When they say “Divisive”…

One of the words that has been bandied around a lot lately has been “divisive”.

We have all heard it, usually on the BBC from unreconciled Remain votes or from grumpy Hilary Clinton supporters. We are supposed to believe that there was something uniquely “divisive” about the decision to leave the European Union. Or, in the American context, something unbelievably “divisive” about the decision to put Donald Trump into the White House.

Note that the cry went up from the losers in both these nationwide votes long before anything had actually happened. Brexit was “divisive” before Article 50 has been triggered, let alone Britain actually leaving the EU. Similarly, Trump’s victory was “divisive” before he even got to the White House, never mind actually did anything with his new found power.

So, I’ve been thinking about these outcries from the defeated. Is Brexit really divisive? No, I don’t think that it is. So why all the talk about Britain becoming more divided?

I think that there are two things going on here.

First, it might be that some of the losers are seeking to undermine the Brexit victory (and probably the Trump victory too). By painting the decision as utterly disastrous even before it has taken effect, those who have not accepted the decision hope that they can overturn it at some point in the future.

But there is something else. Look at the people who are talking about Brexit being divisive. These are almost without exception the gilded élite. Those who went to good schools, effortlessly slipped into well paid jobs and now live in nice houses in nice neighbourhoods with nice social circles. They tend support a multi-cultural society, support decarbonisation to fight climate change and back the whole host of soft-left doctrines.

By and large these people have had their way in politics and in society all their lives. They like multi-culturalism and large scale immigration and bask in the advantages it brings, without having to put up with their children being elbowed out of the local school due to high demand for places. They can smugly impose decarbonisation policies secure in the knowledge that they can afford the higher fuel bills that they bring.

And now, just for once, they have not got their way. The great unwashed have risen up and rejected the European Union – another of the unquestioned shibboleths of the soft-left.

How awful. How shocking. How “divisive”.

Our friends from the gilded élite have, probably for the first time in their lives, realised that not everyone agrees with them. For the first time in their lives they have not got their way on one of the big issues in life.

I pray fervently that it will not be the last time.

 

Print Friendly
Rupert Matthews

Rupert Matthews

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer and historian. During the recent EU Referendum campaign he served as Campaign Manager for Better Off Out and spoke at meetings from Penzance to Aberdeen, Belfast to Dover. Rupert has written over 100 books on history, cryptozoology and related subjects. He has served as a councillor for 8 years and has stood for both the Westminster and European Parliaments. You can follow Rupert on Twitter at @HistoryRupert or on Facebook as rupert.matthews1.

More Posts - Website

3 comments

  1. Phil JonesReply

    Well said, Rupert. I particularly liked your paragraph:

    “By and large these people have had their way in politics and in society all their lives. They like multi-culturalism and large scale immigration and bask in the advantages it brings, without having to put up with their children being elbowed out of the local school due to high demand for places. They can smugly impose decarbonisation policies secure in the knowledge that they can afford the higher fuel bills that they bring.”

    A definition for the elite who think they know “what’s best for the rest”! Mostly Remainers who like the status quo!

  2. Derek ReynoldsReply

    The status quo in this case, and by that I refer to National and Global events, will always be controlled by the elites. Often in such ‘high places’ that the majority of voters will never know who they are or how they control that any reference to same will be met with disbelief and rejection – “conspiracy theorist” will be one defence against opinions thus stated. But the elites have one factor on their side – they are few, they meet and plan – regularly. Those controlled are many, and rely only on mass media outlets in the main. That allows the elites to further control their minds and actions as they own or control the main stream media. The ‘many’ seldom get together and organise – too many spread too far.

    But as grains of sand, can be erode rocks and tumble cliffs, the ‘many’ need combined movement – the opposite of division and hence the calls of being divisive from the powers that be. They see their weakness, and will counter it with force if need be.

  3. Gordon WebsterReply

    I am just about halfway through my second reading of “The Law,” by Frederic Bastiat. A firm opponent on Rousseau and his ilk, he explains the modern Politician very very well. ‘They in their arrogance and conceit, believe that the people are too stupid to think for themselves, so legislators (Politicians) and fashion them like clay must mould them and shape them into whatever the whim and fancy the legislators so decide’.
    The problem arises when that conceit and arrogance becomes so insensitive to the suffering of the masses, that the people turn against them. That is what is happening now. Bastiat also states that “protectionism, Socialism and Communism, are all the same plant, at different stages of its development. Having an unelected “Philanthropic Despotism,” may suit a French Psyche brought up on men like Rousseau, but it does not suite the Anglo Saxon mind, as Bernard Connolly, among others, has pointed out.
    The problem our Politicians, Legislators are facing is not Division, but a rebellion of the Free Thinking Anglo Saxon Mind, brought up on Magna Carta, Habeus Corpus, The Bill of Rights, and men like Smith, Mill and Adam. They just don’t like us disagreeing with them, so call it Division and Populism.

Leave a comment