Brexit Credo

Brexit Credo

Should a country be united? Obviously it helps greatly as far as stable government is concerned, and it certainly did formerly, in time of war, although «the people» will be little concerned in any future war except as recipients as whatever is thrown at them. Cannon fodder is no longer required. But there will probably be a wide range of opinions in any country on any subject of national importance. So, for stable government, which is desirable, how are wide divisions to be avoided?

In the past the obvious wide divisions have generally been between the nobles and the rest of the populace. Nobles held the power and the means to stop the populace usurping it. Throughout the 20th century, revolutions and progresssive moves to democracy of various kinds mean that that power has been eroded; yet deep divisions remain. So what is the basis of them? Class, being noble or not, is clearly not it. I would argue that the current basis for these deep divisions is wealth, the much-discussed wealth gap which has been widening in most western countries for decades now, and has always been even wider in economically developing countries.

Wealth is power, in many senses if not all. And if wealth is the new overriding power, how do the wealthy hang on to it and prevent the general populace getting a larger share of it, as they must want to do? They can't do it by right, as the former nobles could, since revolutions and moves towards democracy have got in the way, hurdles the wealthy must circumvent. So how can the wealthy best circumvent these hurdles whilst keeping the general populace, if not overtly on their side (why should they be that?) then effectively so? There has to be an appeal to what the general populace will identify with. Therein we have the requirements: messages the general populace will identify with and the means to deliver these messages.

The most obvious appeal to the general populace will be a greater share of the general wealth, but that runs counter to the wealthy keeping their wealth. So what else might appeal to the general populace? In a generally benign society there will be a a general fund of goodwill; nobody will automatically think of naked self-interest as a motivation; rather people will think of different views of what the general interest might be. So, if naked self-interest of the wealthy is the goal, what could the messages be? Patriotism is a strong possibility, especially if an enemy to patriotism (traitors, saboteurs, terrorists) can be invoked. Religion is another, if a broad appeal or a narrow target can be found. A third is any potential danger to the general populaces' status quo, however meagre (e.g. uncontrolled external influence). And a fourth is the idea of taking control, control that will allow people the possibility of improving their lives.

Those are enough messages so the remaining question is how to promulgate them. Obviously the need is to take control of the media most seen and read by the general populace and through them promulgate the required messages. If those are in the control of the wealthy, who want above all to retain their wealth, then the job is done.

As it has been, I think.