Koup Aid: Trump's Lethal Brand Of Soft Drink Has Killed Populism

The murder-suicide of Jim Jones' 900 cult followers in 1978 was "the largest single incident of intentional civilian death in American history" - until Donald J Trump began wreaking havoc on society with his own lethal brand of soft drink: 'Koup Aid'. Those of his MAGA cult followers who managed to avoid injecting themselves with bleach now face unemployment, wealth & pension evaporation, incarceration, deportation, bankruptcy and/or starvation, thanks to his mindless, lawless public cost-cutting and destructive tariffs. And you can add to that list the many politicians around the globe who'd pinned their electoral hopes on populism as a route to power. That's over now. A new political strategy is required. 

Trump's global distribution of Koup Aid has been undermining populist regimes the world over since Brazil's Bolsonaro lost in 2018. Argentina's very own chainsaw-wielding maniac faces his own net disapproval ratings. And right 'whinge' leadership hopefuls have just lost their national elections - and their own seats - in Canada and Australia.

While Britain's own Brexidiot populist provocateur, Nigel Farage, continues to enjoy modest electoral success, that's only in a few of his country's predominantly white constituencies who actually suffer little from the 'channel crossings in dinghies' that he ironically clings to for his own political survival (we fear the unknown, after all). Last year's Labour landslide shows that the rest of the country isn't fooled on that front. And the Australian populist parties' own doomed electioneering demonstrates that directly copying Trump's DOGE approach to government efficiency, the "Make [your country's name here] Great Again" slogan and the promise of 'border control' do not carry you into the nation's top political job.

Nope, the populists must find a new route to political power. Gone are the days when the blithering idiots in the Conservative Party, for example, could try to 'out-Nigel' Nigel. And they can only go so far right, anyway, before they meet the blithering idiots on the far left, as Corbynites revealed. 

Such is the nature of what I like to call the Political Opportunity Donut. The Trump experiment in America - and recent electoral victories everywhere else - highlight the political vacuum that has emerged in the 'centre' of western democracies. And 'nature abhors a vacuum', as Aristotle observed, so every aspiring political leader worth their salt is now rushing to fill it.

Of course, the political Centre is also a tough place to be, as Tony 'Bliar', 'Wavy' Dave Cameron and Nick 'Tuition Fee' Clegg all found to their eventual cost in the UK. It's only so long before populists with their phoney issues and respective lethal cocktails emerge on the left and right to try to reclaim the ensuing vacuums elsewhere on the Donut. 

So it always goes. We are where we are.

I must say that I enjoy this Centrist phase. It's when genuine problems get identified and solved. The decent political leader need only focus on that process and demonstrate progress, because it's hard to argue with actual solutions. People even generally enjoy helping. Morale is boosted, which brings its own tailwind.

Of course, there are inevitably heated arguments about which socio-economic problems to solve first, their root causes and potential solutions; and which get more resources than others. But those are political arguments worth having, instead of washing down meaningless slogans with Koup Aid.

Our mistake is to allow politicians to distract us from the problems that remain.

Compassion Separates Rational Liberals From Populist Libertarians

For those driven to despair by the rise of Brexit Johnson (or Trump or any of the other right wing demagogues), "How to Beat a Populist" promises some relief. We know that the populist, libertarian message is emotional, nationalistic, angry, false and divisive. We know that rational argument seems a waste of time and we shouldn't allow ourselves to "get dragged down to their level", but with the populists dominating the political scene it's hard to know what else to actually do.

Enter Larry Diamond, from Stanford University, jangling a bunch of keys that might just unlock a more rational future.  Here's a flavour of what to Do:

• Pursue an inclusive strategy - connect with the doubters among the populist support base
• Appeal to their interests and positive values
• Stick to liberal principles and behaviour
• Show humility, empathy - even love - understand why they answered the siren song of illiberal populism, and what positive, unifying messages or policies would address those anxieties
• Focus on positive, practical, evidence/issues-based policies that expose/exploit the populist's failings and vulnerabilities
• Offer a liberal, democratic vision for unifying pride in the country (patriotism, not nationalism)
• Offer hope and excitement for an optimistic vision of a better future 
• Find lively and creative ways to communicate a message of hope, inspiration, and concrete policy alternatives with passion and conviction. 

Here's a flavour of what to avoid:

• writing off anyone who voted for the populist as or "deplorable” 
• questioning the morals or motives of populist sympathizers
• tit-for-tat 'slugfests'
• the muck of ridicule, invective or verbal abuse.  
• ideological or 'radical' policy proposals 
• looking backwards
• being boring
• falsehood. 

Overall, the message I'm getting is to be compassionate. At the end of the day, everyone is let down by a populist leader. Some were duped into believing, some knowingly believed and others never  believed and even vigorously opposed, but it's kind of irrelevant to the future - the "Now What?"  We are all victims, and we must club together to dig our way out of the populist hole.

Easy As 123: Politicising The BBC

The BBC's Brexit logo speaks volumes

Having provoked a minor breeze on Twitter about the BBC's support for Andrew Neil's shameful attacks on Carole Cadwalladr recently, I thought an explanatory post was in order.

The reason that the BBC finds itself 'politicised' in this way is not because the BBC is 'biased' - at least not in the sense of simply taking one side in any given debate.  It's down to how the BBC frames its coverage of major events in the first place.

The BBC seems to take its editorial course from what the UK government (in this case) has decided to do. It then seeks to maintain 'balance' by covering all sides in the debate about how the UK should do what the government has decided, leaving behind the question whether the UK should be doing the thing at all. 

Viewing the whole Brexit scenario through the BBC's lens, therefore, means that the numerous investigations into collusion between Leave campaigns, where their funding came from and how they abused people's personal data become irrelevant to the BBC's Brexit coverage. So, too, are marches to secure a 'People's Vote'. Because those things relate to whether the UK should leave the EU, not how the UK should go about leaving - even when stopping the process remains an option.

This is not to say the BBC completely ignores the Electoral Commission fines, Information Commissioner fines and the launch of investigations by the National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Financial Conduct Authority into the affairs of Mr Banks and various other members of the Leave Campaign and Brexit community - not to mention all the lies, distortion and gaslighting that was involved. But the BBC treats these as historic issues related to the EU referendum, electoral reform, how personal data might be abused in elections more generally and, perhaps, the role of truth in politics. From the BBC's standpoint, they shouldn't form part of its Brexit coverage because they don't relate to how the UK leaves the EU. 

This is appalling for at least four reasons. 

Primarily, it becomes really easy for the UK government to "get the BBC on side" and use its vast resources as the government's own public address system when attempting something that is likely to prove hugely complex and controversial. The government simply has to decide to do it: invade Iraq, trigger Article 50 without a plan for how to leave the EU, ignore the Good Friday Agreement... 

Secondly, the BBC's editorial choice minimises dissent by removing the oxygen of publicity from those who are sceptical or critical of the government's decision; and diverting it to those who are broadly supportive of the outcome, even if they wish to quibble over how the government achieves that goal. This allows the likes of Andrew Neil to treat the diligent efforts of Carole Cadwalladr and other investigative journalists as irrelevant, at best.

Thirdly, by moving the focus away from how the government made its decision in the first place, the BBC's emphasis risks burying evidence of corruption and so on. The end has justified the means. This encourages the likes of Andrew Neil to declare that continuing to investigate evidence of corruption and other criminality in relation to those means is somehow 'mad'.

Finally, the BBC's approach means that its reputation (and licence-fee payers' investment in that reputation) is horribly exposed to the downside of major events - or the reversal of the government's decision. The bigger the downside, or the more significant the reversal, the greater the damage to the BBC's reputation. 

What should the BBC do?

Avoid setting its editorial policy to simply accord with what the UK government (in this example) wants to do - even if that is, or is presented as, "the will of the people". 

The BBC's role should simply be to educate "the people" about the options, their implications and consequences of decisions taken. This is not about being able to say "I told you so" - it's about the BBC re-establishing and maintaining its role as an apolitical, trusted source of news and information, so that the people aren't so easily hoodwinked.

Meet The Schadenfreuders

As the majority of voters in the western liberal democracies - ironically labelled the "liberal elite" - work their way along the 'change curve' after shocks like Brexit and the rise of Corbyn, Trump and others, their initial shock, denial, anger and blame is giving way to resignation and acceptance... and with it a little pleasure at the growing misfortunes of the 'winners'.

I'm the first to admit that the premise of "Lipstick on a Pig" was that 'people power' would be wielded more wisely than the power of the institutions they topple.  Yet I also pointed out that we are badly short of scepticism, that democracy should be a messy process, and that greed and stupidity are still winning. Pragmatism, after all, is not a destination but represents the constant struggle of "intelligent practice versus uninformed, stupid practice".

So it's all part of the familiar trends toward greater personal control that the Brexiteers can't agree what Brexit means; Corbyn is not proving the electoral champion that his supporters had believed; and Trump has had to concede that the US will in fact pay for any 'Wall' along its southern border, in the hope that Mexico will pay later... 

In other words, the recent populist 'victories' have merely wrung the same old institutional failings out of the same old political parties. And those who fell for the latest examples of 'stupid practice' will need to learn that lesson before we will begin to see the triumph of intelligent practice from genuine 'facilitators'. 

The question is how many more opportunities for schadenfreude there will be in the meantime...

I love the Germans. They've got a word for everything (as Nigel Farage will surely know).