In this politically correct world in which we live today, society enthusiastically welcomes pro socialist political canvassing across new factions as inspiring humanitarian welfare in defence of racial minorities and other historically castigated groups, such as, women. Outspoken policies which would have been interpreted as bohemian anarchy and demagogic manifestations just a few decades ago, now find themselves actively supported by rising populism across all demographic parts of the developed world forcing factions across two thirds of the political spectrum to actively and wholly manifest this fashionable rhetoric in their scrappy bids to lock on to as large a part of the electorate as possible, and thereby stake their claims for popularity from new segments of the voting population. This political inspiration is welcomed as politically and socially correct, and indeed unequivocally necessary to level the playing field amid class, race and gender differences. In truth, these new messages really do actually seek to deliver equitable and humanitarian ideologies as society moves on to eradicate inequality within its spheres.
The practicality, however, has raised many concerns from growing diverse social objectors, as many examples of this social justice have tended to demonstrate how preferences can often sway in favour of the historically castigated, just for the sake of sending the correct signals into society. This has generated another surging populism, which essentially perceives these signals as punishing traditional parts of society, not for what they have done but rather for what they may have represented in the past.
When we speak about progressive social awareness, we tend to subscribe to this ideology as the next stage in our human development. This is a reasonable assumption and anybody who would choose to oppose it would surely need to have their head examined. While it is true to note that nature itself has elected different gender roleplay among animals, surely we can unanimously agree that we have made significant progress towards the next stage of natural selection, as the intelligent human beings that we profess to be, to be based purely on merit and not sex, creed or colour.
So what is the issue?
Well, there are two kinds populism. The first, those who have fought against the established patriarchy and rampant racism which has unfortunately contaminated our species, some would argue since the very beginning. The rhetoric is welcomed with open arms and placed to the forefront of modern day humanitarian issues, as they rightfully seek to stamp out these unjust differences. Every opportunity is seized upon and examples are made of all of these inequalities, with adamant fervour.
However, within these inequalities, there are inequalities. Many examples of partiality, for the sake of fulfilling social criteria and agendas, are claimed as plentiful. Even, as rampant.
The difference is, so it is claimed, that it is neither politically nor socially acceptable to talk about these examples, in a structural plight to maintain our current social mission on track, and thereby eliminate, once and for all, the age old offensive assumptions towards the underhanded.
And this, essentially, generates the second kind of populism in response, as the new under capped factions fight against the very principle of favouritism which was initially endeavoured to be eradicated by the first wave of populism.
However, as this second kind of populism questions a demonstrable partiality within today’s new ideological equitable criteria, citing every possible example of perceptions of this injustice en route, it is labelled as an undeniable aggression on civil liberties, and further, labelled as a dangerous Ultra-Right segment of the political spectrum whose, curiously, freedom of expression is deemed as intolerable.
In a nutshell, populism based on an ideology of social equality is permitted to question, aggressively pronounce, rule and conclude upon all aspects of society’s interests in the name of equality, and rightfully so. And, this is permitted to be extended to the wholly unfair, dubious decisions under the same umbrella of equality, while similar questions raised by contrasting populism over doubts about the awarding of unfair preferences within this scope, are remarkably deemed as scathing offence, and suffer the total carnage of unanimous political condemnation as well as by being shunned by the media.
Is this really fair?
In our reign to stamp out the unjustifiable differences which many factions of society has had to tolerate over generations, could we not only have crossed the middle but ventured too far to the other side? That same aggression which has traditionally been inflicted upon those whose rights were suppressed and who we now choose to defend, is now bandied as a weapon in a similar fashion to which it was condescendingly wielded, by those very same people we now purport to protect.