— Goolie (@Goolie6) 14 May 2016
With the establishment political parties literally dying on the their feet (most conservative party members are over 61) the mainstream parties have been keen to portray a more youthful look, ostensibly in order to appeal to the younger voters.
And why not?
It’s been successful for the SNP. They, together with non-authoritarian Scottish Libertarian Party have been the exceptions to the rule here in attracting younger members. In the SNP’s case this success has been partly due to it’s joining the establishment in pushing the importance of younger voters and activists. In Scotland, the SNP reduced the age of voting to 16, from 18. The UK youngest MP, Mhari Black of the SNP was voted into Westminster 2 years ago. Labour has made similar plays – A teenage Labour councillor Terence Smith recently became mayor of Goole.
But what effect does this worship of youth have on our political system? And what’s really behind this move? Why do these parties promote and value such? Perhaps, some might argue that politicians, entrusted to run the country while barely out of their teens offer a fresh view, devoid of the cynical habits of those who’ve battled a decade or two in a political world. In turn, by putting youngsters in the spotlight, perhaps they show that the hopes and dreams of young people matter. Their views, however naive, surely are an important contribution.
But are they?
I would argue not. But to see why, lets look at the historical context of why the foolish façade of posture has replaced common sense, and why people are surprised when our economy doesn’t grow, and we find our governments bickering over small and meaningless things.
Back in the days before the current hegemony of that Soviet cold war success story of Frankfurt school and its legions of ‘useful idiots’, in those dark ages before George Orwell penned 1984, before political correctness began to rot and undermine our values and reasoning, people were elected not simply because they were women and needed to make up a quota, not because they were gay or disabled or young, but with the simple logic being, quite correctly, that an experienced, respected candidate could make good judgments on issues that would affect a voter. This logic fortunately, still holds, just and no more, back in the real world – sane people still value the experienced lawyer, or a doctor, or plumber, as a safer pair of hands than their apprentice, for example.
So why then, against reason, do our establishment parties promote youngsters way beyond their experience? Is it because they are in some way bringing something better than those more experienced than them or is it just a cynical ploy to make up arbitrary quotas that the party chiefs want to fill to show full ‘diversity’? Sadly it seems to be the latter disguised as the former – precisely what the cult of political correctness looks to achieve – the promotion of people for reasons other than timeless qualities like wisdom and ability.
The cynical logic of ‘ if we have x number of young politicians, female, disabled, transgender, gay etc. then the people will be stupid enough to think we care about those groups. The SNP’s young new recruit is young, female and gay – this is much more important to the left than any kind of common sense or experience of life. This sociopathic thinking, when the priority is to window- dress our elected representatives to patronize the voters, illustrates just how little the political elite think of us. Imagine your favourite football team began ‘reflecting the diversity of its fans’ by hiring players based on their age group and gender rather than skill?
The trend of teenage politicians is only the beginning. We can either brace ourselves for further insanity, or fight it with the increasingly criminal enemy of political correctness- logic and reason.
Reddit this article ↓