The psychological impact of Trumps' victory

An awful lot has already been said about the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. One thing that really struck me was a comment by the US political commentator Van Jones.

In his reaction to Donald Trump's unfolding election victory he said "It's hard to be a parent tonight for a lot of us. You tell your kids 'don't be a bully'. You tell your kids 'don't be a bigot'. You tell your kids 'do your homework and be prepared' ... Then you have this outcome. You have people putting their children to bed tonight who are afraid of breakfast in the morning. They're afraid of 'how do I explain this to my children'."

The point he raises is an extremely good one. How is it possible to explain to children what has happened? It's not just the parents of American children who have been left asking this question either. Pretty much any child with access to a television or the Internet will have had countless hours of exposure to contemporary liberal American values and they'll have also have seen clips of Donald Trump behaving atrociously (like this one my kids showed me).

Practically every American kids' TV series is rammed full of moral messages promoting tolerant socially liberal values. The rude, bigoted, dishonest and lazy characters always get their comeuppance, and there's almost always rewards in store for characters who choose honesty, kindness or hard work. These are undeniably the cultural values American TV has been instilling in generation after generation of children all over the world.

The election of Donald Trump as President is a massive betrayal of these heavily-promoted liberal American cultural values. American kids have been indoctrinated into believing that the virtues Trump was so sorely lacking will be rewarded, and that bigotry, laziness and dishonesty are impediments to success. Yet despite having these cultural values drilled into them on a daily basis, American kids have just witnessed the adults around them prove American cultural values to be a load of rubbish by rewarding Donald Trump with the highest office in the land.

This betrayal is much worse than kids finding out that Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are a pack of lies. Finding out that the presents and cash actually came from the adults in their lives is a disillusionment, but at least the kids know that the lies came from a parental desire to make them happy, and that their parents love them. There's no underlying positivity to finding out that the cultural values you've been instilled with for your whole life are a sham.

The brazen negation of so many almost ubiquitous cultural values that was necessary in order for Trump to succeed is going to have a profound psychological impact on millions of children in the United States and further afield too.

One obvious implication is that of millions of kids all over the world have been shown that bigoted and narcissistic loud mouths can and do get what they want. How many of these kids are going to see Trump's victory as a vindication of their own rotten behaviour? How many kids are actually going to be inspired to begin acting like bigoted bullying little loud-mouths in the hope that they too will achieve great things like Donald Trump?

The fact that Trump's victory is teaching kids that dishonesty, bigotry, bullying, narcissism and arrogance are not vices, but recipes for success is not even the worst of it.

The worst of it is that millions of kids have had the adults around them prove themselves utter hypocrites who constantly promote one set of cultural values, but when it comes to something as important as the Presidential election they went and endorsed a candidate who negates pretty much every socially liberal value there is.

Any parent will tell you that it's possible to get away with being a lot of things. Grumpiness, forgetfulness, clumsiness, bossiness, busyness ... but one of the most vital things you should really try to avoid doing in front of your kids is being a total hypocrite, because when kids see through your hypocrisy they inevitably lose faith in you, and that makes things incredibly difficult for everyone (yourself and your kids).

Hopefully only a small minority of kids will end up seeing Trump's victory as an inspiration to behave like dishonest and narcissistic little bigots, but any teacher will tell you that it only takes a small minority of disruptive kids to wreck an otherwise productive classroom.

The problem obviously gets a whole lot worse if a significant proportion of the other non-disruptive kids are suffering disillusion at the fact they're surrounded by a bunch of brazenly hypocritical adults who always seem to expect kids to constantly behave in a decent and respectful manner, but just rewarded Donald Trump with the highest office in the land for doing precisely the opposite.

This sense of disillusionment at the hypocrisy and double standards is bound to have long-lasting psychological impact on children. Every time an adult tells them to behave decently and respectfully, it is natural for them to want to ask "why should I?", and every time they suffer criticism for not being prepared and trying to bluster and bullshit their way through life, they're obviously going to see the utter hypocrisy of it if their critic is a Trump voter.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.

OR

Mrs Thatcher's funeral and right-wing political correctness

It seems there has been some kind of orchestrated Facebook campaign going on by Margaret Thatcher apologists to silence dissent about their "beloved leader".

For at least a week, right-wing people have been crawling out of the woodwork to condemn as "disrespectful" anyone daring to criticise Margaret Thatcher, her policies, her intransigence, her callous disregard for the harsh consequences of her actions or the social and economic legacies that resulted from her rule, no matter how calmly or non-gloatingly these criticisms have been expressed.

There are a few issues to note about this new found "mustn't criticise the dead" attitude from the right-wing.

Just one month before the death of Margaret Thatcher, the Venezuelan democratic left-wing populist leader Hugo Chávez died after a lengthy battle with cancer and my Facebook page was positively crawling with right-wing people desperate to gloat, hurl insults, make up lies and disparage his personality and achievements. Just one month later, the right-wing suddenly want us "lefties" to behave in such a totally decorous manner towards their "beloved leader" that even calmly stated and analytic criticisms (such as this and this) are shouted down as "disgusting" and "disrespectful"!

Another thing to note is that by disparaging anything but the most eulogistic hagiographies of Thatcher as "disrespectful", it is absolutely clear that the right-wing want to stifle legitimate criticism, not because it's disrespectful, but because they simply don't want to hear the inconvenient truth that Thatcher was a divisive woman that was hated by millions.

Another point about this sudden outbreak of "right-wing political correctness" is that it must be causing some awful cognitive dissonance amongst Daily Mail readers. One day they are working themselves up into a familiar rage about leftie-liberals ruining the country with "political correctness gone mad" and the next day they are being told in no uncertain terms that it is politically incorrect to criticise Thatcher, and that the "leftie-liberals" are degenerate scum because they wont comply with these brand new norms and conventions about what can and can't be said about the dead.

Several other media commentators have explored right-wing political correctness and the stifling of debate, so I was going to leave the subject alone, but then several iterations of a clearly copy n' pasted message were posted onto various threads on my Facebook page on the day of Margaret Thatcher's funeral. These duplicate comments demonstrated that not only do they want to shut down criticism that they actually have a right to find distasteful (Ding-Dong the Bitch is dead, Thatcher public urinal/grave memes, and the like) but that they are willing to smear anything that is in the slightest bit critical with accusations that it is "disgusting", "appalling" and "indecent", and that there is some orchastrated  kind of copy n' paste campaign going on.

Here's the copy n' paste comment that appeared several times on my page:

"I find it both sad and an embarrassing as a Nation that somebody who worked there [sic] whole working life for the good of the Country and others is being treated this way by people who never knew her. She did not fiddle her expenses, she did not let us get ruled by Europe, she stood up to terrorists, anarchists , Argentines, communists and didn't let Unions dictate to government. Whichever bit of her politics you may or may not agree with is your choice. However celebrating the death of an old lady creating music and movies etc and sharing them shows a disgusting lack of common decency and an sets an appalling example to your children which makes you a sad reflection of society. Please let these Grandchildren bury their Grandmother in peace. If you can't keep you celebrations down for this one day please unfriend me."

The fact that this reasonably lengthy comment appeared literally within seconds of me posting this image (which is clearly neither celebratory nor musical) indicated that the message had obviously been pre-prepared. Then a short while later another iteration of the same comment appeared, here's my response to the second one:

Not this copy and paste rubbish again:

I find it extremely "sad and embarrassing" that you've copy and pasted this Thatcher apologist rant onto my page. You've done it again, and again you've done it without any consideration of the actual content I've shared on here, or the articles I've written on my blog. You've copy n' pasted this "reply" without attempting to rebut, or even to address any of the actual points I've raised.

Especially sad is your absurd accusation that considered and carefully worded criticism of Thatcher's social and economic policies (as I've striven to offer) represents some kind of "celebration" of her death, it clearly doesn't.

You Tory apologists are obviously trying to stifle legitimate comment and debate with these kinds of spurious accusation that perfectly legitimate comment and analysis is somehow "disgusting" and "indecent".

Shame on you for attempting to silence legitimate debate (or even comments by others that you or I may find personally distasteful - no-one has, or even should have, a right to be not offended). Your efforts at using this funeral as an excuse to enforce some kind of warped right-wing political correctness demonstrate your "disgusting lack of common decency" and are a "sad reflection on society".

Long live freedom of speech.
Long live freedom of speech.
Long live freedom of speech.

Tom (AAV)

Also - I'm not your Facebook friend, I'm the administrator of my own Facebook page, so your request that I "unfriend" you is utterly misplaced. Perhaps you should stop following my page?

Also - I haven't actually created (or even shared) any music or movies in relation to Thatcher's death, so your accusation is unfounded. (your use of the Americanism "movies" is noted, Mrs Thatcher would probably have disapproved of that). 

Also - It is laughable that you would try to shout down legitimate debate like this and then paint communists as "the enemy", given that it is generally societies suffering under pseudo-communist personality cults where the slightest criticism of the "beloved leader" is absolutely forbidden. 

Also - Thatcher did let us get ruled by Europe; the Single European Act was signed by Thatcher in 1985 (without a referendum).

Also - She clearly escalated the troubles in Northern Ireland (and IRA activities in England) with her intransigent stance. At least John Major and Tony Blair (although I'm no big fan of either) had the sense to take steps towards a peaceful negotiated settlement. Anyone that maintains that Northern Ireland has not become a much better place since Thatcher's political demise is quite clearly insane.

Also - The claim that Thatcher worked her whole life for "the good of the country" demonstrates a shocking willingness for you to divorce yourself from reality. She worked for the good of herself, for the wealthy and powerful, for corporate interests and for the Tory party. Her decision to leave swathes of (Labour voting areas of the) country in post-industrial ruins, from which many areas have yet to recover, is a clear demonstration that she didn't care about the good of the nation as a whole, just about the good of the bits of the nation she personally approved of.

Also - Don't you dare bring my children into the debate. They'll probably find plenty of reasons to be ashamed of me as they get older, none of which will be the fact that I tried to articulate Margaret Thatcher's dreadful social and economic legacies in reasonably calm, analytic and non-gloating language on my blog and on my Facebook page.

More articles from
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE
 
Margaret Thatcher is dead
                      
What is ... neoliberalism?
                       
  The Great Neoliberal Lie
                       
The economic case against tax-dodging
                       
  The "unpatriotic left" fallacy
                       
Daily Mail: Fascism, Racism and Homophobia
                       
  The warped Tory redefinition of rights
                       
  The death of Hugo Chávez
                      
Why I blame the left for the economic crisis
  

Another Angry Voice is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for Another Angry Voice is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

The White Poppy

The poem that inspired the red poppy symbol

In early November the red poppy of remembrance becomes an almost ubiquitous sight on British lapels. These paper and plastic symbols are sold by the Royal British Legion and the Haig Fund. It is estimated that the Poppy appeal sells around 35 million red poppy symbols a year and raises £75 million for people who have carried out armed service and for their dependants.

In Britain, all politicians, all TV presenters and all professional sports players are expected to wear the poppy or endure a tide of criticism from bitter reactionaries. In 2009 the Guardian journalist Marina Hyde pointed out that an impressive 15 of the 20 Premier League football clubs had had the red poppy symbol especially emblazoned on their shirts during Remembrance Week, yet the Daily Mail worked themselves up into a frothing fit of rage over the five that hadn't.

The Channel 4 news presenter John Snow described this tide of criticism aimed at any remotely public figure or organisation that doesn't display the red poppy symbol during the week preceding Remembrance Sunday as "poppy fascism". A striking term, given that so many of the fallen that we are supposed to be remembering died fighting the fascists of Europe during World War Two to secure the right for British people to express themselves freely.

The idea that the absence of a plastic and paper poppy on your lapel represents some kind of insult to the country's war dead is actually a disgusting cheapening of the whole occasion. The idea of Remembrance Sunday is to remember the war dead and to consider the tragic consequences of war, not to bicker over symbolism and deride those that decline overt displays of symbolism as disrespectful or unpatriotic. In fact, those that would cheapen the occasion by whining and complaining that another person isn't wearing a poppy are showing infinitely more disrespect to the idea of remembrance than those that they criticise.

This WWI war bonds poster is an example of the 
 red poppy symbol being used as war propaganda .

One of the ironic things about the right-wing reactionary types that tends to engage in 'poppy fascism' is that they don't even seem to realise that what they are doing, is in effect, is enforcing their own brand of political correctness. They are essentially saying that it is politically incorrect to not wear a poppy, however when it comes to other forms of political correctness (lets say gay rights or criticism of overtly racist language) these very same people are more than likely to start chuntering on about how "political correctness has gone mad".

An even more provocative gesture than the not-wearing-of-a-poppy, is the wearing of a white poppy. The white poppy is a pacifist symbol to remind us that not only military personnel suffer and die in conflicts. The colour white was chosen both because white is the traditional colour of peace and because during the First World War, conscientious objectors were presented with white feathers of 'cowardice' by women. Many conscientious objectors such as Quakers and members of the other Peace Churches were imprisoned and abused at Richmond castle in North Yorkshire during the First World War. These included 'the Richmond 16' who were taken to France from the castle, charged under Field Regulations and then sentenced to death for their refusal to fight. The death sentences were later commuted to ten years hard labour. The act of conscientiously refusing to fight even under the threat of death, must be considered an outstanding act of bravery. The white poppy appeal is tiny in comparison to the red poppy appeal, only selling around 50,000 a year (0.14% of poppies sold during remembrance week).

The organisers of the Red Poppy Appeal, the Royal British Legion have stated that "it is a matter of choice, the Legion doesn't have a problem whether you wear a red one or a white one, both or none at all". However the right-wing reactionary types ignore this message of respectful remembrance and freedom of choice. Margaret Thatcher was a vociferous opponent of the white poppy symbol, a fact that massively popularised the white poppy appeal in the 1980s. The right-wing tabloid press sided with Thatcher and ran witch-hunt articles against the organisers of the white poppy appeal, many of whom were elderly pacifist ladies. Politicising Remembrance Sunday by turning it into a demonisation campaign against elderly pacifists was not just distasteful, it was an affront to the whole idea of remembrance. The same can be said of the modern day reactionary 'poppy fascist' brigade.

In 2006 the white poppy did find an unexpected supporter, a man called Jonathan Bartley, the head of the religious think-tank, Ekklesia, and former advisor to John Major (Margaret Thatcher's successor as Tory Prime Minister) who suggested that it may actually be more Christian to wear the pacifist white poppy rather than the red one, an understandable stance given Christ's message of peace and love. Bartley also claimed that the red poppy had become a symbol of political correctness with public figures forced to wear one as an "article of faith". This is the idea that the red poppy has become more of a badge of political correctness and conformity, rather than a symbol of remembrance. Many people find themselves wearing the poppy simply because it is expected of them, not because they have any intention of remembrance. The enforced ubiquitousness of the red poppy has diminished it's meaning.

In November 2012 The UK Prime Minister David Cameron took the wearing of the red poppy whilst completely disregarding it's meaning to a whole new level. He undertook a tour of the middle east with a group of leading British arms manufacturers, with the express purpose of selling weaponry to despotic regimes, all the time with a red poppy of remembrance on his lapel. Even worse than that, he even proposed that Britain attempt to bypass the EU arms embargo on Syria in order that British firms could escalate the bloody civil war by flooding the country with weapons, again with the red poppy on his chest.

David Cameron wearing the red poppy symbol whilst on a mission
to hawk military hardware to middle eastern despots.

To wear the red poppy whilst brazenly hawking weapons to despots and speaking of busting arms embargoes to provide British weapons to one side of a bloody civil war, surely diminishes the red poppy symbol to utter meaninglessness. The same kind of meaninglessness achieved by the Nobel committee when they awarded  the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize to the warmonger and chief architect of the Operation Menu war crimes in Cambodia and Laos, Henry Kissinger.

Although I am a pacifist, I am very sympathetic to the suffering of military personnel, after all several of my paternal relatives fought and died in the Second World War. My maternal grandfather on the other hand was a Quaker conscientious objector, who didn't fight in the war, but did serve in the merchant navy during the conflict. A war contribution every bit as dangerous and deadly as active service. I'm sympathetic towards both poppy appeals, although I have a preference for the white poppy because it doesn't have the baggage of having been used as overt war propaganda like the red one has.

Look at the image above, the one of Cameron and the middle eastern despots he is trying to sell British weapons too. The presence of the poppy symbol is a double insult to the concept of remembrance. Not only is Cameron there to sell weapons, whilst wearing a symbol of remembrance, the people he is attempting to sell them to are a bunch of despotic dictators. All of those brave men that fought and died during the Second World War that Cameron is supposedly 'remembering' (my relatives included), did so on the pretext of fighting against dictatorship and oppression for the causes of freedom and democracy. The people that red poppy wearing Cameron is pictured with are dictators and opprossors who would use their British weapons to continue their fight against the very concepts of freedom and democracy.

I was already inclined to wear the white poppy in remembrance of the many thousands of merchant seamen that were killed during the course of the Second World War. However now I'm certain of one thing, now that David Cameron has utterly besmirched the red poppy symbol by wearing it whilst demanding that British arms companies should be allowed to profit by providing weapons to Islamist militants in Syria (the same militias that just the week before were committing grotesque war crimes in Saraqeb), I won't be wearing a red poppy, I'll buy one of the 0.14% of poppies that are white, if I can find one.