December was, for many, a bittersweet month – festivities offset by a hanging of heads for the socially progressive reforms that were not to be. Yet again we have seen that simplicity sells: Get Brexit done. Placed beside its predecessor – Take back control – the progression seems natural; a message so plain that it discourages analysis and suggests that deeds can be done as easily as they are said. The tripartite slogan has an undeniable acoustic appeal: Veni, vidi, vici; Just do it; Snap, crackle, pop. Known in schools as tricolon or ‘rule of three’, it’s an easy trick to score points in your English GCSE. Prominent, powerful, persuasive; since time immemorial our lives have been framed by trinities. ‘Twas ever thus.

Whilst it may be a slight overstatement to suggest that these mantra alone swung the result, their potency is unquestionable. More worryingly, however, is the way in which they were the foundation of otherwise unsubstantiated opinions. Their currency in the political and media spheres was often seen to legitimise the flimsiest of views on national issues. Demands for a more robust justification of exactly why, for example, we should trust people who historically have lied through their teeth would be shot down with a three word incantation, the Swiss Army Knife of comebacks to deflect all manner of irritating probing. This dependence on reduction and disregard for complexity is rife in the media where the measure of an interviewee comes down to their ability to define their position in yes or no answers. In a post-Paxman era, belligerent talk-show hosts supply a stream of “So what your saying is…” and equivalent non sequiturs to gloss over any matter of intricacy.                   

The drive for concision has long been the method of choice to downplay the finer details that stick in the side of populist appeals. The logic goes that if you can’t condense your intentions to a snappy soundbite then you don’t deserve to have a say in issues of any consequence. The flaw in this argument is that it discounts the reasoning that would, in any sensible debate, qualify one’s stance. Intention – those sharp declarations that penetrate public discourse – has been stripped of the more pertinent follow-ups: how? and why? As such we become judged for our intentions rather than our reasons, denied the opportunity to explain ourselves. Misunderstanding and inaccuracy rush to fill the void left by clarification and discussion.  

In one of his more lucid spells, Nietzsche wrote that ‘convictions pose a greater danger to truth than lies do’. With deliberation cast aside, convictions go unchallenged and semi-truths solidify. Political opponents are portrayed with a broad brush, feeding a tribal rationale that leads us away from mediation towards the extremes.It would be nice to think that the period of post-electoral reflection has been spent contemplating these rough characterizations that both the right and the left are guilty of. After such a decisive electoral defeat, now seems the time to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate our relationships with the “racists and rotters” on the other side. For any leftist who is serious about unifying, rebuilding, and improving, a rejection of these vulgar caricatures is imperative. We can’t allow neighbours, colleagues, and potential friends to be painted as odious mugs. In spite of the simplistic worldviews endorsed by pundits of all political hues, it’s complicated. And it’s about time we faced up to that.