Ridiculing the right to avoid our own failings

One thing that’s been common in the wake of Nick Griffin’s infamous appearance on Question Time has been to ridicule him for his far right beliefs. Many liberals have been patting themselves on the back and celebrating a witty remix of Griffin’s appearance on the show making him out to be an absolute buffoon. Satire can be a powerful political tool where the truth can’t be told but what’s happened to Griffin and his supporters isn’t so much satire as ridicule and humiliation.

This is very dangerous. It may be considered harmless fun but the effect of it is to whip-up even more hatred on the right who perceive – correctly so – their problems are being laughed at by the liberal elite. In fact, I wonder if this ridiculing doesn’t create more racial tensions than actually giving the far right a platform as some people argue. Judging by some of the comments following the YouTube clip in question, it has certainly flared-up more hatred than any of the unedited clips from the show.

Noam Chomsky will address the annual Amnesty International lecture tonight (unfortunately I don’t think you can watch it online but a video and transcript should be released shortly afterwards) and an excerpt from his forthcoming speech is very telling:

In the US, inequality has soared to unprecedented heights. There is now a mass of people with real grievances, who want answers but are not receiving them. The far-right is providing answers that are completely crazy: that rich liberals are giving their hard-earned money away to illegal immigrants and the shiftless poor.

A common reaction in elite educated circles and much of the left is to ridicule the right-wing protesters, but that is a serious error.  The correct reaction is to examine our own failures.  The grievances are quite real and should be taken seriously.

It’s growing inequality in the UK that has created the racial tensions that have given rise to the BNP. And ridiculing them is a convenient way for those on the left to avoid “examining their own failings” as Chomsky says. The failings are of course, allowing things to get to this stage. It’s very easy to blame Blair, Brown, big business and the mainstream media for creating this state of affairs but too many on the liberal-left have gone along with their agendas while turning their back on the social and economic problems that are right in front of their eyes.

The answer, is not ridicule, but for the public to reject these agendas, and organize locally to deal with these problems. Chomsky adds:

In South America, there are at last serious steps to confront poverty and other severe human rights abuses. The driving force is mass popular movements. They are beginning to address what Amnesty calls ‘the unheard truth’: that ‘poverty is the world’s worst human rights crisis, this generation’s greatest struggle.

If as Chomsky adds, that the poverty stricken in South American have overcome death squads and worse to create a better society, the same is surely true in a rich society like the UK.


6 thoughts on “Ridiculing the right to avoid our own failings

  1. Well there’s definitely plenty to attack on the centre left. Reading through his blog, I don’t see anything particularly “nasty” in his posts:


    If the people that leave comments get nasty about New Labour et all that that’s not really his fault.

  2. I guess I generally am not a big fan of blogs! but I do read yours and a few others but more often than not I find them a bit annoying..but maybe that is what I like about them. Some confrontation hahaha! Guido Fawkes blog has some disgusting comments about people..in my opnion not really good debate just calling names etc. Lot of hot air.

  3. Well I appreciate you reading and contributing particularly because you frequently help pull-me-up on certain points. But what do you find annoying about most of the blogs you read? Is it because you think in the main, they’re just badly misinformed moans and rants, or is it because they occasionally challenge fundamental heartfelt views and assumptions you have about certain issues and it provokes some kind of “angry” response?

    By the way, I only took a quick look at Guido Fawkes (which I know is a hugely popular political blog in the UK) and it seems like it’s mainly concerned with tattle about party politics. I don’t think this is particularly productive because it just contributes to the charade that we have a functioning party political democracy in parliament. If the major political parties had distinctly opposing views, this would be useful as a forum of debate but since they are both mainly undermined by corporate power, I don’t see much point in it. It’s like the Tony Benn quote when he retired from the House of Commons “to concentrate on politics”.

  4. I think the former – misinformed rants or opinions based on hand picked evidence without looking at the whole picture. Blogs pick and choose evidence when and where it suits. It also annoys me that so few bloggers get out there and do stuff at the grassroots..myself included but I am trying. But probably I have some in-built thing about the challenge of my beliefs but then again..I usually do not know enough about the argument, I am the first to admit that. Also, it is not so much the subject matter it is the way it is presented as an obsolute.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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