But isn't it the right wing framing of this issue itself that's at issue? The proposal isn't to just remove Churchill - who in any case AFAIK has only been on the most recent series of notes - out of spite, but to move from having iconic people on notes to iconic wildlife. This is being done partly because wildlife was the most popular option amongst people surveyedl. And indeed, a love of nature and the British countryside is something conservatives often lay claim to. So 'liberals' arent really feigning ignorance to point out the way this is being weaponised through misrepresented information...
Yet many liberals seemed incapable of understanding the symbolic importance of Churchill to conservatives. As I say in the piece, that’s quite a basic thing to misunderstand.
Maybe - or maybe it's frustration at a small number of people getting themselves in a froth over a half truth. The images on the bank notes change with every series anyway and have done so for decades, so I do think getting upset about it *is* quite silly and I don't think its a liberal pretention to say so. Or must we keep Churchill on the five quid note forever to avoid upsetting certain people's sensibilities?
Symbols are kind of silly but my point is that some liberals selectively understand the sensitivities around them. Think about the example in the article (the Pride zebra crossing); can you imagine how upset liberals would get?
Well…maybe (Im gay and a liberal and think pride crossings are a bit silly). But also there's been a massive reduction in rainbow-capitalism style corporate pride marketing over the last year or do, including corps withdrawing sponsorship deals which have led to several smaller city Pride parades going bankrupt and it's been met with barely a whimper from liberals, so maybe not…
Much of this 'misunderstanding' is directly related to the widening crevasse between liberal thought and the conventional cares of the average voter. Liberals can''t understand why people aren't more proactive about concerns like climate change or Palestine, but that's because there aren't Mexican laborers willing to do a Liberal's job for $7/hr, or a local councillor spending their tax dollars on commemorative plaques for DEI non-entities (or on removing statues of genuine local or national heroes - removing a statue of Churchill is the same as pulling down a statue of Washington or Lincoln).
My great fear is that the Dems will regain power without ever learning that lesson. That they will regain power and then immediately alienate everyone who switched away from Trump by going straight back to zero-sum politics. I suggest that Jonathan Pie's explanation of why Trump won in 2016 is still apposite - if you treat people with opposing viewpoints like enemies, how do you expect them to ever vote for you?
But isn't it the right wing framing of this issue itself that's at issue? The proposal isn't to just remove Churchill - who in any case AFAIK has only been on the most recent series of notes - out of spite, but to move from having iconic people on notes to iconic wildlife. This is being done partly because wildlife was the most popular option amongst people surveyedl. And indeed, a love of nature and the British countryside is something conservatives often lay claim to. So 'liberals' arent really feigning ignorance to point out the way this is being weaponised through misrepresented information...
Yet many liberals seemed incapable of understanding the symbolic importance of Churchill to conservatives. As I say in the piece, that’s quite a basic thing to misunderstand.
Not even just to conservatives. Being on the opposite side to the Nazis does wonders for a man's reputation.
Maybe - or maybe it's frustration at a small number of people getting themselves in a froth over a half truth. The images on the bank notes change with every series anyway and have done so for decades, so I do think getting upset about it *is* quite silly and I don't think its a liberal pretention to say so. Or must we keep Churchill on the five quid note forever to avoid upsetting certain people's sensibilities?
Symbols are kind of silly but my point is that some liberals selectively understand the sensitivities around them. Think about the example in the article (the Pride zebra crossing); can you imagine how upset liberals would get?
Well…maybe (Im gay and a liberal and think pride crossings are a bit silly). But also there's been a massive reduction in rainbow-capitalism style corporate pride marketing over the last year or do, including corps withdrawing sponsorship deals which have led to several smaller city Pride parades going bankrupt and it's been met with barely a whimper from liberals, so maybe not…
Much of this 'misunderstanding' is directly related to the widening crevasse between liberal thought and the conventional cares of the average voter. Liberals can''t understand why people aren't more proactive about concerns like climate change or Palestine, but that's because there aren't Mexican laborers willing to do a Liberal's job for $7/hr, or a local councillor spending their tax dollars on commemorative plaques for DEI non-entities (or on removing statues of genuine local or national heroes - removing a statue of Churchill is the same as pulling down a statue of Washington or Lincoln).
My great fear is that the Dems will regain power without ever learning that lesson. That they will regain power and then immediately alienate everyone who switched away from Trump by going straight back to zero-sum politics. I suggest that Jonathan Pie's explanation of why Trump won in 2016 is still apposite - if you treat people with opposing viewpoints like enemies, how do you expect them to ever vote for you?