|We must recognise the full human equality of all our people – before God, before the law, and in the councils of government. We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous, although it is; not because of the laws of God command it; although they do; not because people in other land wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do.||Make gentle the life of this world|
Due my own views the main outcome is much more than disappointing and a shock if not a surprise.. In that you can expect a thing but still find yourself in sense of shock when it does precisely that.
The other outcome is less disappointing but potentially more telling. Leave have won, so the attention has turned to the profound, wide spread and deliberate lies and opportunistic tub thumping that they used to achieve this end… the end regardless of the road that got them there.
The idea then comes around that:
a) These people are to blame for the outbursts of the deeply unpleasant, offensive and ignorant views..
b) The legitimacy of the result is questioned.. called into question due to the size and number of lies that built the road that took us here.
The second of these is massively disappointing because the point of all this pain was to say clearly what the will of the people was and because above all things this was always going to happen. It was not reserved to the exit campaign to exaggerate, lie and use unfounded rhetoric and certainty of truth formed upon their lies .. both did it .. so we were guaranteed to end up with a situation where whomever lost will not have felt duly beaten but rather they were doomed by these antics to feel instead cheated.
This view that everything is an opportunity in the pursuit of power and personal advantage undermined the campaign in so many ways .. The electorate no longer believes anything anyone says, wont be led or advised by those who can be given no benefit of the doubt in being honest or in representing their interests ..
THE REMAIN CHAMPION
THE EXIT CHAMPION ??
So what do you do now that you’ve manufactured a situation where no one will rest on the result.. You stand aside and leave it to other to resolve, to say things like heal the wounds, bring people together but people didnt loose, least thats no how they see it … they feel cheated .. Before the result was know and remain was believed to be the outcome it was clear some exit leaders were not going to be prepared to accept the result – now its clear the young, the people of Scotland and London, the people who want anything but to move forward with this outcome feel violated and robbed rather than beaten .. and its a problem
A problem which could continue it corrosive repercussion beyond this already seismic moment..
The people never blame themselves for their choices – so who will be blamed when the deal our representatives cant deliver everything they we’re promised with none of the costs they feel they wont need to pay …
What happens when the working conditions and employment opportunities of the already poor and oppressed dwindle and worsen ..
What happens when funding to the services they were told would be bolstered by not making contributions are actually cut to meet the demands of a shrinking economy and the political response to lower tax and protect that part of the economy .. someone always has to pay ..
What happens when Scotland decides it would rather be in a union with all of Europe rather than a lump of land to its south its long held with limited regard … and with whom it voted recently to stick with based on arguments that staying in the UK meant staying in the EU, when it very clearly now means quite the obvious ..
What happens to the lack of belief, the anger and disaffection then ? – let alone those like me who are and see themselves as European and feel horrified to be identified with with this small mentality, this damaging corrosive retrograde decision of our fellow island dwellers.
So what is this .. i was there and im not sure ..
Was it a demonstration against the result to claim a right to not uphold this outcome?
Was it a demonstration against the falsehoods that got us here? (& would have got us there had the result gone the other way)
Was it a demonstration to friends abroad that what has come to pass does not represent us all and this is not in our name?
I would like nothing more than to see this result turned around but i was not there to protest for this, for i fear that regardless of the historically damaging turning point that was this decision – it could yet be more scaring and dangerously undermining to seek to re-write a vote… People wont accept they were lied to until late, to use that now will see them feel utterly cheated and we will be at least as divided .. its quite the horrendous mess
In the meantime we have people chanting slogans like EU we love you at the demo .. how helpful is that? in most EU countries the EU is far from a popular establishment, indeed the suspicion is that similar referendums in other member states would render the same result as in the UK.
This is an organisation with a massive democratic deficit, that takes money from us all and hands vast amounts of it to wealthy land owners, subsidies vast food waste including failing year after year to address its policies that encouraged fisherman to through excess dead catches overboard .. an orgganisation that has never in all its history managed to have its accounts signed off by its auditors and yet invades the democracies of nation states … Yes we are better of in the EU, but we would all be better of, maybe not in this position and maybe not in worse positions in years to come if those pro-EU had done something real about its offensive and unnecessary short comings.
Instead we have political and media seeking to set an agenda and telling people what to think (though not a consistent message)
We have a people who when asked prefer to act out, responding in petulant rebellion, thus fueling increased mistrust by the ruling bubble, decreasing engagement while increasing populist rhetoric, decreasing trust and alignment and increasing petulant rebellion when eventually consulted and round and round …
I admit to not providing a solution but surely it cant come from further alienating the electorate, the politicians are the fewer, the more able to communicate and make a collective change than are the masses – for that reason above all others the onus is on them … but we all hold individual responsibility .. Those who opt to be ignorant and racist are not ignorant and racist because of what has happened, those reason lie elsewhere and deserve their own attention. Those who stoke are not innocent but they are the creators of a far deeper illness
|Page 96||Thucydides reported that the Peloponnesians and their allies were mighty in battle but handicapped by their policy-making body, in which he related, “each presses its own ends … which generally results in no action at all … they devote more time to the prosecution of their own purposes than to the consideration of the general welfare – each supposes that no harm will come of his own neglect, that is the business of another to do this or that; and so, as each separately entertains the same illusion, the common cause imperceptibly decays”||Make gentle the life of this world|
|Page 105||In a democratic society law in the form which free men give to justice. The glory of justice and the majesty of law are created not just by the Constitution – nor by the courts – nor by the officers of the law – nor by the lawyers – but by the men and women who constitute our society – who are the protectors of the law as they are themselves protected by the law.||Make gentle the life of this world|
|The suppression of individuality – the sense that one is listening – is even more pronounced in our politics. Television, newspapers, magazines, are a cascade of words, official statements, policies, explanations, and declarations. All flow from the height of government down to the passive citizen: who can shout up against a waterfall? More important, the language of politics is too often insincerity, which we have perhaps to easily accepted but which to the young is particularly offensive. George Orwell wrote a generation ago: ‘In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details.” In this respect, politics had not changed since Orwell wrote. And if we add to the insincerity, and the absence of dialogue, the absurdity of a politics in which elected officials find sport in joking about children bitten by rats, we can understand why so many of our young people have turned form engagement to disengagement, from politics to passivity, from hope to nihilism, from SDS to LSD.|
|Americans seem to have two natures, one extraordinarily positive and forthright, the other dark and cynical. Historically, in challenging times, it has been easiest for politicians to appeal to the baser side. Thus we’ve had the success of Father Coughlin and Huey Long during the depression, and later, of George Wallace. (It has always struck me as odd that virtually all of the Democrats who supported George Wallace had previously been RFK Deomocrats. The same Americans who voted for Wallace were able to share RFK’s vision of this country – a much different view.) I have never come across a public pronouncement by RFK in which he made an appeal to the darker side.|
|Father Charles Coughlin occupied both a strange and a familiar place in American politics in the 1930s. Politically radical, a passionate democrat, he nevertheless was a bigot who freely vented angry, irrational charges and assertions. A Catholic priest, he broadcast weekly radio sermons that by 1930 drew as many as forty-five million listeners. Strongly egalitarian, deeply suspicious of elites, a champion of what he saw as the ordinary person’s rights, Coughlin frequently and vigorously attacked capitalism, communism, socialism, and dictatorship By the mid-1930s, his talks took on a nasty edge as he combined harsh attacks on Roosevelt as the tool of international Jewish bankers with praise for the fascist leaders Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler. The “Radio Priest’s” relentless anti-elitism pushed Roosevelt to sharpen his own critiques of elites, and in that sense Coughlin had a powerful impact on American politics beyond his immediate radio audience. This 1937 sermon, “Twenty Years Ago,” reflected much of what made Coughlin popular.
|Huey Long first came to national attention as governor of Louisiana in 1928 and U.S. Senator in 1930. He ruled Louisiana as a virtual dictator, but he also initiated massive public works programs, improved public education and public health, and even established some restrictions on corporate power in the state. While Long was an early supporter of Franklin Roosevelt, by the fall of 1933 the Long-Roosevelt alliance had ruptured, in part over Long’s growing interest in running for president. In 1934 Long organized his own, alternative political organization, the Share-Our-Wealth Society, through which he advocated a populist program for redistributing wealth through sharply graduated income and inheritance taxes. As his national recognition (and ambitions) grew, he spoke with increasing frequency to national radio audiences. No politician in this era—except Roosevelt himself and Long’s sometime ally, Father Charles Coughlin—used radio as frequently and effectively. In this April 1935 radio address, Long sharply criticized FDR and the New Deal and then sketched out his alternative program.
|“It is simple to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and private gain. It is more comfortable to sit content in the easy approval of friends and of neighbours than to risk the friction and the controversy that comes with public affairs. It is easier to fall in step with the slogans of others than to march to the beat of the internal drummer – to make and stand on judgements of your own. And it is far easier to accept and to stand on the past, than to fight for the answers of the future.” Daniel Webster, American lawyer, orator, and statesman (January 18, 1782 – October 24, 1852)|
|[During one of RFK’s speeches, a student in the crowd asked, “where are you going to get all the money for these federally subsidised programmes you’re talking about?] From you. Let me say something about the tenor of that question and some of the other questions. There are people in this country who suffer. I look around this room and i don’t see many black faces who are going to be doctors. You can talk about where the money will come form ….Part of civilised society is to let people go to medical school who come from the ghettos. You don’t see many people coming out of the ghettos or off the indian reservations to medical school. You are the privileged ones here. It’s easy to sit back and say it’s the fault of the federal government, but it’s our responsibility, too. It’s our society, not just our government, that spends twice as much on pets as on poverty program. It’s the poor who carry the major burden of the struggle in Vietnam. You sit here as white medical students while black people carry the burden of fighting in Vietnam.|
Make gentle the life of this world
From The World As I See It
|“My political ideal is that of democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolised.” “I am quite aware that it is necessary for success of any complex undertaking that one man should do the thinking and directing and in general bear the responsibility. But the led must not be compelled; they must be able to choose their leader. Autocratic system of coercion, in my opinion, soon degenerates. For force always attracts men of low morality, and I believe it to be an invariable rule that tyrants of genius are succeeded by scoundrels.”|
|“What I value in our political system is the more extensive provision that it makes for the individual in case of illness or need”
“The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the state but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thoughts and dull in feeling.”
|“May I begin with an article of political faith? it runs as follows: The State is made for man, not the man for the State. And is this respect science resembles the State. There are old sayings, coined by men for whom human personality was the highest human good. I should shrink from repeating them, were it not that they are forever threatening to fall into oblivion, particularly in these days of organisation and mechanisation. I regard it as the chief duty of the State to protect the individual and give him the opportunity to develop into a creative personality.|
|That is to say, the State should be our servant and nor we is slaves. The state transgresses this commandment when it compels us by force to engage in military and war service, the more so since the object and the effect if this slavish service is to kill people belonging to other countries or interfere with their freedom of development.|
|We are only to make such sacrifices to the State as will promote the free development of individual human beings.|
|“Political leaders or governments owe their position partly to force and partly to popular election. They cannot be regarded as representative of the best elements, morally and intellectually, in their respective nations.
The intellectual elite have no direct influence on the history of nations in these days; their lack of cohesion prevents them from taking a direct part in the solution of contemporary problems.”