The following example, presented by Jimmy Dore in his show, is another sign that the classic narratives and methods of the establishment to maintain the pro-plutocracy neoliberal agenda, are fading rapidly. All it takes, is a good speaker with simple, sensible speech, to repel the absurdity behind the 'logic' of the corporate agents in the media.
In this interview, Sarah Champion, Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities for the Labour Party in the UK, actually exposes this absurdity, by just making some sense.
Champion starts with a very sensible sentence which any political party should take for granted:
What we are trying to do, here today, is have a campaign that is based on facts, that is genuinely looking at how we can benefit everybody in this country.
The response from the media pundit is the most typical for those who adopt the classic (and obsolete now), neoliberal narrative, resembling the old, well-known Thatcherism. Therefore, he tries to interpret a very straight and clear answer according to this neoliberal dogma:
But basically what you're saying is that we are going to spend money on nice things and we're going to do it by squeezing people who won't feel the pain ...
Well, no pretexts are kept here. This is the personification of a system that works for the elites who want to pay less and less taxes for the benefit of the rest of the society, even when they exploit the state to make more money and even when they see their profits grow enormously, in many cases without moving a finger. (Notice how Jimmy Dore hilariously comments on the obvious absurdity of this statement at 10:12.)
So, this was very easily repealed by Champion, again through simple logic and real rationality, contrary to the distorted rationality of the neoliberal establishment that has become mainstream over the decades.:
If nice things are things like education, about taking care of when you're poorly, then, yes, we think those sorts of things are very important, ... and, yes, that means that some people and particularly businesses that are making a big profit, and they are not reinvesting it back to our country, yes, we will be looking at them paying their fair share.
Then, again, the response of the representative of the establishment comes from the 'manual' of the classic neoliberal narratives, based on the deliberately simplified (and therefore, false) equation that cutting taxes for big corporations equals more jobs:
Where is your evidence that they are not reinvesting it back in the economy? We do, after all, have record levels of employment.
Champion beats him again by simply telling the truth:
What I'm looking at, our businesses that are taking the money offshore, that are not looking at paying their employees properly ... what we want to see is that wealth is shared out, because really, when you look at the business, they are using the infrastructure, they are benefiting from the education system we've got. So, paying your fair share back in again, that seems very sensible to me.
Then, when the pundit sees that he is about to suffer a heavy defeat by an intelligent speaker, it's time to disorientate the discussion towards the 'identity politics' (as also noticed by Jimmy Dore). Pay attention to a common trick used by the establishment mouthpieces here, as the pundit deliberately starts his next question with additional emphasis, highlighting the fact that Sarah Champion is Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, in order to harm her credibility and, therefore, the credibility of the Labour Party, against all women, therefore, the half electorate:
You are Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities. Why do you think it is that the Conservatives have now had two women Prime Ministers and Labour haven't had any?
Champion laughs against this effort of the pundit to disorientate the discussion away from the substance of the politics and gives, again, the right, sensible answer:
Why do you think it is that in the budget that we've just had, 86% of the cuts and changes the Treasury made, fell on women's shoulders, how is that about equality? They are the sort of big questions that we're looking at, not looking at one individual. We're looking at how is it that certain groups in our society are facing the biggest cuts? Why is it that low mothers are repeatedly not reaching their full potential? ...
Notice that, for the first time, the pundit interrupts Champion (probably because they are shouting in his microphone to smear her), in a last, desperate effort to disorientate discussion away from the substance of the politics:
You're telling us Jeremy Corbyn would be a better Prime Minister than Theresa May, so, you are looking at individuals, aren't you?
But he gets again the appropriate answer:
Yes, what's that got to do with her being a woman, or not?
It is worth to remember that 'identity politics' were used extensively by the establishment, especially during the primaries of the Democratic party in the US in favor of Hillary Clinton and against the biggest threat for the establishment, Bernie Sanders. As pointed in previous article:
The establishment becomes highly predictable, which is a sign of saturation. It is remarkable how the establishment mechanisms use similar narratives everywhere to expel undesirable politicians and policies.
Just one paragraph from the article My Hail Bernie Pass by Fred Baumgarten, describes almost the whole situation: “Now that I’m proclaiming my support for Sanders, I expect the vitriol to be no less intense, though maybe from some other quarters with different arguments. Secretly my friends will suspect that maybe I’m a misogynist, too, and don’t want a female president. I’ll be accused of being 'impractical' and 'hopelessly idealistic,' and of 'wasting' my vote. And I’ll still be held personally responsible for getting Trump elected!”
One of the most successful psychological techniques used by the mechanisms of the establishment, is the bombardment of mind with isolated words, or, phrases, ending up to become powerful symbols. These symbols are frequently so powerful that manage to prevail over the ability of mind to build a rational hierarchy. Which, many times, equals to heavy misjudgment.
For example, the fact that the United States will have the opportunity to be governed "for the first time in their history by a female president", often prevails over what this president truly represents, especially among the female voters. The election of Hillary will give a superficial satisfaction to many Americans, that the United States will become an even more progressive society (after Obama term), while in reality, Hillary will certainly follow the "politics as usual", totally aligned with the neocon agenda.
Psychological methods also use "logical leaps" to force the individual to bypass a certain rational hierarchy. The example in Baumgarten's paragraph above is characteristic: even his friends will suspect that he is a misogynist, just by saying that he will support Sanders instead of Clinton. The political arguments, which is the main issue in such a process, since they determine the policies that will have direct effect to millions of Americans, are bypassed through this absurdly simplified "logical leap": You vote for Sanders = You are probably a misogynist.
So, in our current example, the establishment pundit follows a similar method. He tries to present the Labour Party as being not friendly to women's rights through the absurdly simplified observation that it has a male leader against the Concervatives who have a female one. Yet, his mission fails miserably because he gets the right answer from Champion, proving that the policies and the level of progressiveness of each party have nothing to do with their leader being male or female.