Former US presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson had George
W Bush say, in a speech to the Latino Business Association in Los Angeles: “Now
some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I
say it is discrimination to require anything less - the soft bigotry of low
expectations.” The phrase has since come into common usage both to plead
for a higher standard of equal treatment and to excuse a certain apathy to help
such disadvantaged groups. Like all political conveniences it is a double-edged
weapon.
For instance, the standard of public behaviour of the
rabble-rousing Labour firebrands is peppered with inflammatory phrases. From
John McDonnell’s lynching comments right through to their regular unsubstantiated
accusations that the Tories alone are responsible for hundreds of thousands of
deaths through ‘austerity’, Labour’s lexicon is that of revolution. And why not,
of course it is; Labour was founded in struggle even though now its biggest
struggle is convincing itself it still has relevance.
So maybe this is the reason why Jess Phillips’ regular ejaculation
of ‘fuck off’ to other MPs, to tweeters and to anybody who irks her passes
almost without comment. Actually, that is unfair, because over the weekend,
social media has gone to town, yet Jess remains unrebuked and unrepentant. Fair
enough then, we say, we didn’t expect otherwise. But should we let them get
away with it just because we don’t expect any better? I say no, let us hold parliamentarians
of all sides to the same standards, otherwise what’s the point?
Is Boris’s use of the word humbug really on a par with
the accusations levelled at him on a daily basis? And if you believe it is,
what is wrong with you? Did you struggle with comprehension at school, or are
you challenged by context? Because if it is the first then we have a massive
problem in basic education. Some say we should teach critical thinking in
schools (although these are almost exclusively calls from the left, with
partisan intent) but surely we should just rigorously teach the actual language.
How can people tell fact from fiction if they can read and
understand neither? How can one discern vernacular from literal intent without an
upbringing steeped in both? And without the ability to read and listen and sift
the gleaming nuggets of truth from the dry dust of rhetoric how can anybody make
a judgment on which basis to cast a vote? Is it any wonder then that so many
are now saying they may never vote again; what would be the point?
Perhaps this is the low expectation that MPs depend upon
from the electorate? If they can dissuade all but the lumpen masses of the
proletariat from seeking change and then sell an utter lack of change as a
profound new direction, maybe they can persuade the herd that what they end up
with is what they voted for. Does this remind anybody of the Brexit promise? ‘The
government will implement what you decide’? Unless, of course you decide
wrongly, in which case we will assume you are too stupid to know it when we
change what you decided.
Official government policy?
For many decades and certainly during the age of mass
communication, the expectations of the competence of successive governments has
been slipping lower and lower. But the shift from a basic mistrust of those in
high office to where we are now – an automatic assumption that they will act in
their own self-interest first – is seismic. Up until now when we held low
expectations of our government at least we expected them to live up to them. Now
even that low bar seems to be beyond their reach.
