Rule and Divide

And so, it begins. Biden is issuing executive orders on racial equality, left, right and Chelsea, in the fervid hope that playing the race game will gain him his legacy. This is an already forgotten president who has learned nothing whatsoever from the last four years, or, indeed, his last 47 years in Washington. Trump was necessary and in many instincts was dead right, but the left of western politics was never going to give him a chance, sticking the knife in and twisting it over and over again, instead of listening.

One thing Trump was dead right about was that the swamp needed – and still needs – draining. Another was his clear love for his country, however clumsily he expressed it at times, and the need for all Americans to share that love and join in a common endeavour to heal the rifts. He saw, even though his intellect and oratory was unable to analyse or disseminate it, that the politics of race division would never solve the massive societal problems throughout the disunited states. And his supporters followed him because they saw a faint glimmer of swamp gas leading the way.

Trump isn’t coming back; he will find no support where it matters and although the frantic and frankly hysterical show trial of a second impeachment hearing is merely an act of impotent revenge, it will deny him future funding. So that fox has been shot, but Biden has fish to fry for which he has no skillet anywhere near big enough, nor competent chefs to oversee the process. He is taking his advice – and this is in plain view – from the very people who foment the unrest in the first place.

There was a time when the USA would not negotiate with terrorists, but now they are openly invited to the White House to discuss the supper menu. And throughout the once civilised world the subject of the big carve up is poor white men. White supremacy? Tell that to the unemployed of the rust belt and dust bowls who just want a chance. Black oppression? Tell that to the neighbourhoods terrorised by the rioting and looting and direct threats to life.

Emboldening organisations like Black Lives Matter and their many hangers on will only perpetuate the imagined oppression and with every inch of ground gained they will demand more. In the UK, the Liberal Democrat MP, Wera Hobhouse tabled an early day motion on, of all things ‘hair discrimination’. Give me strength...

Where does this end? It is pretty clear that in the race to ‘level up’, which is an impossible feat to achieve, the left will always begin by hobbling those with perceived advantages. When your passport to a better life is to identify as a victim, the disadvantage is conferred to those who have already suffered at the hands of anti-discrimination legislation. It’s fun being labelled as a Nazi just for striving for success and paying more taxes, isn’t it?

The persistent lies which obscure the inconvenient truths.

The left will never challenge this perception.

The soft bigotry of low expectations  is an overused phrase, but it haunts every move the left makes. When you demand special considerations for every group except whites you reveal yourself as nothing other than an anti-white racist. Or, as in Biden’s case (his nest being already well feathered, thank you very much) a useful idiot for that cause. So, no, his presidency will not be marked by peace and harmony and loving equality, but by the furtherance of resentment and exclusion. Just wait and see.

Soft bigotry?

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.