Intolerance in Politics and Life

by Peter Rose about a year ago in politics

Extremism may rule

Intolerance in Politics and Life

Intolerance in Politics and Life

Intolerance is growing, and it seems those who preach "equality for all" are becoming the most intolerant. While both extremes have unacceptable behaviour, the left appear to be in denial that their actions and words are as bad as the far right.

From what I read and observe, the right wing extremists do not claim they are tolerant and inclusive, but those who favor extreme versions of socialism do claim to be all inclusive, and the guardians of freedom etc. Some claim to be environmentalists, that is, they are in favor of laws to control the activities of other people, in the belief that these laws will stop global climate change. Whenever there are photographs of the aftermath of a protest or rally, there is a great deal of rubbish—pollution—left, which does not show much environmental awareness, and so we are forced to question their understanding and commitment to saving the planet.

Socialism by its very nature believes in control, control by a socialist elite who control everything, and everyone. History has shown such ruling socialist elites, to be very intolerant of any form of real, or even implied criticism. They do not accept the right of anyone to oppose them about anything. From this observation it naturally follows that the supporters of such ideological regimes will be intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.

The strange thing about human behavior is that the opposite of socialism, fascism, historically throws up ruling elites who behave in exactly the same ways as the socialists. Humans are strange creatures. The two extremes fight each other in-order to decide who will be the intolerant ruling elite, and the millions of people who are not extremists, take sides. Why? Whoever wins will impose draconian restrictions of the millions of ordinary people, because history shows us that's what happens when extremists rule, no matter what political “colour.”

The mass of the people should say a curse on both your houses, and have nothing to do with either. The problem then becomes what, or who, should rule, if both extremes are avoided?

There is an old saying about it only takes good people to do nothing, in order for bad people to take control. Getting moderates to campaign for the right to govern is not easy, almost by definition it is the extremists who are ardent and motivated campaigners, while the moderates have less conviction in their desires to govern.

In a period of world history when image, fake reality, distortion, and exaggeration, appear to rule every aspect of human behavior; how can a moderate, honest, compromising, politician hope to get elected?

The voters get a choice between:

  1. We will put our nation first in every way and for everything, we will stop foreigners taking your wealth, and we will give it to you. Or
  2. We will take control of every aspect of life, take from everyone who has more than you, and give you an equal share whether you earn it or not. We will welcome all to share in equality no matter where they come from. Or
  3. We will try out best to help everyone to a better life.

So what can we do about this? For a start we must, somehow, get every member of the electorate, no matter what age or social economic group, to be persuaded to see the lies for what they are. Promises of free this or that, better welfare, better education, better healthcare, all without cost to you the voter, are always just empty words. No matter how appealing these things are, they will never come at no cost. Promises that another section of society will pay, you will not, is just nonsense. Just as; stopping climate change is a mater of political will and making the right laws. This is also nonsense. Claims that the rich will pay, or that foreigners will pay, are equally invalid. Modern society is a fluid complex interchange between ever-moving structures, about the only easily predictable event is that, if any wealthy group find themselves under threat, they will move the wealth out of reach of that threat. All political claims of certainty during a campaign, becomes “an aim” once elected (Remember Mr Corbyn famous cancellation of student fees). Bureaucracy takes over, the actual machinery of how, becomes more important than the what.

We need to take politics out of government—sounds stupid, but how else are we to stop the bureaucrats actually running things while extremists tear the nation apart?

Democracy needs mending. Referendums may be one way, devolving power away from central government, may be another way. Fix budgets for defense, education, health care, etc. all a fixed percent tax income, may be another way. We need radical changes, but not political extremes. We need democracy to triumph over extremism.

Peter Rose
Peter Rose
Read next: New Mexico—It's like a State, like All the Others!
Peter Rose

Collections of "my" vocal essays with additions, are available as printed books ASIN 197680615 and 1980878536 also some fictional works and some e books available at Amazon;-


See all posts by Peter Rose