There was a shockingly intemperate attack in The
Guardian a few days ago on Boris Johnson by the well-known journalist and
war historian Max Hastings. Max’s piece saw no merit whatsoever in Boris and
branded him as ”only interested in his own fame and gratification” and called
him “a scoundrel or a mere rogue”. Max was Boris’ boss as editor of The
Telegraph when Boris was a much-read Brussels correspondent. Max’s piece
was quickly contradicted by Conrad Black, a controversial figure himself, who
was the erstwhile proprietor of The Telegraph and of The Spectator
which Boris had also edited. Conrad spoke well of Boris’ talents and his
determination; he detailed Max’s disloyalty as an editor, but did not ignore
his talents, although he characterized him as “a short-tempered snob” and
concluded Max was “a coward and a flake.” It seemed obvious that Max’s original
piece was infused by some deep personal bile, as it went way beyond the limits
of normal controversial argument. All in all, an unsavoury and shameful spat.
 |
| Max Hastings |
 |
| Conrad Black |
Of course. controversial debates, be they
political, literary or broadly cultural will easily generate exaggerated
language and wild assertions. The temptation to “personalize” arguments should
however be resisted. Attributing evil motives to those who express an opinion
opposed to your own is not an argument – it is simply low name-calling – the
proper course is to muster arguments to refute your antagonist. A recent
example of this kind of name-calling was a violent Commons rant by the SNP
leader there, pompous Ian Blackford, attacking all his opponents, which was so
outrageous the Speaker had to intervene to shut him up. Blackford’s performance
was an acute embarrassment to all fair-minded people, especially Scots.
Far more insidious is the desire of many in the
“liberal elite” to outlaw speeches or participation by any person challenging
their beliefs. It is almost incredible that purported “liberals” take this
stance but the evidence is not to be denied. Typically a student society will
invite an opponent of one of the cherished causes of the day to join a debate.
A noisy synthetic furore will be stirred up and the “liberal bloc” will,
parading its self-bestowed virtue, petition the vice-chancellor to cancel the
visit. The vice-chancellor, inevitably a so-called “liberal” himself will
unquestioningly sign the required fatwah. Free speech is the victim and
such shenanigans undermine the meaning of a “university” at so many levels,
that one despairs.
The fashionable causes that are routinely
defended in this way include Immigrant rights, gender equality, Palestinian
nationhood, nuclear disarmament and global warming. All of them involve the
surrender or seizure of someone else’s interests and are open to quite
legitimate criticism. American libertarians, often from the Right, are
regularly silenced and figures on the UK Right suffer too. This includes
curiously two very civilized debaters who choose their words carefully and are
extremely polite in the face of the mob, namely Jordan Peterson and Jacob
Rees-Mogg.
 |
| Jordan Peterson |
 |
| Jacob Rees-Mogg |
No doubt we will continue to be assailed by
“liberal” fanatics of all kinds. Many in the media have swallowed this mindset
hook, line and sinker, notably The Guardian and the BBC, once, but alas
no more, a beacon of the unvarnished truth.
It is
reasonable to have nightmares about a dystopian future, where Groupthink and
Big Brother flourish and abject proles dutifully obey in the North Korean manner.
Forewarned is forearmed however: get to know when facts and arguments are
distorted and fake news disseminated. Above all, let us maintain the
long-established standards of our civilized democracy.
SMD
26.06.19
Text copyright © Sidney Donald
2019
No comments:
Post a Comment