You are here

On the Wane

Blaming “the other” has recently been a sure fire way of winning political office in nominally democratic societies. President Donald Groper’s United States electoral campaign was a text book example of how blaming the other can pay political dividends.

Whether it’s the Divided Nation crowd in Australia, the National Front in France or a host of other parties that build their political fortunes on blaming their country’s ills on “the other”, blaming “the other” has paid handsome political dividends in terms of parliamentary seats won.

This tactic isn’t new, the National Socialist’s (Nazis) electoral success in Germany in the late 1920’s and 1930’s was based solely on a campaign of blaming “the other”. Racial purity was at the heart of their electoral appeal. People who feel under economic pressure, whose concerns are ignored by those who exercise power gravitate towards a blaming “the other” agenda or in some cases, support political movements that lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of that small section of society that owns the means of production, distribution, exchange and communication.

In Australia Divided Nation’s electoral appeal is beginning to wane as similar party’s electoral appeal around the world is also beginning to wane. Blaming “the other” may give marginalised and exploited citizens a warm inner glow but when it comes to changing their circumstances (irrespective of President Donald Groper’s inane tweets) people soon understand “the other” is in most cases as powerless as they are.

The ruling classes are not frightened of political movements that blame “the other” because they can incorporate them in their economic jaunts. Nazi Germany’s ability to rearm rapidly was directly related to the support it received from the German ruling classes. Most of the major German firms supported the Nazis to the very last days of the Third Reich.

On the other hand, a sovereign nation states’ ruling classes cannot accommodate political movements like Public Interests Before Corporate Interests (PIBCI) because they challenge their domination of the parliamentary process. The essence and strength of such movements is the very antithesis of the economic forces that tend to dominate a parliamentary process that ensures only political parties and individuals who do not challenge their economic monopoly are elected and re-elected.

There is little difference in terms of the political objectives of political parties that existed in the 1930’s and 2017. Technological innovations have given them the opportunity to reach many more people with their blaming it on “the other” ideological musings. The difference between the 1930’s and 2017 is that the same technological innovations can be used to challenge their message and stymie their attempts to wield political power.

Dr. Joseph Toscano

Commenting on this Blog entry will be automatically closed on July 5, 2017.