The comment by Garda Commissioner that there were far left elements in the anti-lockdown riots in Dublin yesterday has produced considerable social media debate and raised a number of questions. Who or what are these elements? What does ‘far left’ mean, anyway?
Away from the particulars of the riot, it also provides an insight into an ideological discourse aimed at limiting political options. The association of far left and far right is promoted by those seeking to occupy a contrived centre ground. For instance, Paschal Donohoe articulates the politics of a ‘radical centre’ (a phrase was used by Liam Cosgrave so it’s not new). This is more than just branding.
And it is about more than just isolating a handful of parties and activists – a so-called ‘far left’. It is about constructing a series of associations which can, at its extreme, smear all progressives. Where do the boundaries begin and end: from soft left to mainstream left to hard left to far left? Throw in the term ‘populist’ (which has lost all meaning when it is just used to attack ideas that one doesn’t like) and you have a purposeful strategy.
This blurring has the potential to dismiss all politics with solidarity at its core as being outside the frame of ‘honest, decent’ politics. And it warns parties and activists not to stray too far from an imagined centre. Technical questions are allowed; transformative ones are, well, ‘populist’, ‘idealistic’, even ‘dangerous’ or whatever some desultory thesaurus throws out.
It can become comical when listening to a Fine Gael TD (I forget who) recently describing his party as ‘centrist’, Fianna Fail as ‘centre-left’ and all others further on the scale – all the way to the far left. How blessed must we be not to have a party of the ‘Right’ in our politics.
But it can have devastating effects when, during the last crisis, politicians claimed to take ‘tough’ decisions (i.e. austerity) with all others being cowardly or irresponsible. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get the debate to consider the wrong decisions.
In this fantasy world of a donut-shaped ideological spectrum, to go too far down a transformative path risks linking up with the far-right. Safer to stay cosseted in the centre. Anything outside is darkness and wolves.
How do we confront this? To deny a language is to be trapped in its vocabulary. We must construct a new language, one that articulates policy options as both desirable and feasible (one without the other only pulls us back to the ‘centre’). In other words, we must speak a common sense.
In an oligopolistic market, doesn’t it make sense for the state to retain its majority holding in a major bank, even transform it into a fully public bank? Doesn’t it make sense to build public housing on public lands and rent units out at cost? People shouldn’t lose their wage if they become ill – is that centre-left, far-left? Progressive politics is the new common sense. In this language descriptors such as ‘centre-common sense’ or ‘far-common sense’ make no sense.
Then it becomes a small step to describe Harris’ comments – and all those who propagate a contrived centre - as so much gobbledygook.
* * *
NOTE: The Garda Commissioner has 'clarified' his remarks this morning.
'. . . despite initial indications, following further investigations, there is no corroborated evidence of extreme left factions being involved.'
Initial indications? Corroborated evidence? While the clarification is welcomed, it raises even more questions.
Comments