Saturday, August 05, 2006

The problem with the call to moderation

So Tony Blair is calling for an alliance of moderation. I wonder if he thinks about how weak that sounds.

To take a secular analogy- lets pretend it was a call to moderation by West Ham fans ( 2nd football team I thought of - blame Iain Dale. ) Extreme West Ham fans have been causing trouble - so everyone goes on air to call for 'moderation'. Be a little less of a West Ham fan - don't always go to away games -try wearing a Tottenham strip some times - do not indulge in the Blog of Mr Dale.

Its not going to go down well is it ? Calling someone a moderate fan is something right off those 'real fans only' adverts that McDonald's ran during the last World Cup. Being called a moderate undermines your position with you peer group.

The question should be which group of West Ham fans have the true following ? Its not extremism vs moderation.

You won't make moderate West Ham fans by getting them all to indulge in the ways of Tottenham Hotspur sometimes. They will just feel undermined by the effort you are making.

Its a weak argument that is bound to fail.

Something better is needed.

2 comments:

Eric said...

(bit of a long one this - apologies)

It's just froth isn't it. It seems to me that New Labour's definition of 'moderation' is born out of its preoccupation with postmodernity - ie everything is relative. There's no right or wrong, no good or bad, and we should all subscribe to nothing particularly fundamental, or else we're a threat to the international humanist project.

Asking people to reject the 'truths' carried by their own wing of civilisation, whichever side of the fence they're on, is going to get us nowhere. What we should be doing is reclaiming what it is that is 'true' and 'right' about our own civilisation - our western liberal values and cultural heritage for a start, sticking by that, and selling it positively.

It's easy to see why isolationism is blossoming at the moment as a reaction to the difficulties we're seeing, but isn't it true that the people of Britain have been persuaded away from inter-cultural dialogue with new communities anyway? This is because the establishment have abandoned our homegrown rights and privileges as a host nation of people, and our right to set the cultural social agenda.

For a mojority population to feel it has no normative moral or social pre-importance in its own country is bound to cause havoc. No wonder our British version of 'tolerance' has really become 'avoidance'. Let's be honest, part of the reason we don't engage with other communities is because we feel the state just sees us as mere equals, and it's an affront! We feel indignant about that, and therefore defensive, and it carries over.

We do need the British state to acknowledge the actual mandate it has to run the country, on behalf of the people of Britain, and we need to reclaim out indigenous sense of identity in a positive way. It's all in our Bill of Rights and historic constitution, though we ignore it.

Until then the dogma of 'equalised' rights and privileges for all, irrespective of culture or religion, will remain. The majority will feel insecure and uncomfortable, and dialogue will be limited to the non-believers. . .

Man in a shed said...

Eric,

Think I agree with you. I think just as right and wrong are being taken of the national curriculum we are being faced with a very real cultural threat of Islamo-Fascism.

I played with the idea of emigration this week - to protect the future of my family. But I think I'll stay and make my case as long as I'm able to.