“How dare these ignorant, irresponsible people trash the things I value.” Liberals write like this now, yet still don’t notice or reflect on fact that their opponents argued exactly like this, for years, prior to Brexit.
Those who love free movement see all the errors and prejudices of their opponents, yet none of their own.
The left had an opportunity to stage expansion of free movement in 2004, as every other big EU country did. They didn't take it.
The left had an opportunity to stage expansion of free movement in 2004, as every other big EU country did. They didn't take it.
Lab and the broader left had a decade to explain and defend expanded free movement, and educate people on the restrictions that could be applied within these rules. They did next to nothing on this.
Ian complains (rightly) that EU residents here didn't get a say in 2016. Well, Lab and the broader left had six years to advocate for citizenship reform so those EU residents would have full voting rights. They did nothing.
Lab and the broader left could have seen the warning signs when UKIP emerged, and pushed early for reforms to EU immigration policy. They refused to do so, and many both celebrated UKIP's rise (which they thought split the right) and attacked anyone unhappy with imm as bigoted.
Then there is the tone. Ian's contempt for the other sides 'concerns' is obvious - scare quotes are a dead give away. When has telegraphing contempt for other side's beliefs ever been a winning persuasion strategy? Yet that's been the starting point, for too many, for too long.
The central premise of much radical right mobilisation (incl UKIP and Leave.eu) is "the other side, who have always been in charge, hate you and hate what you value". Its a powerful arg with people who feel they have low status.
When people like Ian argue like this, they set up the playing field the radical right want. They demonstrate the contempt the radical right argue exists. Rational persuasion & compromise isn't going to work when you've called the other side in the debate bigots & morons.
Liberal left types (of which I am one) pride themselves on rationality. If you suffer a big, unexpected defeat, the rational thing to do is ask "What went wrong? What did we miss? What could we have done differently?".
But instead we get "My opponents are wrong. They are stupid. They are bad people. They are ruining things." That is not a rational response to defeat. Nor a democratic response to defeat. It is a response premised on assumption that one's opponents are not legitimate/credible.
Now Ian would likely respond that he's engaging in polemic - making his own side's case in the most emotive terms possible. And that's perfectly legit. But I'd have one question: how seriously would he take polemic of this style from the other side? How persuasive wld he find it?
