The obvious question to ask after this week's National Conservative conference is how far can hate take the right? It was, after all, the one theme of that event.
The obvious response is that they seem to think that the answer is ‘back to power' when the loss of that power appears imminent. When all else, including their attempts at government, gerrymandering and threats, have failed I suspect their thinking is ‘why nobody try hate?'
They certainly did so this week. It seems that they hate just about everyone.
They certainly hate many in their own party.
They also hate women. Those who have too many children, especially of the wrong colour, are to be despised. Those who do not have children are also on the hate list.
Likewise, women who work are hated. But so too are those who do not.
Migrants are hated, unless they now think they have assimilated and are on the far-right.
The anti-Semitic tropes were out in force.
So too was anti-woke rhetoric. These people hate equality, which means that they do like discrimination in every form in which it comes.
And they love their country so much that they hate those who love theirs, most especially if that country might be Wales, Scotland or Ireland.
They also hate government, which is odd given that they want to perpetuate their own rule after thirteen years in office.
And they mostly especially hate those who point out all the contradictions in their positions. That includes most in the media, from Sky, to the BBC, to the Guardian. All of these are, apparently, agents of left-wrong oppression.
Voters are not spared either, most especially if they are young, European, or likely to vote for anyone but the Tories. Although, as Jacob Rees Mogg admitted, their hatred does not seem to make them much good at gerrymandering, which they most definitely tried in the form of voter ID.
And shall we not mention the great evil in the form of the EU?
I am left wondering if these people actually like anyone, although they are so firmly against all those who divorce perhaps they really are devoted spouses, even whilst loathing everyone else.
Three obvious questions follow.
They first is whether this can be considered a political ideology? I think the obvious answer to that is that this is not an ideology. Hate might be the basis for fascism, but it is hard to describe that as an ideology, which is why so many find it difficult to define. It is, instead, a route to power. We know that it can work for that purpose, but that still does not suggest that there is anything more than the force of hate, as opposed to creed, behind it.
Second, is this sustainable? The answer is no. Hate of this sort is very hard to sustain because being angry all the time is quite hard work when there is no real positive goal in mind that can provide a focus for continuing that emotion. Power alone is no such motive. And anyway, once hate begets power it turns in on itself in forms of self-destructive rage that guarantees its eventual downfall.
Third, is this a danger in that case? The obvious answer is that yes, it is. That's firstly because it is clear that hate has driven people to power in Europe in the last century. Second, that is because we know how deeply offensive to all aspects of humanity as well as individual people and peoples the resulting governments were. And third, it is because our first past the post electoral system might just facilitate the progress of those whose only offering is hate to power.
So what can we do about it?
First, we need to emphasise the power of inclusivity, cooperation, respect and diversity in all our politics. That means jettisoning old ideas of tribalism from wherever they come.
Second, it means that we have to take practical steps to prevent hate getting into power. At present that means that we most definitely have to support proportional representation.
Third, when there is real difference we need to respect it. When the capacity for compromise has ended (and most of life is built on that capacity) then it is time to say that there is disagreement, and to respect that right to differ and to uphold those who do, because that is key to democracy. In other words, disagreement must not be hateful.
As example of the last, I can accept the right of the Tories to promote ideas I disagree with. But I do not think that they have the right to treat those who disagree with them as ‘others' who must be treated with contempt as a result.
We do not have a politics built on these last three ideas at present. Labour and most unionist parties badly fail the first test. Labour is also badly failing the second. And to be candid, Labour's obsessive expulsion of the democratic left in in its party leaves it badly failing the third, whilst recent comments by the LibDem leader in Scotland suggesting that Scotland has no right to exist also leave it on shaky ground there.
So, I am worried. Hate is toxic and is consuming the Tories. But the political capacity to oppose hate seems to be limited. That means that we are in a dangerous position where hate might win. We all need to be worried.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Excellent post.
My view is that the fuel of hate is inequality – it’s like a dry moor waiting for a match and its accelerant is fascism that exploits differences in anything between people – race, religion and winds people up etc. The heat of course is hate itself.
As long as people are unhappy about something, hate will be viable. I will say again that too often our politics (left or right) sets people against each other. It is a form of control that only benefits those at the top.
I think that this is something modern progressives should not sleep walk into. Our language has to be different – and it should always refer upwards to where the problems lies – as it often is.
Agreed
Decent people like to live and let live. These horrible people want to hate and make hate.
From my experience, this isn’t new, the 70s were bad as were the 80s (Section 28), though the intensity is stark and deeply troubling. For me, the question is how do we get from the centralised system we have which enables this to have the impact it does (a small number of voices massively magnified) to a system where no one person’s voice is magnified in this way. PR is a very small start, but the question, as with any idea, is always “how?” In order to get from FPTP to PR, the very people elected by FPTP have to acquiesce to it, which is a catch -22. As Audre Lorde said “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” Powerful people will simply never voluntarily give up their power. Only systemic change – a radically different form to the way in which we collectively make decisions – will offer any chance of something better (again, how to get there). Hoping for better leaders, with “vision”, or that somehow it’s possible to make elected governments work on behalf of all (despite all evidence to the contrary) is a recipe for disappointment at best. Your recent posts seem to point in a very worrying direction -sharply increasing financial crisis for millions, same for hate rhetoric, unelected bureaucrats with the power to financially destroy so many (BoE), no political party willing to address the concerns of millions, accelerating global ecocide – the only peaceful mechanisms for meaningful change, voting, signing petitions, writing letters, etc. are going unheeded. As you said a few days ago, Labour win, neoliberalism and austerity wins, the horror continues and worsens. This is a powder keg.
Repressive parenting and schooling by authoritarian or “paternalistic” (both male and female) adults is responsible for a great deal of resentment which leads on to hate. Public boarding schools I’m sure don’t help. Punishment may be more subtle these days than cold showers and caning but mental punishment doesn’t have to be physical.
When you look at both the Conservative and Labour parties authoritarianism/paternalism is deeply embedded, “the we know what’s good for you” syndrome instead of involving the recipients in discussion and decision about how goods and services should be delivered. Remember all the those 60’s and 70’s high rise council housing monstrosities created by Labour councils?
Look at the Starmer led Labour Party today still that same old authoritarian streak there whilst pretending to be a broad church of ideas derived from consultation. That’s why achieving PR is important to help ditch authoritarianism/paternalism prevalent in UK society for far too long and historically a legacy beginning with the Roman invasion!
I saw Bernstein and Woodward being interviewed by Amol Rajan yesterday and Carl Bernstein said that he thought that in the last 50 years Rupert Murdoch had been the most important person in shaping Western democracies.
His justification being that Murdoch had been the leading player in destroying the concept of truth.
If you listen to editors who have worked for Murdoch they say his major contribution has been his ability to mobilise hatred for personal gain. They have emphasised Murdoch’s instructions to focus on racism and misogyny but as we know, it doesn’t end there.
Of course corrupt newspaper owners working hand in glove with corrupt politicians and corrupt business owners for personal gain has been has been with us since at least the 19th Century but Murdoch’s contribution has been to perfect the system and to take it to a higher Enlightenment destroying level.
I think he may be right
One week. Two conferences given ridiculously high profile media attention. Was not the whole circus simply part of a greater exercise to pull the centre ground further to the right – and with that shift the battle ground on the next election will be fought? At another level there will be those engaged in a long term project to (re)create a main stream party on the right in the UK, ideally built on the the Conservative Party. All change. No change.
The first conference was that of Conservative Democratic Organisation. Conference in Bournemouth. Pro-Johnson faction, backed by party donor and ex-party Treasure , Lord Peter Cruddas . Vision: ‘Re-enfranchise Conservative Party members to be the masters of their democratic destiny ‘.
The second National. Conservatism Conference, in London is more international that grass roots. Not just politicians, ‘public figures, scholars and students ‘ i.e. seeking deep influence. There is a whole ecosystem of books and essays, online seminars etc. to support their world view. National. conservatism being a projects of the US based Edmund Burke Foundation.
It is funded by American evangelical Christian nationalist right. It really makes no sense in British politics because religious identities are kept out of party politics. Constitutionally it just isn’t possible to have religion in our politics since the king is head of the English church and has vowed not to interfere with the Scottish church. No law that breaks either convention is legally enforceable.
Hate will only win if we let it. And more attractive visions are available, if we want them.
I missed the event, but I’ve been catching up on the podcast of this LSE lecture on how the ideas of Rawls – equal liberty, and reduction of inequality – can be turned into policies. https://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/2023/05/202305151830/society
From what I’ve heard so far, it sounds like David Chandler has some interesting ideas in his book “What Would a Fair Society Look Like?” How realistic they may be is another matter, but at least they set out the sort of thing that might be possible if we demand it.
From UBI and everyone getting a national inheritance at age 18 or 21, to voter vouchers to support political parties using public funds and more citizens assemblies and PR, and abolition of private schools and reformed funding of university education, and investment in clean energy and carbon tax,
* https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/apr/14/free-and-equal-by-daniel-chandler-review-the-road-to-fairness
* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/14/labour-policies-philosophy-john-rawls-neoliberalism
Utopian perhaps, but food for thought at least.
Sounds very interesting
Sorry Daniel Chandler (not David).
I should have also added workers councils, and employee seats on company boards, sectoral collective bargaining. increased vocational training, and a bunch of other things.
I sounds like quite the wishlist, but is starts from a firm base of policy steps to realise the things that Rawls wrote about.
Agreed
I saw some snippets of speeches from that conference and found them deeply disturbing.
I’m curently reading House of Glass by Hadley Freeman which is an account of her family’s migration from Poland to Paris and chanced upon this paragraph this morning. It’s an extract from her great uncle’s memoir writing about antisemitism in France in the late thirties. “In the horror of the pogroms, I had seen the damned beast beast take form, seen it’s hideous face. It grew and grew, ever more monstrous. And now it appeared everywhere, here in France, among so called patriots, but in reality degenerate reactionaries, all wearing the same grinning mask.”
The last sentence could have been a description of the speakers at the National Conservative conference…….substitute anti “woke” for antisemitism….chilling.