The many perils of “Stockholm syndrome” politics (Part I)
It’s been a tumultuous couple of months in UK politics. After a troubled time in office, plagued by scandal, internal party frictions and much public embarrassment, Boris Johnson exited the stage leaving behind a big old mess for his successor to clean up. An economy in tatters, inflation at record highs and an energy crisis the likes of which this generation hasn’t seen before.
It’s a miracle that anyone in the kingdom could be found that would be willing to assume the responsibility of steering this particular Titanic back to safety, after it has evidently hit the iceberg already. Or at least that’s what any rational human would think, any one of us who is not afflicted by the narcissism required to embark on a political career in the first place. As it turned out, there were more than enough candidates to choose from, a fact that resulted in a bitter leadership race, at times classless enough to be reminiscent of US election campaigns.
During that extensively covered mudslinging match, ridiculous promises were made, attacks were launched and a great deal of barefaced deception was deployed. Uncritically as always, the media focused on the most superficial and sensational parts of all debates and campaign manifestos, mainly being concerned about who said what about whom and who was better at name calling. Not one “journalist” took a moment to ask out loud exactly how inflation would be solved by dropping even more money from helicopters or by pandering to unions and signing off on even more minimum wage increases.
Anyway, after everything was said and was done, and Liz Truss emerged victorious, the focus still remained stuck on the superficial. Global mainstream media obsessed over her every tweet and Instagram photo, as though she was the winner of the latest reality show and not the new Prime Minister of one of the most advanced and influential nations on the planet. “Experts” were summoned to dissect and analyze the most inconsequential details of the new leader’s profile, largely ignoring the “meat” of her policies or her record so far. And as for the party-fanatic portion of the public, small as it may be, they all rejoiced and used the fact that she is woman as further proof that the Conservative party is more enlightened and virtuous than anyone else in the nation - they have after all put forward not one, not two, but three female leaders.
And then, just when we thought all the fanfare would die down and the circus was finally ready to leave town, the unthinkable happened. The Queen passed away. “Unthinkable” indeed, as well as “shocking”, or at least those were the terms used over and over after Buckingham Palace made the official announcement of the 96 years old Monarch’s demise. While it’s hard to fully grasp what was particularly inconceivable about this development, death is always tragic and people grieve in their own ways. Of course, some might argue that one of the most dignified ways to do so is privately.
In any case, after the initial “shock” was overcome, the full impact of the plans that were put in place to help the nation mourn became apparent. An incredibly detailed, protracted and incalculably costly operation was set in motion for the Queen’s “last journey” from Scotland to London, while many businesses closed and thousands are expected to flood the capital for the funeral. As for the outpouring of emotion by everyday citizens we already saw from recent news coverage, if watched on mute, one couldn’t be blamed for mistaking it with footage from the aftermath of a natural disaster that claimed hundreds of lives.
None of this should be construed as a criticism of the Queen herself, though the pros and cons of her reign or of the monarchy itself, can be debated until the cows come home. Neither should the reader understand this commentary as a lack of empathy for her passing. Every life is precious and we should all have compassion for anyone who lost a loved one. However, what we’re talking about here is something else entirely.
It is precisely this kind of largely misguided emotion that we see from the wider public, that is not to be found only in this case, but also in every single election, in every war, in every victory of one tribe over the other. This is what happens when symbols come to life and when people start to confuse their own identity with that of someone “special” or “better” than them. This is the most insidious part of modern politics, even though it is a phenomenon as old as time, and it is actively being harnessed and used by political campaigns, by mass media, old and new, and by any aspiring central planner.
In the upcoming second part, we’ll focus on the implications for society at large, for the average citizen and for the responsible investor who wishes to preserve all that they worked for, for the next generation.
Claudio Grass, Hünenberg See, Switzerland
Bild von PaulaPaulsen auf Pixabay
