Much worse than the fact of a banana milkshake being chucked over Nigel Farage is the inevitable discourse it has occasioned. This has mostly involved progressives finding it very funny and others trying desperately, and unsuccessfully, to reason with them. This is as good a time as any to reiterate a point I hope to drive home to all those who belong to a rival political tradition to progressivism, be they right-wingers, liberals, social democrats or Marxists. That point is this: you can’t reason with a progressive. Not because they are irrational, although some are, but because progressivism operates outwith the philosophical and ethical confines of these other ideologies.
It will do no good to appeal to questions of public safety (‘What if it had been acid?’), partisanship (‘What if someone threw a milkshake over Diane Abbott?’), hypocrisy (‘Aren’t you lot the ones who say speech is violence?’), or decorum (‘Shouldn’t politics be more dignified than this?’). It wasn’t acid and, besides, progressives consider Farage a fascist and therefore undeserving of feeling safe. If someone threw a milkshake over Diane Abbott that would be racist and/or misogynistic, and if it was Chris Bryant it would be homophobic, and if it was Zarah Sultana it would be Islamophobic, and if the left-leaning target had no protected characteristic it would be a reflection of how far-right misinformation had radicalised the shake-chucker.
The charge of hypocrisy isn’t going to fly, unlike the milkshake, because no progressive has ever said speech is violence or because all progressives agree speech is violence but only speech against marginalised communities. As for decorum, that’s a cringe boomer objection, unless the stunt in question embarrassed progressives, in which case we would hear from the FT, Newsnight and several dozen centrist dad podcasts that these were exactly the sort of juvenile antics that put voters off politics.
All political movements indulge in situational ethics to some extent but for progressives there is no other ethic. Conduct is judged not on consequences, utility or obligations but on the character of the person carrying out the conduct and the person it is carried out against. This is the Golden Rule of progressivism: do unto others as they may not do unto you for they are gammons.
Thus a course of action might be wholly identical to another except for the personalities involved and the progressive will come to fundamentally different conclusions about its moral worthiness. What matters is whether those involved are good or bad people. Good people are people with high-status opinions and attitudes, which is to say progressives. Bad people are those with low-status opinions and attitudes, which is to say non-progressives. Thus is politics divided into in-groups and out-groups. Progressivism is bullying for nerds.
It is pointless trying to convince a progressive that it is wrong or unwise or counterproductive to toss a milkshake over Nigel Farage because doing so will only become wrong, unwise or counterproductive as and when the immediate interests of progressivism require it. This analysis will be dismaying to those still convinced that politics is about reasoned debate and persuasion, a vigorous competition of ideas in the pursuit of the common good. It’s a noble ideal in the best traditions of liberalism and pluralism but just as we are drifting into a post-liberal order we are being borne towards a post-pluralist one too.
Politics is no longer a contest over policies, concepts or even legitimacy. It is about identifying an enemy, vilifying him and imposing your will on those who think like him. It is about setting the in-group on the out-group.
Comments