Comment: The fascism of ‘deficit denial’
The coalition tries to shut up its critics by branding them ‘deficit deniers’. The use of the phrase, with overtones of the Holocaust, is completely unacceptable.
By Ian Dunt
Ah, the political class. That weird group comprised of people in PR, communications, party politics, thinktanks, pressure groups, policymaking and journalism.
Some people say they are just the professional versions of people who like to talk politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. The political class is not the highest point of debate – it is usually the end of debate. It is the place where tactics and strategy do not promote ideas, but supplant them.
The tactics are tedious and plentiful. Projecting media narratives across news cycles, belittling the opponent personally, setting-up entirely artificial PR stunts and creating the illusion of momentum all play a role. But the most popular and pernicious tactic employed in the rough and tumble of daily politics is one which simply bars the opponent’s view from legitimate debate.
That is the target of the phrase ‘denier’. It began with the designation ‘Holocaust-denier’. For a long time that was the only time you heard it, really. The world gradually came to associate it strongly with a political view which was genuinely outside the scope of legitimate political debate.
And then, rather suddenly, environmental activists started using it. ‘Climate change denier’ became the designation used against those who were sceptical of the claims of the green lobby. Some of these people were foolish and ignorant, the kind who insisted global warming was disproved by chilly winters. Some of them were scientists, or reasonable thinkers who remained unconvinced. Neither group deserved to be described with a word containing strong Nazi overtones.
The tactic was quite clear. With little more than a nod and wink, the views of climate sceptics were being brushed outside the scope of legitimate political debate. But it’s not just about the Nazi association. It also resets the onus of proof in the debate. Once one side is designated an ‘xxx-denier’, the clear implication is that they must defend why they hold their position, rather than the other way round. The common sense perspective, the received wisdom, the consensus, is being injected into the debate through language. There is no longer a prevalence of views. There is just a dominant view and then some nutters throwing stones from the sidelines. It is very clever. But it is also anti-democratic, immoral and putrid.
At least its use in the climate change debate took place on an issue where there was substantial scientific agreement against the sceptics. The new use of the term ‘denier’ is even more grotesque, because of its use in a debate which is by no means uneven. The coalition government has taken to branding those who question their economic agenda ‘deficit-deniers’.
Visceral dislike or otherwise, you have to have a grudging respect for the PR victory the coalition has pulled off. This was the PR industry’s Sistine Chapel. They took a debate on how to emerge from recession – the level, timing and manner of public spending required, the influence of the deficit on credit rating agencies, the right of those agencies to hold a more substantive role in the democratic process than voters, the intricacies of fiscal and monetary policy -and undid it with a couple of press conferences.
They built a consensus. The big money was with them, of course, and so was most of the media. Suddenly the common sense view was that the deficit had to be reduced quickly, and anyone who disagreed had the burden of proof thrust upon them. In actual fact, there is no consensus – not among analysts, economists, or politicians. But the coalition government built a narrative, one which ended with the retaliatory attack of the ‘deficit denier’ tag.
Ed Balls, himself a well-trained but inept proponent of the dark arts, tried to turn it back on George Osborne today, saying: “For all George Osborne’s talk of ‘deficit deniers’ — where is the real denial in British politics at the moment? Against all the evidence… he argues the private sector will somehow rush to fill the void left by government and consumer spending.”
Balls won’t succeed. The media, political class and even the voters have made their mind up. It’s hard to overturn a consensus.
The semantic tricks don’t end there. Liam Fox’s foolish and laughable comments against a soon-to-be-released video game this week saw him brand it “un-British”. There was a time when this word was incomprehensible. Not so anymore. It is used fairly regularly nowadays. Damian Green was at it when he ruled out a ban on the Burkha last month. We know where this sort of language goes: the House of un-American Activities Committee or the branding of those who questioned the invasion of Iraq as anti-American. It’s shameful that we in Britain should be following this tradition. Whatever was thrown her way, Margaret Thatcher never accused opponents of the Falklands war of being anti-British.
The branding of perspectives or activities as contrary to the essence of a country is like an act of intellectual deportation. It allows you to rule your opponent anti-patriotic, basically a traitor. It serves to stifle debate, to limit the range of views which can be expressed. It is a fascistic rhetorical tool specifically designed to cement conformity of thought.
There are categories of use of course – Green’s statement is a reference to cultural and legal tradition, where Fox’s is just a stammer of ignorance – but this does not excuse us. These phrases should be avoided at all costs.
Raise these concerns with the political classes and they shrug. “That’s politics,” they say. It isn’t politics at all. It’s the end of politics.
The views expressed in politics.co.uk’s comment pages are not necessarily those of the website or its owners.
