Another day another hit piece on the Labour Party & it's elected leader, this time regular contributor to the white noise of hatred surrounding Jeremy Corbyn, & proud ex-member of the Labour Party Nick Cohen has unsheathed his pen (19/03), delivering a sensationalist prelude to Deputy leader Tom Watson's anti-Corbyn appearance on Sky News (20/03). This time, our bastion of centrist compromise, frequently writing to complain about 'the left' for the unapologetically right wing Spectator magazine, has graced the pages of the Guardian, to drive a stake into the heart of any remaining good will towards Jeremy Corbyn.
His issue is unequivocal, "get rid of Corbyn, the bearded old lefty has no chance! he lost us the EURef! He's a Russian Agent working for Iran to shake the hand's of Muslim terrorists! Corbyn is to blame for the rise of Trump & Pepe le Frog". Yes to quote Mr Cohen, "far from building a new consensus for previously unthinkable leftist
ideas, Corbyn’s victory has allowed the right to run riot."[1] Who could have conceived of a Donald Trump presidency without the appointment of Jeremy Corbyn to Labour leader? Who could have imagined UKIP's success was possible, without Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party at the end of their decades long campaign to move British Politics towards ultra nationalism? Who would buy the Daily Mail if it wasn't for the specter of a marginally socialist Labour leader?
"On current polling, Labour will get around a quarter of the vote.
Imagine, though, how the Labour party will fare in an election campaign
when its leaders are Corbyn, John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry and Diane
Abbott, and its second XI consists of Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner,
Richard Burgon and Rebecca Long-Bailey." [1]
They will surely not do very well if their second XI consists of IV people, but what exactly is the criticism of these individuals which Mr Cohen's intimates? None is apparent, and this is a recurring trend, we're asked to take everything at face value about Corbyn's electability, the competency of his team, the validity of the polls, shown to be redundant at predicting the outcome of not only the EURef & Trump victory, but also the 2015 General Election. Imagining all this is true, the polls are correct, etc,. still one is left in the dark as to a concrete reason for his unelectability. Far be it from me to decide, but surely the point of Journalism is to understand the why's and wherefore's of a situation, to analyze causes rather than continually assert one's own prejudicial conclusions?
"The Tories have gone easy on Corbyn and his comrades to date for the
transparently obvious reason that they want to keep them in charge of Labour.
In an election, they would tear them to pieces. They will expose the far left’s record of excusing the imperialism of Vladimir Putin’s gangster state , the oppressors of women and murderers of gays in Iran, the IRA,
and every variety of inquisitorial and homicidal Islamist movement,
while presenting itself with hypocritical piety as a moral force."
Maybe Mr Cohen thinks he's also been 'going easy' with his constant repetition of Corbyn's tenuous 'links' to the Russian Defense Dpt, Iranian theocracy & Irish republicanism, maybe he also thinks the right wing media, BBC's Laura Keunsberg, the Government benches, numerous Grauniad writers, other members of the liberal intelligentsia, and every two bit blogger who feels aligned to the cause of centrist capitulation, have also been "going easy on him"? With their constant echoing of the above accusations, & endless recitals of the unexplained, unsubstantiated unelectability mantra, since day one of his original leadership campaign.
They certainly seem to have had little effect, at least among those who's confidence in the frequently irrelevant, increasingly impotent and entirely un-self critical mainstream media, has understandably declined in recent years.
But since Mr Cohen has been gracious enough to at least hint to an explanation for Mr Corbyn's supposed unelectability, let us at least weigh the evidence meagre though it is, & decide if these claims really do set Mr Corbyn apart as a truly unelectable politician.
Not only has David Cameron enjoyed a close personal relationship with Putin's gangster state in recent years, but Tony Blair has publicly stated that despite numerous questionable political assassinations & his aggression towards Georgia in 2008 & Ukraine more recently, the UK and America have "a complete identity of interest" with Russia & also the authoritarian Capitalist State of China, against Islamic fundamentalism.[2] Despite believable testimony of war crimes occurring in Chechnya, South Ossetia & Ukraine, many G20 Nations have maintained cordial relations with Russia, & the UK government continued to allow the production & distribution of Russian State media on British airwaves.
But hang on, we're not talking about shaking hands, and enjoying aperitifs with the Dictator of Russia, or as the Financial Times[3] suggests, selling off London's swankiest real estate to well-to-do Russians and Ukrainians who, "are trying to shift more
cash into London property ... amid indications that eastern European
oligarchs are using the capital’s housing market to conceal their assets
from international sanctions", because of the Conservative government's generous tax 'enforcement' policies.
Jeremy Corbyn's crime is having merely appeared a number of times on Russia Today, and though I am sympathetic to him, perhaps it's possible for us to entertain the idea, that offering alternative portrayals of British people & politicians on foreign media outlets, showing we don't all wear top hats, or sit on fortunes many global citizen's families were enslaved and exploited to create, is a productive thing to do?
Further it can't have escaped your notice just how stuffy British television actually is, particularly in regard to politics, compare ABC's excellent QandA to our own BBC's Question Time or Any Questions, there's something infinitely more free flowing and insightful about QandA, it feels like much more of a normal conversation than a reiteration of the last weeks newspaper headlines, there are frequently scientific advocates, religious thinkers, radical voices & a generally more inclusive feel. Russia Today despite many of it's obvious flaws, does offer a diversity of voice, opinion & agenda that is sadly lacking in the UK, and it's easy to see why somebody more or less reviled by the entire UK Media, would seek an outlet for what I personally think are important ideas, informing vitally important policies, elsewhere.
Not only is ex-Prime Minister Blair happy to cosy up to Russia in Syria, he's comfortable around a whole range of authoritarian dictators, he's met with Hamas, insists upon working with them to develop channels & bring about some kind of political process in the Israel Palestine conflict, he's a regular visitor in the gay hating and woman oppressing Kingdom of Saudi Arabia working at one point as an advisor for one of their State oil companies, he's known to be close to the dictator of Kazakhstan offering his services at $5million per year, the list goes on and on around the globe. He shook hands with the IRA, he was the face of the good friday agreement, but would any of his work there have been achievable without politicians like John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, keeping channels open & working to encourage IRA operators to deal with the Labour Party? I imagine without their contributions the Queen would never have met and shaken the hand of former IRA member Martin McGuinness.
Surely this is exactly what politics is about? Working to bring diverse, disparate and often antagonistic interests round a table to communicate in a civil manner? Mr Cohen's thinking appears to have become very polarized in his old age. Or perhaps it was ever thus? I have less time to waste finding out than may be apparent.
But apparently not, Mr Cohen informs us politics is really about slapping the wrists, if not punching your political opponents, and he doesn't even mean literally, just cheap symbolic talking points & point scoring for the media to fawn over, his argument seems to be that "Corbyn's just not theatrical enough daaahling".
There's also considerable double standards at work here, "he and his hopeless frontbench have not forced one Tory minister to resign or even endure a sleepless night", I don't know of any politician who was forced to resign because of a few snarky comments from the opposition, it's usually a combination of consistent failures on the part of an incumbent, exploited by a rival politician often in the same party, underpinned by a deep wellspring of animosity in the Media, or just simple old criminality that causes resignations.
The effect of media coverage in the way it produces a coherent narrative of an individual's public image, clearly has a tremendous effect on the way it's consumers respond to that image. Sadly many people's entire political worldview is constructed by bits and pieces assimilated from 24hr media coverage, why else would legions of self described "moderates" take to the media with calls for their democratically elected leader to stand down? Why else would more or less every political party or movement employ PR firms or at least their techniques? This was particularly evident with the pre-Cameron Conservatives, when I.D.S & William Hague were chased out of office by a media establishment obsessed by appearances.
This obsession with the image & more or less symbolic role of leader has been and still is, in effect determining the parameters of political discussion. The standard of PR firms employed, the deceptive simplicity of policy soundbites and sloganeering, the ability to score cheap points, the way one eats a bacon sandwich, these have become the deciding factors in a political system almost entirely mediated by professionalized media, not the substance.
Perhaps we are edging towards an understanding of why exactly, the liberal intelligentsia are unable to explain their convictions about the unelectability of Corbyn. It has to do with the strange modern phenomena in which power is symbolically disavowed, not made a show of, occulted in pursuit of more power. In the case of Brexit we're told that Parliament has no control, that Brussels makes all our laws, we can't control our own borders etc. For Trump it was the "swamp of Washington" regulating all the power away from big business. In these two examples the winners portrayed themselves as challenging the power of a dominant ideological consensus, as powerless victims of the overreach of 'big government', of the lies of mainstream media, despite the very obvious reality of an increasing disparity between the actual power of business, & the ability of public regulation to contain it's worst aspects.
As the dominant political force Tories cannot explain his unelectability as that would imply revealing the numerous ways in which, through nudge theory; the false comparisons between national & home economics; fueling the SNP's rise; calculated appeals to base self interest; budget surplus laws; constituency boundary changes, etc,. they've been trying to make Labour in general unelectable. It would involve revealing the extent of power yielded by the interests they represent & who fund them, not to mention the ruthless machiavellian way in which they've used power to consolidate power & undermine democracy since 2010.
Those in the media who echo Nick Cohen's sentiments towards Jeremy, come under one of two designations, you have the manufacturer of right wing propaganda who simply doesn't have to explain Jeremy Corbyn's unelectability, merely assert it endlessly like a self fulfilling prophecy, claim he's best friends with Hizbollah etc,. & eventually bring about his rejection by osmosis. This is presumably who Nick has decided to imitate with his article & they constitute the majority, in terms of sympathetic outlets and potential reach.
The other are members of the Liberal intelligentsia, the reign of experts and technocrats the rise of populism is such an obvious rejection of. They are Labour members, ex-members, MP's, ex-MP's, journalists, academics & commentators, from Stephen Hawking to Owen Jones, they are Guardianistas & assorted yuppies. They supported Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham & Liz Kendall, also Owen Smith, all unsuccessful in elections against the apparently unelectable Jeremy Corbyn.
Despite the fact that this socio-economic sphere would never consider itself an institution of class power or force for class repression, it undoubtedly is, and this is part of the reason for, as well as the reason why it's members lack the ability to accurately explain Jeremy Corbyn's unelectability.
They recognize that not only do overtly and committed rightwing forces dominate the cultural and political landscape, which is to say they have been & continue to be an ineffective force for progress, for advancing knowledge and awareness, but also that they themselves & their frequent readers aren't ideologically too dissimilar from those very forces.
One senses they would be better accomodated inside the Liberal Democrats, if the lust for power which has seen them colonize the Labour Party over the decades, didn't preclude that. They are people who are quite comfortable with conservatism, having usually a great deal worth conserving, and who live quite comfortably under a Conservative government, in a Conservative constituency on a conservative Island. It's the drive to conserve a Liberal Democrat Labour Party that sees them revile in horror at the current leadership.
By echoing the sentiments of the right, and expanding the reach of right wing propaganda, they confirm the biases of an audience being told from all sides, almost everyday, on radio, tv and in print, "Corbyn's unelectable".
With his lofty insights &
rigorously constructed arguments he tells anyone still supporting
Corbyn, to "stop being a fucking fool by changing your fucking mind." All we who value Corbyn's alternative political platform are asking is, please give everyone a moments peace, or better yet inform them! Of the pain and hardship people are forced to endure in the name of Corporatism, welfare reform and 'balancing the budget', that we may all begin to think clearly for ourselves about the direction we want to choose.
________
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/jeremy-corbyn-labour-threat-party-election-support?CMP=share_btn_tw
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2611735/Make-friends-Putin-fight-Islamic-extremists-says-Blair-Former-PM-accused-simple-minded-analysis-comments-annexation-Crimea-not-prevent-cooperation-issue.html
[3] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ddc9944-cbd3-11e3-a934-00144feabdc0.html#axzz312Ia6ZPp
