On envy, hypocrisy, and double standards.
By an amusing coincidence, in the same week that the papers have been running stories about the possibility that the Health Secretary will be paid a very large sum of money through the sale of a business he founded many years ago, I read a large number of blog posts from left wingers complaining about people on the right criticising both rich and poor socialists based not the quality of their arguments but on how much money they have themselves.
The complaint made by various left-wing hacks, bloggers and internet users are epitomised by an article, Why do so many critics of those of us on the left assume we are consumed by class envy? which was posted on "Independent Voices" by Owen Jones on Thursday. The article is true as far as it goes but has a huge gaping whole at it's centre. He complains tha
"anyone who thinks there’s a tad too much wealth and power in too few hands cannot win. Too poor, and you’re envious; too rich, and you’re a hypocrite; too young, and you’re naive; too old, and you’re a dinosaur."
He called this a "relentless attempt to use people’s personal characteristics, rather than their arguments, to discredit them" and gives the impression - which is my one serious quarrel with what he writes - that this is a tactic primarily used by right wingers against socialists.
And that is nonsense because ad hominem arguments are used far too often by all sections of the political spectrum against anyone they disagree with, especially by people who think they might lose the debate if they focus on the real arguments.
Such arguments are used by the left against the right, the right against the left, and the centre against both.
As the insults which were flying at Jeremy Hunt this week demonstrate, the left use a very similar type of "Morton's Fork" against the right.
Any Conservative who is weathy will invariably be presented by the brain-dead section of the left, and by too many of those who ought to know better, as a bloated plutocrat who at best cannot understand ordinary people and at worst actively despises them.
You will struggle to find any article published in the Daily Mirror about David Cameron which does not contain a sneering reference to his background or wealth designed to appeal to such sentiments.
But any Conservative from a poor background will sooner or later be described as a "class traitor" by socialists. Or described in similar if less blatantly sectarian words which mean the same thing.
I am not making this up.
I was shocked the first time I heard it. A Labour councillor who shortly afterwards became a Labour MP was talking to some of his activists about one of the kindest and most decent people I ever met, a working class pensioner who lived in a council house and had become a Conservative councillor to help her neighbours. I don't think he had noticed that I was standing behind him, and I don't think he was joking. The exact words he used about her were "That woman's a class traitor."
Both the "bloated plutocrat" and "class traitor" charges are usually expressed in rather less extreme form such as "he's forgotten his roots," but I've lost count of the number of times I have heard such sentiments expressed against someone to the right of the speaker (usually described as "tories" or "closet tories," both terms which are often applied by the left to New Labour / Blairites as well as actual tories.)
To attack people based on who they are rather than how strong their arguments are is not usually a constructive contribution to debate whoever does it.
The complaint made by various left-wing hacks, bloggers and internet users are epitomised by an article, Why do so many critics of those of us on the left assume we are consumed by class envy? which was posted on "Independent Voices" by Owen Jones on Thursday. The article is true as far as it goes but has a huge gaping whole at it's centre. He complains tha
"anyone who thinks there’s a tad too much wealth and power in too few hands cannot win. Too poor, and you’re envious; too rich, and you’re a hypocrite; too young, and you’re naive; too old, and you’re a dinosaur."
He called this a "relentless attempt to use people’s personal characteristics, rather than their arguments, to discredit them" and gives the impression - which is my one serious quarrel with what he writes - that this is a tactic primarily used by right wingers against socialists.
And that is nonsense because ad hominem arguments are used far too often by all sections of the political spectrum against anyone they disagree with, especially by people who think they might lose the debate if they focus on the real arguments.
Such arguments are used by the left against the right, the right against the left, and the centre against both.
As the insults which were flying at Jeremy Hunt this week demonstrate, the left use a very similar type of "Morton's Fork" against the right.
Any Conservative who is weathy will invariably be presented by the brain-dead section of the left, and by too many of those who ought to know better, as a bloated plutocrat who at best cannot understand ordinary people and at worst actively despises them.
You will struggle to find any article published in the Daily Mirror about David Cameron which does not contain a sneering reference to his background or wealth designed to appeal to such sentiments.
But any Conservative from a poor background will sooner or later be described as a "class traitor" by socialists. Or described in similar if less blatantly sectarian words which mean the same thing.
I am not making this up.
I was shocked the first time I heard it. A Labour councillor who shortly afterwards became a Labour MP was talking to some of his activists about one of the kindest and most decent people I ever met, a working class pensioner who lived in a council house and had become a Conservative councillor to help her neighbours. I don't think he had noticed that I was standing behind him, and I don't think he was joking. The exact words he used about her were "That woman's a class traitor."
Both the "bloated plutocrat" and "class traitor" charges are usually expressed in rather less extreme form such as "he's forgotten his roots," but I've lost count of the number of times I have heard such sentiments expressed against someone to the right of the speaker (usually described as "tories" or "closet tories," both terms which are often applied by the left to New Labour / Blairites as well as actual tories.)
To attack people based on who they are rather than how strong their arguments are is not usually a constructive contribution to debate whoever does it.
Comments