The reaction of the
Tories to the tweet by Plaid’s leader last week about the attack in Barcelona was
a little over the top for me. But given
the propensity of Plaid politicians in recent years to demand apologies,
resignations, and sackings whenever a political opponent says something that
offends their sensitivities, they can hardly complain when other people want to
play the same game. It’s all just part
of the froth which passes for political debate.
The
underlying point of the tweet has a degree of validity when looked at
objectively; much of the ISIS ideology does indeed overlap with the ideology of
other groups such as those demanding white supremacy in America. So, as a statement of fact, it’s hard to
disagree. I wonder though what is the purpose
of drawing a comparison, and I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that it was
intended as a means of lumping together a number of disparate groups under a
single label, and claiming guilt by association. It’s disappointing that a party like Plaid,
which has suffered from similar attempts at guilt by association over many
decades (along the lines of ‘you’re a nationalist, Hitler was a nationalist,
therefore you’re a Nazi’) should be playing the same game rather than trying to
maintain a higher standard of debate. Those
who have attempted for years to smear Plaid in that fashion really have no right
complaining when the boot’s on the other foot, but two wrongs never make a
right.
The
real issue for me is about using such a simplistic approach as pinning labels
on political opponents. Oh, I know they
all do it, and I’m singling out Plaid only as the most recent transgressor
here, but what exactly does the label ‘far-right’ add to meaningful political
debate about the aims and objectives of all the groups so labelled? Labelling is invariably a substitute for
analysis rather than a part of that analysis; a short-hand way of dismissing
arguments without needing to debate them.
But it’s extremely imprecise; there are people who are socially very
conservative whilst holding what might be called left-wing economic views, and there
are people with what might be called right-wing economic views who are socially
liberal.
Winning
people over, or changing their minds on specific issues, requires a degree of
engagement with those details rather than dismissing them with a label. Labelling may feel very ‘right-on’ to the in-groups
in politics (and the Labour support
for Leanne is relevant in that context), but ordinary voters who feel that they
have, in effect, been told that they are little different to ISIS are unlikely
to be well-disposed to listen for very long to those who they feel have told
them that. It’s not a reason for
demanding apologies, resignations, or sackings, but I do seriously question
whether it’s an approach which is likely to advance the cause of those using
it. It basically just seems
counter-productive.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment