So when the Left claim that they have "lost", they are either being disingenuous, or uncharacteristically modest and I don't really know which.
Of course it has a certain logic, that the rise of economic liberalism, on the one hand, and social liberalism, on the other should bring us to the point where liberalism in the round is the dominant ideology.
However, many in the Left (and to be fair on the right also) fail to grasp this fact, and there is nothing more ironic in this modern age than that than the self-styled leftist with his "autonomous individual" this and his "human rights" that, stating how he wants to dance on Thatcher's grave for basically agreeing with him that there is "no such thing as society".
So where do we go from here, with all mainstream politics crowded around the Liberal consensus? If, there were to emerge, say, a post-Liberal communitarian movment, with a concern for social and economic justice on the one hand, and respect for settled and traditional patterns of living on the other, I for one would welcome it.
But I'm not going to hold my breath....
...Oh, and there is nothing remotely "Burkean" about the Liberal-Left, whose whole ethos is driven by the radical desire to undermine and dipense with customary social stuctures, and as such are the antithesis to traditional Toryism.
Olching, agreed, largely, although the 'third way' was nothing much more than restored social liberalism with the social democratic 'bite' of Keynesian demand management and fiscal/business intervention taken out of it. I would certainly agree with your pithy expression 'politically volatile'. That's where we are. If we wish to avoid the return of ugly forms of tribalism to the mainstream, We must offer an alternative vision and ideology, based on an informed and feasible plan of economic management based on a democratic market/state/civil society nexus; not easy in a global neoliberal economy where comparative advantage, corporate media, mobile finance and the 'race to the bottom' wage market rule.
Pat, again I agree with your overall moral vision but fail to see the connection between that and 'traditional and settled' ways of life. Settled, yes ... but traditional? Nationalism? The Monarchy? The Catholic Church? Curtain-twitching middle England? The Promise-Keepers? The Tea-Party? And once again, I wish you would do me the honour of an occasional close reading. I didn't say that the liberals were purely 'Burkeian', I said that they took a very specific leaf out of the Burkeian book; fear of Promethean political change and the promotion of the organic cultural identity (alright, I know that the liberal-left constructed novel identities from factional interest-groups and that was a perversion, but the principle is the same).
... oh, and the liberals' desire is not radical except at its arty modernist/libertine fringes; in the mainstream it is incremental, compromising and very mindful of the need to retain traditional cultural norms and social structures as the stabilising 'insulation' that prevents its destructive economic juggernaut creating unmanageable disorder. Liberals are slightly risque conservatives who have made a Faustian pact with the dynamic force of the capitalist economy.
The failure of the left to gain traction amongst the average person fascinates me so thanks very much for the reccommendations. I've ordered the Baidou essay and the Fisher book today.
I have to say I think Questionnaire's view about the majority or people's political orientatation is depressing but correct. Ok it's just from me asking my peers and colleagues what they think but there is definitely a lack of thought or care when it comes to politics, which of course means they end up supporting the status quo by default. However in some areas such as immigration or crime and punishment there often seems to be a competitive aspect as to who can be the harshest, certainly among men there's a sense that if you don't agree with the more reactionary ideas you are "soft" "lily livered" "wishy washy" etc etc as if masculinity depends partially on how unflexible, uncaring/cruel you can be. The strange thing is that this sort of competition encourages people to support violent and illegal behaviour as a way of dealing with issues that don't necessarily involve violence or law-breaking.
Thanks again to Olching and everyone who comments here, it's a very enlightening place to read.
Hi
Just a quick comment about Q's suggestion that people totally lack class consciousness and are generally utterly drowned in consumerism etc etc...
I too agree with this and would add that people are brainwashed and acting within extremely narrow parameters...
BUT...
...in a vaguely Spinozan fashion I think this is a response to environmental pressure and as such does mean that given the right balance a tipping point can be reached where people act less idiotically than we all seem to be observing...
(unfortunately I too cant see past having to watch the whole thing crash before a rebalance can be achieved bit there yo go)
Arlvy
I read "The Enigma of Capital" by David Harvey the other week and I recommend that if you haven't already read it
Cheers
Pat's point
'. . . which is no doubt true if you consider economics only. However, if you look at social and cultural matters, you could say that David Cameron is to the "left" or Wilson and Callaghan, and that would be equally valid.'
is an intriguing one for exploration. Salmond claimed that most Scots actually 'didn't mind' Thatcher's economic policies - what they objected to was her social policies. Salmond's argument is eyepopping in a sense - it's news to most Scots that Scotland backed Thatcher's economic polices - but as an indication as to how far Thatcherism has become entrenched it is invaluable.
In fact, sticking to Scotland, you could argue that Salmond is reading it wrong - Thatcher despised religious discrimination and when she came to power Scottish institutions such as the Glasgow Herald and BBC Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland discriminated against Catholics - they changed because they had to change and Thatcherism was part of the impetus for change. Let's not forget that the Old Left in Scotland and the STUC quietly went along with all that bigoted crap.
Olching's blog is a fascinating place to visit as always - thanks guys.
Hi Pat and Edwin.
Sorry for the late response.
Pat, you make some good points, but I would largely echo questionnaire: What's the alternative to what you see as 'left' (it isn't left per se) in social issues? Not a pretty vision, even if you are right to say that the individualisation is part of the problem; of course it is and I don't think I or most posters here have argued otherwise.
Edwin, you kind of make my point about the left not being synonymous with liberal or 'new age' or anything. But on a personal note I think these issues needed addressing within sections of the left. The fact that a lot of this has gone hand in hand with individualism and Thatcherism etc is a new problem, which needs to be addressed urgently. The demise of the LibDems might be a starting point.
Hi olching,
Didn't want to sully your most recent blog with a house-keeping post. Great news is that I'm out and about and not in front of a screen, writing and procrastinating. End of one project, off researching another - back mid 2011. Just wanted to let you know in case you thought I'd buggered off in a pique :)
Will definitely read you when I'm able. As others have already told you - fantastic blog - much appreciated.
cheers parallax
Thanks parallax. Hope all is well with you and best of luck with your new project. Stay in touch.
"Nationalism? The Monarchy? The Catholic Church? Curtain-twitching middle England? The Promise-Keepers? The Tea-Party?"
Well, if you replace "Nationalism" with "Patriotism" then I don't really have a problem with anything on that list (although I had to google "promise-keepers"), with the exception of the Tea-Party, who, as far I can tell, are populist right-wing radical libertarians, with very little relation to conservatism as I understand it. If you're interested, here's a very good article explaining why:
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/09/is-there-a-conservative-tradition-in-america/
hi olching/ivannicolavic
A quick itinerant hello.
I'm back on board because the *principle* of Assange deserves the backing of bloggers - so I'm chattering away where-ever it counts - cif/poetry/australian news outlets - here :)
what do you think?
hope you are well
cheers,
parallax
hi,
concerned but also respectful of your silence
I'm available and totally ignorable on parallaxviewed@gmail (note the past-tense) - so, call if you need to, otherwise take care, enjoy and look after your self
cheers, parallax
Post a Comment