Even before the challenging #COVID19 pandemic, a recent Hansard Society audit of political engagement concluded that “opinions of the systems of governing are at their lowest point in the 15-year Audit series – worse now than in the aftermath of the MPs’ expenses scandal”.
In the #GE2017, 56% of surveyed parliamentary candidates expressed concern about abuse & intimidation. Misuse of anonymous social media accounts has intensified these problems & created a toxic environment for MPs that regularly exposes them to online rape & murder threats.
50 in-depth interviews with politicians in national legislatures, reveled almost 40% of interviewees were able to cite more than one instance of serious abuse or threats of physical violence.
Harassment, abuse & intimidation of elected & aspiring politicians is highly gendered.
In the UK, analysis suggests that women politicians, & black and minority ethnic women in particular, experience a disproportionate share of sexualised abuse online.
They also receive more aggressive & sexualised threats offline.
We need to call for conscious restraint & compassion in political discourse. When politicians resort to lies & dog-whistle populism, verbal abuse & infighting, it projects politics as an arena for incivility, perpetuating a binary worldview, crowding out empathy & compromise.
We also need to overhaul media coverage of politics. Increasingly intent on personalising the political & politicising the personal, a 24-hour news media too often drip feeds blunt stereotypes about politicians’ personalities & motives.
In contrast to much news coverage of politicians, research with hundreds of elected MPs & councillors has shown that the majority enter politics with an extraordinary dedication to improving the lives of others that is rarely perceived or appreciated by those they govern.
Equally important, nations around the world must commit to fully funded and well-resourced programmes of democratic education. Politics is messy & full of contingencies, & a deficit in democratic education leads to inflated public expectations about what is possible or desirable.
There is no place for political violence, harassment or intimidation in a functioning democracy. At the very least, politicians are ordinary humans attempting to undertake an extraordinary job on behalf of everybody else.
Nobody who has the courage to “step into the arena”, to paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, deserves to fear for their life in the pursuit of public service.
To say that we need to rediscover civility & respect in our politics is once again an understatement of a devastating truth.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 1971, along with Sandy Lieberson, David Puttnam had the audacity to bid for the rights to the book ‘Inside the Third Reich’ by Albert Speer.
Rank outsiders in pursuit of the rights, the publisher agreed that we might at least travel to Heidelberg to make their case in person.
"Albert Speer, Hitler’s former Architect & Armaments Minister had walked out of Spandau prison five years earlier, having served twenty years for war crimes – he patiently listened for several hours as we took him through our reasons for wanting to make the film".
"To our amazement, he agreed that if a movie was to be made, it should be produced by & for a younger generation. That was the start of an adventure which took us and our screenwriter Andrew Birkin on numerous occasions back & forth to Heidelberg."
It's been argued that neoliberalism originated as much in opposition to fascism as to socialism – a point that Foucault addresses in detail in his analysis of ordoliberalism in his lectures on biopolitics...
'Opposition to fascism did not lead to a uniform view of the role of the state, liberty or sovereignty, & from its inception in the 1920s, neoliberalism has a complex & uneasy relationship with other movements on the political right, in particular conservatism & libertarianism.'
At the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938 – the starting point of European neoliberalism for Foucault – differences were aired that became more significant over time. The majority of those present sided with Hayek in calling for the reinvention of liberalism.
Imho, we've arrived at a curious historical juncture, wherein the strategy adopted by either 'side' of *any* issue now follows a familiar format, regardless of what the issue is (I'm NOT claiming "both sides" of a debate have equally valid arguments):
1) delegitimise opposing organisations/beliefs/groups by claiming they're funded by anti-democratic individuals/organisations with a sinister ulterior/ideological motive
2) flood social/print/online media with divisive rhetoric demonising & negatively stereotyping the other side
3) claim supporters of a particular view have been brainwashed/radicalised by sinister anti-democratic forces
4) claim THE TRUTH is being deliberately suppressed
5) claim sections of the media are pushing a grotesquely distorted view
Ages ago I replied to a tweet with some duff info about the Mont Pelerin Society, which I quickly deleted.
This person from the weirdo CATO institute dug up a screenshot of the deleted tweet & tweeted it out - I assume because I'm very critical of the Koch-funded CATO Institute.
This is the deleted tweet he's obsessed with - which was, as I say, duff information - & he's now smearing me by making spurious claims about the tweet.
It was seen by just TWO people before it was deleted (not sure what the foreign language is at the bottom).
This is the thread that seems to have so rattled him (or perhaps his bosses at the CATO Institute).