Another Angry Voice on ‘How To Criticise the Tory Party’

The angry Yorkshireman yesterday posted a long article arguing against the use of scatology and vicious revenge fantasies to express outrage at the Tory party. The article is written in response to some of the obscene and violent comments that greeted some of his posts about the Conservatives on the Angry One’s Facebook page. His opposition to that style of argument and criticism is based not only on personal distaste for obscenity and violence, even if merely that of a wish-fulfilment fantasy. It is also based on the observation that the Conservatives will and do use such language against the Left to show how vicious and evil their opponents really are. ‘Ohhh, look at how vile all this is. You really don’t want to be associated with such vile, incoherent sadists do you?’

The Angry One write: ‘There is something obscene and insipid about the Conservative party. It is a trait that many people find difficult to put into words without resorting swearing or violent language. It is a sad state of affairs that in a country with a proud literary tradition, so many people these days seem unable to express a political opinion without resorting to simple-minded sub-literate abuse. It is not eloquent, and it serves no purpose at all to use female anatomy words to disparage the Tories, nor to idly fantasise about the horrible fate you wish to befall them. However, a large proportion of the public these days seem to have little else to offer, judging from the regularity of such comments on the Another Angry Voice Facebook page.

As regular readers know, I have a virtually unbreakable no-censorship policy, so I feel compelled to allow these kinds of comments to remain, after all, I can’t expect everyone to be as eloquent at expressing their anger as I attempt to achieve in my own political commentaries. However the regularity with which they appear really does annoy me.

It’s not so much the sweary comments that wind me up, it’s the ones that resort to violent language: the ones that fantasise about karma somehow repaying the most egregious Tories with some kind of horrific disease or torturous death. Implicitly violent language is either foolhardy or gratuitous. It is common knowledge that people have been locked up for the idiotic things they’ve written on the Internet. Under these circumstances it is extremely foolhardy to make casual threats of violence. If the violence is fantasised about rather than implicitly threatened, then it is gratuitous and counter-productive. Fantasising about the physical torture you would like for another human being to endure, achieves nothing but to demonstrate the warped nature of your own mind and create the impression amongst more moderate people that “lefties are sickos”.’

He’s right, unfortunately. According to this week’s Private Eye, Dominic Lawson pretty much tried this approach in his Daily Mail column on Monday. ‘” The tribal left is driven by hate, says the Mail’s “sparklingly incisive new voice”, Monday columnist Dominic Lawson. Lawson continued, ” It is one of the factors tending to distinguish the left in politics from the right, that the former frequently regard the latter as actually wicked, if not evil; whereas most Tories tend to regard the left as just misguided”.’ (Private Eye, 4th-17th October 2013, p.6). The Eye then goes on to show that he expressed the same comments back in the pages of the Sunday Times in November last year.

Now Lawson’s comments are clearly rich coming from the Daily Mail, whose invective against the Left clearly shows that they believe that anyone to the Left of Thatcher is not only wicked, but utterly depraved, and a menace to society and should be locked up at once. It’s also another example of the Right in this country taking their cue from Republican journalism across the Pond. The Right-wing blogs in America and Canada frequently compared the well-ordered behaviour of the Tea Party crowd with the criminality and thuggishness of some of the Occupy protesters. The point was that the Tea Party people were largely decent, civil types, who simply objected to increased taxation and government interference, while the Occupy people were vile thugs, who behaved like animals and who were a genuine threat to order and the public good.

Now I also feel that part of the problem is the impoverishment of the English language regarding the right epithets to describe the venal, vicious, cruel and sadistic. Historically there were a number of words that could be used to describe such people: knaves, scoundrels, rogues – which originally meant something like ‘mugger’ or ‘armed robber’ -blackguards, brutes, beasts, poltroons. The sense of some of these have become rather weaker. We now talk about ‘lovable rogues’, when in fact when they appeared in the 16th century there was little lovable about them. Other terms now sound either archaic, like scoundrels, knave or blackguard, as well as camp, like ‘brutes’ or ‘beasts’. Which leaves only the crude, sexual insults.

There’s also a class element in there as well. The people, who have always been at the sharp end of Tory victimisation have always been the poorest, and the least educated. Without being patronising and condescending, this also means people, who may lack the education or vocabulary to express their opposition to the Tories except in crude terms. Unfortunately, this does allow the Tories to once again portray the hoi polloi as crude louts, in the same way that their predecessors in the 19th century expressed horror at the grubby ‘democracy’, who toiled in the factories. Lawson and the other journalists have the advantage in that they are well-educated people, who are skilled in expressing themselves. This means that, as far as language goes, they have an advantage of the less articulate victims of Tory policies. This does not mean that the people they sneer at don’t have dignity, or that their own prose isn’t similarly vicious and spiteful. It merely means that they can dress up this spite in a better, more elevated vocabulary.

I also believe that some of the violent language and revenge fantasies against the Tories the Angry One has encountered comes from a sense of powerlessness. It’s the reaction of people unable to oppose directly the policies inflicted on them, and who feel victimised and helpless before a system that seems – and under the Tories, it certainly is – designed to crush them. When forced into such a situation of powerlessness, people frequently resort to scatology and violent fantasies as the only expression of defiance and opposition available to them.

Again, this contrasts with the Tories at Dominic Lawson’s level. Lawson and the Right-wing columnists like him are highly paid, and frequently from a very privileged background. They therefore have the benefit of a network of powerful friends, who can open doors for them, and a personal wealth, that means that they never have to suffer the hardships faced by the lower middle and lower classes. Lawson may worry about his share options, and rising school fees. He, along with his Tory fellows at the level, will never have to worry about making ends meet while unemployed, or fighting to pay the rent or the mortgage. Actually, he might have to worry about paying the mortgage on his second or third home, but he will never be faced with destitution that many of his party’s victims face. And this allows him and the other Tories a certain complacency. It’s why Matthew Freud infamously declared that the lower classes should be more willing to take risks as they have the least to lose. As rich as they are, they really can’t understand that the lower orders, when they take risks, risk losing absolutely everything.

As for the Tories not considering their opponents evil, or hating and despising them, I really don’t believe that for a single minute. But let’s give Lawson the benefit of the doubt, and say they don’t. I’d argue that actually, the anger and hatred felt by the Left is actually the correct response. The view that one’s political opponents may be misguided is good and noble. In the case of the Tories, it seems to come from real complacency. The people responsible for their vile policies are sufficiently far up the social hierarchy that they will never personally suffer, or even necessarily encounter, the poverty, hardship and desperation their policies will generate. Indeed, the economic and political models on which Neo-Liberalism is based view people in the abstract as social and economic units, rather than as living men and women with all their fears and hopes. They may know in the abstract that economic downturns will mean poverty and despair, but this is merely an intellectual understanding, not an emotional, visceral knowledge gained through personal, lived experience. For those, who daily have to deal with the real, human consequences of Tory policies, anger, hatred and a sense of how truly evil these policies are, are justified reactions.

Now in actual fact, I agree with the Angry One in his distaste for obscenity and violence. I think he’s right in that the level of argument needs to be raised, and the Tories countered with articulate argument, rather than scatological rants and denunciations. I’m just trying to explain why this is so, and show the opposing view to Lawson’s complacent statements about the Left’s supposed hatred.

Apart from this, the Angry One’s article is well worth reading because of the economists he recommends people should read. The Angry Yorkshireman has a truly impressive, profound understand of the economic issues. I have at times wished he would recommend some sources so that others could also cite these when arguing with the Tories. There’s always the problem that unless one cites chapter and verse, one’s political opponents will simply dismiss one’s arguments with the shrug of ‘Oh, you don’t understand economics, do you?’ or ‘this is simply more left-wing lies and ignorance’. The Angry One has this time listed a book, and two economics worth reading for their deconstruction of Neo-Liberalism, once again passing on his excellent and well-aimed armoury of fact and argument to his readers. The article’s at:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Another Angry Voice on ‘How To Criticise the Tory Party’”

  1. Mike Sivier Says:

    Reblogged this on Vox Political and commented:
    Like the Angry Yorkshireman and the Beast, I also find the use of violent language and obscenity to describe a political opponent – let’s say I find it UNWORTHY. It’s beneath us, really. So I’d like to associate Vox Political with the opinions expressed here.
    … With one caveat: My experience of debate with supporters of the Tory Party and the political right suggests that they have absolutely no reason to take the moral high ground. A right-winger on Facebook, having been out-argued in a debate, seems just as likely to resort to obscenity as anyone else, in my experience, and any protestations to the contrary by softer-voiced but more media-friendly exponents of their cause are not supported by the evidence.

  2. joanna Says:

    I have to agree with you! It sickens me so much to see the C word, that I refuse to read such comments at all, which is a shame because they may have a rellevant point to put forward!
    Thank you for pointing this out, words are not always effective, in fact using bad language is counter-productive!!!

  3. jed goodright Says:

    seen on a T-shirt

    “profanity is the crutch of inarticulate mother*ckers”

  4. jed goodright Says:

    so this is censorship is it?

  5. beastrabban Says:

    Not, not at all, Jed. A minor alteration only. The whole point of this post is that the profanity ultimately harms the arguments you want to make. And I took notice of the feelings of some of the people, who read my blog, like the commenters above, who object to obscenity. So I made a minor alteration, which keeps the sense of your sentence, while making it more acceptable and in keeping with the sense of the blog post itself.

  6. jed goodright Says:

    more acceptable to who? – that is your choice not mine and it is elitism.
    you are taking the control of my comments away from me
    there are elements of the left that are a disgrace to humanity and changing what I say in my communication to you is part of that
    Disabled people will still be dying whilst there is this debate about language – but it appears that the argument is more important than preventing deaths or expressing one’s horror about it!!!!!
    What is the most violent word then? Fuck or War? This is tiresome, goodbye

  7. arthurstreeb Says:

    Reblogged this on arhurstreeb.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: