Re: Sun headline - Corbyn was always an unpleasant dimwit and a liar - turns out he's a chicken too" Archived Message
Posted by dereklane on September 6, 2019, 8:12 am, in reply to "Re: Sun headline - Corbyn was always an unpleasant dimwit and a liar - turns out he's a chicken too" "
You describe him as a moral authority. We're it true I'd be half tempted to agree with you. But there are two or three things that suggest otherwise. The throwing under the bus of other 'moral authorities' from the Labour Party, like living stone to placate the power centre of labour (the blairites). The back tracking on where labour stands on honouring a democratic referendum. The radio silence on people like Assange now he is leader. For myself, despite job losses as a result, I've never compromised principles to get ahead, even if I could convince myself that the end game might be a worthy cause. Sacrifice one principle and you sacrifice them all. I wouldn't even consider myself a moral authority, just ethically sound. And, no one will ever change any system from within it. Moral authorities (people like pilger, Eduardo galleano and others) would agree. Deciding that those who resist the bow to authority and the inevitability of current power structures are fools (as has been voiced here several times over the past few days) shows the Overton window principle at work, as it pertains to a slow shift to the right. Last year, here, I would have had more inside my point of view than against. Now there are 3 or 4 and they are being collectively guarded against. But, I need not say more on the subject. Whatever happens will happen, it just disappoints me that people I thought were strong and independent left thinkers may be just yearning for simple days. No change is safe. Any change is irresponsible... Well if that thinking doesn't benefit the status quo in terrific ways, I don't know anything at all about politics. And, it seems, in an effort to be right, folk here have forgotten everything they've learnt since at least the inception of medialens. On your argument, You can only insist on pragmatism, but not moral authority. Your pragmatism is however flawed, because the political system has for hundreds of years had checks and balances for those odd potential good guys.
|
|