comment on Raman's view on
patriotism
Answers
Consider this rule of thumb: the more that “patriotism” is invoked by a country’s political elites, the less healthy its political culture will be. From McCarthyism in the US to the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the imperative to love one’s country has often been used as a pretext for persecution and submission. And in post-Brexit pandemic Britain, we have developed our own grammar of patriotic intimidation.
The Conservative government is well positioned to play this game. It is already high on the fumes of Brexit, which carried the Tories to a majority that would allow them to vanquish Europe, take back control and get the job done. The Vote Leave veterans in No 10 are already aware of how well the language of treachery and sabotage can turn a section of the public against its own judiciary and even elected representatives. The kind of war talk that helped secure Brexit is now proving useful in managing the government’s calamitous Covid strategy.
Advertisement
Among the government’s many gambits for deflecting blame – in between the lies, scapegoating and occasional snarls of menace when questioned too closely – a sinister implication has begun to linger. It whispers: why don’t our critics love this country? Challenges to the government’s inept management of the crisis are depicted as nasty efforts to “politicise” the pandemic; worried northern mayors and MPs are “taking advantage” of a difficult situation to “score political points”. Public behaviour that obeys government instruction is a duty. Going to the pub is not a pastime, but an exercising of Britons’ “patriotic best”. Boris Johnson compares Covid-19 to all the other “alien invaders” that this country has “seen off” over a thousand years – positioning critique of his public health strategy as a traitorous undermining of a wartime government. Any criticism of the failing privatised test and trace programme has been hastily recast as an unpatriotic attack on “our NHS”.
The Guardian Today newsletter: the headlines, the analysis, the debate – sent direct to you
Read more
Cabinet ministers are increasingly reaching for sanctimonious bluster when put on the spot. Matt Hancock, in a slightly embarrassing fit of fake indignation, responded to a very reasonable and, in the circumstances, restrained query from the Labour MP for Slough, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, about availability of testing by saying: “I will not have this divisive language. I simply won’t have it!” When cornered, scuttling to the moral high ground with pious talk of “national unity” is always an easy way out.
This shimmy is clumsy and transparent, but it can be crudely effective. If there is one thing Keir Starmer wants to avoid, it is the perception that he is capitalising on the government’s mismanagement of the pandemic to burnish his credentials as the new Labour leader. This is a reasonable concern, especially for an opposition leader determined to present himself as a grownup who will look after “the national interest”. Starmer is keen to stress that he is “supporting the government” whenever he can. He reassures the government that he is on its side – “but …”
This strategy has its limits, as seen by the quip from one Gogglebox family that they have devised a new drinking game – down a shot every time the leader of the opposition says that he supports the government.
Johnson has picked up on this frequency and is playing with it, trying to discredit Labour whenever Starmer does get oppositional, charging him with inconsistency. It’s at moments like this – when Johnson taunts Starmer to return to his “previous script” and to stop “knocking the confidence of the country”, when he accuses him of having “more briefs than Calvin Klein” – that the hapless prime minister recovers a bit of his old bullying swagger. This is the trouble with trying to perform constructive opposition to a government that has no scruples and no answers for its own failure. It will always take your helping hand and use it to slap you. After months of restraint, you will still be called “a shameless opportunist playing political games in the middle of a global pandemic”. You will still be asked, by politicians and media alike, to work with the government, to help it come up with better coping mechanisms, as if the government did not have a huge majority and a long summer to correct its springtime mistakes.