Political Discourse Is Broken. Both Left And Right Are To Blame

We live in extraordinary times. Political discourse has disintegrated over the last decade in western democracies. So much so that a businessman with no political experience whatsoever was elected to the most powerful office in the world after a bitter campaign. At the second Presidential debate, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump went after each other in a way that epitomises the current political discourse. Clinton called Trump “unfit” for office, while Trump said Clinton had “hate in her heart” and stated that if he was in charge of the law, Clinton would “be in jail”. Contrast that to another Presidential campaign only 8 years earlier. John McCain defended then Senator Obama after several Republican supporters had expressed their fear of an Obama Presidency. McCain said Obama was a “decent person” who he just “had disagreements with”. The disintegration of discourse has been magnified in the United States, as so many things are - but it’s not exclusive to it. The UK’s Brexit vote in 2016 sparked divisions between the new camps of leave and remain. The mainstream parties have diverged away from each other. The Labour Party under Corbyn becoming the party of the democratic socialists, while the Tory party has moved increasingly to the right under May and now Johnson. It was only this week that the coronavirus stricken Prime Minister came under attack from a Labour mayor who said the PM “completely deserved” the virus, while assistant chief to the RMT trade union exclaimed he would “throw a party” if the PM were to die from the virus. Throughout Europe too, the populist right have been making ground in various elections. These populists have infiltrated the political right over the last decade, while the loudest voices from the left have become radical progressives who are emphatic in their calls for social justice by almost any means. There is no actual conversation between these two groups, and consequentially, civil political discourse takes a battering.

A civil political discourse is vital to a democratic society. It is the way in which those of differing opinions engage in public conversations over ideas, and most importantly, policy. These conversations aspire to be productive, truthful, with the fundamental aim of achieving progress through consensus or compromise. Crucially, a civil discourse is about listening as much as it is about talking. This is something that has been forgotten by many engaging in politics over the last decade. Ideological thinking is mainly to blame. Both the radical progressives and the populist right both have an ideological dislike, and often hatred, of each other. The radical progressives call those on the right stupid, bigots, and fascists. The populist right calls those on the left traitors, snowflakes, and communists. Even moderates on both sides are painted with the same brush. When these moderates seek to engage in civil discourse across the political aisle, they are smeared by radicals on their respective side for engaging with fascists or communists. It was only two decades ago that the leaders of the US and UK were Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Both were proponents of the Third Way which acted as a centrist catch all kind of politics that was so hugely successful in their respective elections. How have we moved away from this so quickly?

There are fundamental issues among both the radical progressives and the populist right. The populists are often, understandably, viewed as the more dangerous ideological movement. They have several fundamental flaws that have contributed to the collapse of our political discourse. First, they are defined more by what they are against than what they are for. They are less concerned with policy, and more with rhetoric that rallies followers around ideas like free speech, or political incorrectness. The populist right are also big on trolling, with many young activists being intentionally provocative on social media. Simultaneously, there are some on the far-right who use this to their advantage, by dressing up serious political messages in irony to spread their message. Either way, the result is the same. Civil discourse loses. Second, the populist right have began to blur the line between the political right, and the extreme right. The door has been opened a crack to the neo-nazis and white supremacists, and given an inch, they will take a mile. Having been lying dormant for decades, and driven to the margins of society, the neo-fascists have been emboldened by the rise of the populist right. This brings with it dangers, and not only to a civil discourse. There is a distinction to make here though . The populists on the right are not fundamentally a white supremacist movement, but because the extreme right have jumped on the train and been emboldened over the last half decade, the radical progressives have been able to define white supremacists as ‘white people on the right’. Unsurprisingly, it is civil discourse that has suffered. The most fundamental issue with the populist right is neither of these two factors though… It is that they win. Trump. Brexit. Success in Hungary, Austria, the Netherlands, and many other countries. Whether it be a consequence of the 2008 financial crash, the destruction of various domestic industries by globalisation, or just strong rhetoric, the populist right win. Yet in the US, Trump’s victory has not led to either a toning down of his rhetoric, or any sort of introspective analysis by the left as to why they lost. Unsurprisingly, discourse has inevitably become even more divided and more inflamed.

When it comes to radical progressives, there is a categorisation problem. Though we know from the 20th century that the left can go too far, we have yet to successfully pinpoint the indicating factors as to when they do. On the right, it is far easier to draw a box around those who are beyond what is acceptable, since anyone who makes claims of racial or ethnic superiority is simply excluded from the political discourse (up until recently at least). This is not so clear on the left however. Nevertheless, there are fundamental flaws with radical progressive ideology that contribute to our damaged political discourse. The three key values in radical progressive ideology seem to be equality, diversity and inclusivity. These seem, on the face of it, desirable values. Yet, they tend to lead to various undesirable consequences. Progressives are critical and suspicious of political discourse as they view it as unequal and exclusive. When they do enter into discourse, individuals are treated as part of homogenous groups - meaning that the radical progressives speak for entire marginalised groups. For example, they may argue that policy ‘x’ is bad for people of colour. Yet there are of course many people of colour who may have an alternative opinion. You simply need to observe the treatment of people who hold opinions alternative to what is expected from their designated group to see how diverse and inclusive the radical progressives can be. Or not, as the case may be. The racist abuse towards Conservative cabinet ministers such as Priti Patel, and former Chancellor Sajid Javid, is just one example of the abuse given to those from marginalised groups who voice opinions contra to the progressive ideology. A video by Vice of a debate between black liberals and black conservatives makes this point emphatically. A black conservative who campaigned for Obama in 2008, yet voted for Trump in 2016 said:

"… I made a statement online, that got a lot of people commenting on it, which was ‘I didn’t see true racism in this country until I became a Conservative’, because I’ve seen true hate coming from the left. White people calling me ‘Uncle Tom’. White people saying I’m ‘not black enough’. And when you call them out and say they’re racist, they say ‘no I’m not’…”

This way of thinking is central to understanding the radical progressive analysis of the 2016 election. Many claimed that the explanation for women, gay people, or people of colour voting for Trump was their internalised misogyny, homophobia, or racism. The damage this does to civil discourse is clear, since the radical progressives simply seek to discredit those who have differing opinions as a way to shut them out of the discourse. Radical progressives also have a tendency to make appeals to outrage. This is most evident in the universities, where no-platforming and shouting down guest speakers because of their ‘hate speech’ has become increasingly regular. It takes no genius to see how this harms civil discourse. Outrage culture isn’t just for guest speakers at university events though. It seems to be reserved for anyone of a more ‘privileged’ group who comments on an issue related to a marginalised group. Matt Damon, for example, was told how tone deaf he was to sexual abuse when he remarked that although both were wrong and must be confronted, there was a danger of conflating ‘patting someone on the butt’ with ‘rape or child molestation’. “How dare a man have an opinion on sexual assault” seemed to be the summary of the outrage against him. This kind of culture is detrimental to our discourse. It seeks to discredit people based on either their race and/or gender, or simply because they hold a different opinion.

So is one side more to blame than the other? Arguably, the populist right movement has been as much a reaction to perceived authoritarianism of the radical progressives, as it has been to political issues like immigration and globalisation. By playing identity politics, and treating groups as homogenous on the left, the same has occurred on parts of the right. White identitarians have been emboldened by this game of identity politics, and that is certainly the most dangerous threat to emerge from the breakdown in discourse. This emergence has simply motivated the radical progressives to play more identity politics. And so the cycle continues. Except the populists are winning. It is easier to be sympathetic to the radical progressives, since much of what they are fighting for are legitimate grievances over social justice and inequality. But, the populists on the right have grievances too. The complete desertion of white working class men by the left is a prime example of this. Concerns over globalisation is another. Yet, all the while, they are told by the progressives that used to fight for, and represent, them, that instead of being victim to legitimate grievances, they are in fact the oppressors in our societies as white men. It is no surprise they are drawn to populists like Trump and Farage. Returning to a civil political discourse is not only desirable for progress, it is crucial. The current environment will stoke more divisions, rather than fewer, and a return to a politics focussed on holding the centre ground is surely the only way to repair our political discourse. We need to listen, as much as talk.