There's been a hell of a lot of talk in 2016 about the people finally talking, the people finally standing up for themselves and claiming a victory while everyone else sits and whines like sore losers. Those on the winning side like to gloat and tell the others to just suck it up and accept that more people picked their option. Those on the losing side like to point out that they can speak up if they want to and why should they just sit by while people of dubious character control their destinies.
I've written a previous blog about my general disinterest in politics and I'll repeat that to anyone who asks. So why are you writing a blog about it? Why do you tweet about it? Well firstly I like the jokes that come out of it, 2016 has created endless material in that respect. But on a more serious note, what does make me sit up and take notice is the emergence of people in a position of authority who are starting to tap into people's often repressed emotions for their own ends.
The words "often repressed" are significant because that seems to be the overriding factor when people talk about why figures such as Nigel Farage and Donald Trump are gaining favour. They talk about things that people are afraid to talk about. Afraid to talk about in polite society without being castigated for being xenophobic. Being "Islamophobic". Being racist.
How many family members, friends, work colleagues etc. do you know that express some form of the "they should all go back to where they came from" idea, however lighthearted that may seem to be? Probably quite a lot actually and the numbers will likely increase with the age of the person. Chuck in a heap of disillusioned workers seeing their jobs going to foreigners, add in their families and friends and neighbours, stoke up those flames and stand well back. The results of 2016 weren't a surprise in that respect, because those negative emotions were opportunistically fed pretty cynically. Yet those results were a surprise to a lot of people who were looking at the bigger picture, to me for one overriding reason. Let's go for an analogy.
Imagine you're going on holiday and you have a pet cat, so you need someone to look after your cat for the week. That is the single problem you wish to have a solution for. You know someone who you consider is absolutely brilliant at looking after cats, does exactly what you want in the way that you would do it, you share exactly the same view of how a cat should be looked after. The catch is that they don't really come with a very good character reference, they're untidy, they're forgetful and they have a history of stealing from people and vandalising other people's property.
You know another person. They don't have a cat of their own, so looking after a cat isn't their particular area of expertise, but they're trustworthy, they can follow instructions and they have common sense. They will also solve your problem, they just might not tackle it exactly in the way that you would like to. But you know that they could be relied upon generally and they would also be perfectly equipped to deal with any other situation that might arise while you were away.
You're now wondering if I've completely lost my mind, but I'd be very, very surprised if anyone would genuinely say they'd pick the first person. Even if the person claimed to be a reformed character I doubt many people are likely to risk placing their home and their pet in the trust of this person. The risk of their home being a mess when they get home. The risk of them forgetting to turn up one day. The risk of the door being left unlocked, a window having been left open, the cat having escaped, the house having been ransacked.
If you're following along with where I'm going with this you've probably cottoned on to the fact that the first person aligns with the Farages and Trumps of this world. Someone who has based what they have to offer on one particular topic to attract a certain audience. Someone who can promise one thing and deliver it to that audience in a manner that they'd be happy with. Someone who is of dubious character. Someone to whom you wouldn't entrust your home and the future of your loved ones.
And yeah, admittedly you might look at the second person as any other major politician and think "trustworthy", really?! That's probably a fair point, but it's all relative. In relative terms the analogy stands up pretty well to me. And to blur the boundaries a little, I'm not even sure I'd trust Nigel Farage and Donald Trump to look after my cat. Don't give the keys of your house to someone who can't be trusted.
