March 13, 2010
Fortuna’s a Bitch
UPDATE: Chris and Paul have put forward some reasons for why I maybe don’t need to consider myself a hypocrite after all. I think there’s still a lingering question of integrity to consider, however. Paul thinks I’m not a hypocrite, because there’s an important consequential difference between Total Politics and the Guardian: namely, that a boycott of the former has a chance of succeeding, but the latter doesn’t (and furthermore, that the latter publication is probably more useful to anti-BNP activities in the long run, I would add). Yet there’s still a point about me, as a moral and political agent, engaging with groups or publications that I take to be doing something which I think is wrong. And perhaps here my refusal to extend the boycott to The Guardian does have the lingering whiff of hypocrisy about it. Morality, eh? A complicated thing.
Fact is, I’m still not running an attention-seeking interview with Britain’s leading neo-Nazi.
–
Two days ago I call for a boycott of Total Politics magazine if it runs an interview with Nick Griffin.
Today, the fucking Grauniad runs an interview with Nick Griffin. Total Politics editor Iain Dale must be laughing his head off (I would be if I was him). And indeed, he’s left me this comment:
“I look forward to your boycott of The Guardian. Today they have also interviewed Nick Griffin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/13/nick-griffin-margaret-hodge-barking-dagenham
But I wouldn’t expect you to be consistent….”
Let’s be honest, this puts me in an awkward position.
I could try and come up with some differences between the Guardian’s Hodge vs. Griffin piece, and a straight Total Politics interview with Griffin. My vague sense is that the Guardian reporting on a news story – namely, that Hodge’s seat is under serious threat from Griffin, and interviewing both sides – is qualitatively different from an interview exclusively featuring Griffin, based on the points about normalisation and legitimation that I raised the other day.
But I don’t want to push that too hard, because I think it’ll be unsustainable in the end. And trying to defend a distinction will just make me look worse.
So Dale has a point. And I’ll be honest: I’m not going to start boycotting The Guardian. I like writing occasional pieces for their website, and I use them as a news source to which I frequently link. I’ll be completely honest: I’m not going to start boycotting The Guardian because the personal cost to me would be higher than I’m prepared to pay.
So at some level, therefore, I am a hypocrite. And I’ve got egg on my face accordingly. Judge me as you see fit.
But you know what?
At least I’m not interviewing Britain’s leading neo-Nazi, helping to legitimise and normalise his person and his party, ahead of an election at which the BNP could make a major breakthrough by taking an east London seat.
So whilst I may be a hypocrite, Iain, I can think of worse things to be. An attention-seeking friend to fascism, for example.
–
By the way, I’m not trying to play Whataboutery here: I’m accepting that I’m going to end up being a hypocrite on this issue. And hypocrisy is bad – and it’s made no less worse, I think, by other people’s failings. But in this case, Dale’s activities call for rather more scrutiny than my hypocrisy, methinks.
Chris Brooke said,
March 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm
*** Perhaps it is precisely because of its effectiveness and the wide extent to which various organisations employ it in their struggles to win their demands that some people regard the boycott as a matter of principle which must be applied invariably at all times and in all circumstances irrespective of the prevailing conditions. This is a serious mistake, for the boycott is in no way a matter of principle but a tactical weapon whose application should, like all other political weapons of the struggle, be related to the concrete conditions prevailing at the given time. ***
– Nelson Mandela, ‘Our Struggle Needs Many Tactics’, in Liberation, no. 29, February 1958.
Mum, where did I leave my principles? said,
March 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm
You are a complete prick.
The lady doth protest too much, I think. I bet some of your best friends are black and Asian?
Paul Sagar said,
March 13, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Thanks for that Chris.
As for Mum, if anyone can work out what the hell that comment is supposed to mean they get a coconut. My personal guess is that we are dealing with a very confused racist trying to be clever. But I could be wrong.
Mum, where did I leave my principles? said,
March 13, 2010 at 2:51 pm
yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. Being half Jewish, half Irish, having a racist outlook in life would be a tad hypocritical of me, wouldn’t it?
You’re running shit-scared of Griffin and have lost all your principles in the process. You are pathetic, simple as that. At least Dale has the balls to debate with the BNP: you, on the other hand, cower in the corner with your eyes closed, fingers in your ears whilst shouting the same, dated meaningless platitudes.
now, run along like a good boy and enjoy your latte and Guardian up there in Highbury. I’m off to disperse my ”very confused” racism elsewhere.
Paul Sagar said,
March 13, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Oh, I see. You’re a Dale troll. Things become clear.
Because I oppose Dale’s attention seeking interview with the leader of the BNP, I am, er, a racist.
JM said,
March 13, 2010 at 4:17 pm
“Because I oppose Dale’s attention seeking interview with the leader of the BNP, I am, er, a racist.”
It seems to me that you are, in fact, a complete hypocrit rather than a racist. In fact, there’s no evidence at all to suggest that you are a racist.
Is the Grauniad’s interview with the leader of the BNP an “attention seeking” exercise? If so, why not when you claim that Mrs. Dale’s interview is such?
It is interesting that you initially accused “Mum..” of being a “a very confused racist” and then described him as a “a Dale troll”. It would, therefore, seem that you enjoy smearing individuals who disagree with your viewpoint.
Paul Sagar said,
March 13, 2010 at 4:35 pm
“It seems to me that you are, in fact, a complete hypocrit rather than a racist.”
Well that’s what my own original blog would seem to point towards, yes. Though, see Chris’ point above.
“Is the Grauniad’s interview with the leader of the BNP an “attention seeking” exercise? If so, why not when you claim that Mrs. Dale’s interview is such?”
Well i suppose there’s the obvious difference between a straight inteview with Griffin and, erm, reporting on the fact that Griffin might win a seat. These do look, prima facie, like different kinds of article.
“It is interesting that you initially accused “Mum..” of being a “a very confused racist” and then described him as a “a Dale troll”. It would, therefore, seem that you enjoy smearing individuals who disagree with your viewpoint.”
Let me introduce you to the concept of changing your assessment of something as new facts/evidence comes to light. As for “smearing”, I suppose Mum’s calling me a “complete prick” is irrelevant, and my trying to work out what on earth her initial tirde of abuse was about is all that matters.
Looks like it’s going to be a fun saturday! keep em coming…
Paul said,
March 13, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Paul S
This is a useful quote from Chris B. He’s quite right that boycotts are a tactics not a principle.
But of course that is what you said in your post on the matter; you felt it was an appropriate tactic for this particular situation.
I agree. A boycott of TP blog awards might work, to whatever extent, though of course it may not. A boycott of the Guardian will not work. No need therefore to regard yourself as a hypocrite.
Dale’s also posted same stuff at TCF. I have rebutted on basis of his personal (as he got personal at me) ‘consistency’ as regards free speech/freedom of action, and his readiness to invoke the law when he sees working class people in solidarity, and all that kind of thing.
Not important in the scheme of things of course (well in fact the whole thing is not that important in the scheme of things) but it did amuse me that Dale did not link to the main proposers of the boycott – TCF and Bad Conscience. Not very ‘free speech’, I thought, but a common practice of his.
Paul Sagar said,
March 13, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“but it did amuse me that Dale did not link to the main proposers of the boycott – TCF and Bad Conscience. Not very ‘free speech’, I thought, but a common practice of his.”
Well as Tim Ireland has pointed out, Dale doesn’t link to our blogs because he doesn’t want to legitimise us!!! Oh, the irony.
Peter said,
March 13, 2010 at 5:27 pm
As Paul C points out (too many Paul’s!) the charge of hypocrisy is easily avoided. You just build some sort of feasibility/chance of success constraint into whatever principle it is that motivates the boycott.
Of course, that’s not surprising, given that consistency comes pretty cheap.
Paul Sagar said,
March 13, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Peter,
I think you’re probably right; even my lingering worries about integrity can probably be cancelled out if we recall the feasibility constraint.
I guess I’m just being way too Kantian about this. How ironic, given that i’ve taken it upon myself to act as David Hume’s representative upon earth.
martin tupper said,
March 13, 2010 at 7:49 pm
“I guess I’m just being way too Kantian about this.”
Kuntian more like.
Iain Dale, silly triumphalism and what freedom is about « Though Cowards Flinch said,
March 13, 2010 at 9:13 pm
[...] I’ve said over at Bad Conscience (where Iain Dale’s been copying his triumphalist ‘in your face, lefties’ [...]
Paul Sagar said,
March 13, 2010 at 11:17 pm
“Kuntian more like.”
oh, the Internet!
martin tupper said,
March 14, 2010 at 1:20 pm
“oh, the Internet!”
Yeah, the arid, pseudo intellectual bollocks is rather tedious isn’t it?