|
Well it's not such a black and white issue as most would like it to be. One thing is for sure - shouting "-isms" and insulting each other day and night won't ever make it better in any way.
I don't stand for the current status quo at all since I figure that the current mainstream politics is so far away from the original dictionary definition of politics that even discussing it gets absurd. From what I understand, the original purpose of politics should be serving its citizens, it should benefit the public - be it workers, business owners, families etc. That's why a politician is called a public servant.
Let's say the basic human needs are prosperity aka food on the table, security and being respected.
Now if the political establishment can't assure this, and what's worse not even address this and pretend that everything is great. If it even starts to silence the opposition voice and arrogantly label everyone who disagrees with the status quo as "uneducated" "extremist" or whatever else "-ist" and lynch them using political correctness then they may have a problem. Then you simply reach the point where these three basic needs are not met and not addressed with so many people already, that you can't keep the status quo anymore.
Much better question is - is it a regular state of things, once a nationalist movement that, 20 years ago would hardly make it past the 10 pct. vote, often sounds more like a common sense politics than the current mainstream politics?
Is it a regular state of things once these are pretty much the only parties in opposition that are addressing these basic human needs?
Movements that may always carry a hidden or simply dilletant agenda in their programs that my turn out to be highly problematic?
Definitely not - but that's not the problem of these nationalist movements, that's the problem of the establishment politics that forgot it should also care about its citizens and their basic needs:
Not to push backdoor deals with big corp and big banks that result in losing tax revenue and employment - does this benefit the public? NO (prosperity)
Not to flood the countries with unregulated migration from some of the most problematic places in the world - does this benefit the public? NO (security)
And last and not least - not to divide and label its own opposing citizens as "extremists" the opposition as "populist" and trying to silence them all using the cult of political correctness - does this benefit the public? NO (respect)
Idiots like David Cameron with zero life experience and no compassion with citizens felt so all mighty that they may have started a domino effect with disastrous consequences. They say that the first step in order to fix a problem is to admit that there is one in the first place. But that's not happening, and as long as it won't happen this backlash will continue.
|