The fundamental flaw in Muscat’s (false) preaching of togetherness
There’s something fundamentally wrong in Muscat’s (false) preaching of togetherness and m’hemmx blu jew ahmar ghax ahna lkoll Maltin.
That something is the reason the Labour Party doesn’t know what it stands for and can’t come up with policies.
That something reveals the truth about Joseph Muscat’s attitude to party politics: that it has nothing to do with actual politics, as in policies and a vision of how a country is best run for the benefit of its citizens.
Muscat starts off from a false (this time ‘false’ as in logic, rather than ‘false’ as in fake) premiss: that the supporters of political parties are two warring tribes in the same country or two feuding families in the same city state: Hutus and Tutsis, or Montagus and Capulets.
But political parties and their supporters are neither tribes nor families. Their differences are ideological, and that – not a fight over territory or inheritance – is what sets them apart and puts them into conflict.
Those who support Labour or the Nationalist Party for truly political reasons (as distinct from habit or tribal identity) cannot ever ‘come together’, as Joseph Muscat puts it in such a simplistic and ridiculous fashion, because their views and attitudes are fundamentally distinct from, and opposed to, each other.
There is no way I can ever have anything in common with somebody who is opposed to EU membership and thinks that the country is on the verge of ruin to the point where, as Muscat says in the video above, it needs a great deal of work biex terga tqum fuq saqajha.
If I do not agree with the way the Labour Party thinks, talks, acts and handles issues, with its aims and with its strange attitude to basic freedoms (it sees them as something in the state’s gift), then there is no way I am going to ‘come together’ with it or with its supporters for whatever purpose, because it follows that their aims for the country are deeply different to my own.
When Muscat speaks this way, he shows that this is how he thinks of politics: as tribal, and essentially meaningless. So in his view, we can all support Labour and we might as well do so, because why not? We’re all Maltese anyway and it has nothing to do with politics, political philosophy, or beliefs.
He is deeply wrong, and those who parrot his mantra are deeply misguided.
He uses his parents as an example, but that’s no example at all. The reality is that people almost never marry those who support a different political party. It’s not because of tribal warfare or prejudice.
It’s because relationships are built on having things in common. When somebody’s political views are very different to your own, it means that they themselves are different to you. Getting along becomes difficult. Shared views are the foundation of a relationship.
When people who support different political parties marry each other, it’s always because either one or the other keeps silent, because the relationship isn’t one built on things shared, or because either one or the other (or both) votes out of habit rather than true, thought-out political belief.
Muscat’s parents are a case in point, and I mention their situation only because he himself does so repeatedly. His mother is silent about politics, and comes from a family of farmers who support the Nationalist Party due to tradition, as most do round these parts where we both live. His father, on the other hand, is vociferous about politics and comes from a family of committed and active Mintoffjani.
If Muscat’s mother had political beliefs as real and loud as those of his father, the relationship wouldn’t have got off the ground, let alone stood a chance. It survived only because his mother was silent and perhaps even unbothered in the face of the raving Mintoffianism of her husband, her mother-in-law and then, her son.
It is precisely because his mother was silent about her own politics that she had no influence in shaping her son’s views, which is why – very unusually – he came to be influenced by his father and his father’s mother instead.
A ‘mixed’ political marriage would have been impossible in my family. This is because none of the women are/were silent, all are/were highly informed, and a normal daily conversation is a political/current affairs conversation, even around children.
A ‘mixed’ political marriage is possible at the outset, and then survives, only because it is a purely functional relationship or because there is a deep inequality or imbalance between the spouses, causing the weaker one to give way to the other or to dismiss his (but usually her) views, or to hang on to his or her political identity, like a badge, while shifting his or her actual political views and attitude over to the spouse’s. This is what happened to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, for instance – and it is no coincidence that he himself had a Labour-supporting mother and a Nationalist father.
Joseph Muscat, far left, with Prime Minister Alfred Sant in 1996 (oh, so you thought he was new?). I can’t ever ‘come together’ with somebody like that because he represents the very opposite of all that I believe in politically.
41 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Usually, any Labour rallying cry is concocted to replace something else.
The only consistency I’ve ever seen with Labour, is to change that which exists, gratuitiously.
Malta taghna lkoll is exclusively Maltese.
“There is no black America, there is no white America, there is only the UNITED STATES of America.”
Another Obama rip off, in other words.
Muscat is foolish in the extreme in using his parents’ marriage as an example of what his moviment ghal kulhadd can achieve. Look at what they produced.
The typical Labour bully imposing his political leanings on others including his wife.
Very well written.
I can never understand how people with fundamentally different political beliefs build relationships.
It is well-written because the author has such a perspicacious mind. It’s one of the reasons why I enjoy this blog so much. Well done.
Regarding relationships I agree that political differences are an obstacle, but politics is just one aspect of life.
Speaking of old habits, I might add that while the Labour Party is unable to cosy up to its Libyan chums, there are other dictators to appease.
On Wednesday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted on whether to censure and demand action from Azerbaijan, of Eurovision fame, on the issue of political prisoners:
http://assembly.coe.int//Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Sessions/2013/ESession2013_1.htm#13079
The motion did not pass, thanks in large part to opposition from the Russians and the conservative European Democrat Group. Most left-wing parliamentarians voted in favour, but that tendency was bucked by Joe Debono-Grech:
http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Votes/BDVotesParticipants_EN.asp?VoteID=34435&DocID=14409
Debono-Grech was also co-rapporteur of a more conciliatory accompanying motion, commending Azerbaijan for “progress made … with regard to the establishment of the legislative framework in some areas crucial for the functioning of democratic institutions.”
There was condemnatory language in that motion too, but enough positive fluff to keep Azerbaijan’s state propaganda machine busy spewing out news claiming a glowing CoE endorsement.
Anglu Farrugia claimed international experience by citing his stint as Malta’s emissary to the OSCE parliamentary assembly, in which capacity he mainly spent time hovering around the refreshments table. At least he probably did less damage that way.
What’s that thing in front of him on his right?He keeps looking at it.
Epic: 4:0 “Il-pajjiz mhux taghna, ahna tal-pajjiz”
Hawwadni ha nifhmek ,mhux “Malta taghna lkoll” jew?
‘There’s something fundamentally wrong in Muscat’s (false) preaching of togetherness and m’hemmx blu jew ahmar ghax ahna lkoll Maltin.’
Imma ghal Joseph Muscat m’ahniex kolllha Ewropej ghax hu innifsu kien kontra qattieh u kieku smajna minnhu ara x’konna nitilfu bhala pajjiz u anke individwalment ghax kieku ma’ hawnx dan ix-xoghol kollu u anke is-serhan tal-mohh ghal familji Maltin.
Kieku il-maggoranza tal-Maltin mhux mohhom floku u semghu minn dawk iz-zewg idjoti Joseph Muscat u Alfred Sant min jaf x’gara minnha?
And when Muscat preaches about coming together, what he really is saying is, suppress YOUR instincts and core beliefs.
He wants US to go to HIM, and as you rightly wrote, that isn’t happening anytime soon.
He sounds like some Maltese version of Darth Vader, with his invitation to us to ‘come over to the Dark Side.’
Just like Gonzi, he is constantly guessing what he has to say and do to get the ‘floating’ votes.
Why is Joseph always angry and shouting?
Malta Taghna was the newspaper of the Malta Democratic Nationalist Party headed by the late Dr Ganado of which the late Dr Guido Demarco was a member.
The Malta Labour Party has no idea of how to be creative, copy paste only.
Not exactly. The original “Malta Taghna” was the newspaper issued regularly by the Nationalist Party even, unless I am mistaken, under the leadership of Nerik Mizzi in the very early fifties.
I happened to know one of editors at the time. I do not remember the actual date of its ‘demise’ but I am sure PN archives still treasure some issues which depict the political history of the times.
Let us for a minute assume that Joseph Muscat means well when he states that ‘Malta taghna lkoll’ and that come the 10th of March all factions and divisions between us will end.
However I’m sure that his party supporters will not let him see this through to fruition – I am aware that all government departments are currently full of people plotting away and voicing their hopes of where they’ll move to and who they’ll replace come the 10th of March.
Malta taghna lkoll? I wish to believe it will be the case – but something tells me not to hold my breath.
Terga tqum fuq saqajha?
Dan irid ifisser li fi zmien Mintoff malta kienet fuq saqajha?
Ghidilna Joseph Muscat! Meta kienet fuq saqajha Malta fi zmien il-Labour?
Il-kelma terga tkisser hafna u tajjeb li l-affarijiet tispjeghom u mhux titfaghhom ghal saqajhom ghax in-nies tal-affari taghhom mhux qed jifmhuk.
Joseph Int ezatt bhal Mintoff taf titkellem biss ghal l’injorant u ghal gallarija.
I’m watching Bondi+, and there’s one particular topic that’s bugging me.
When Labour says that with the new child-care-for-free scheme, they will bring in revenue of Eur2.4 million due to more workers (i.e. women) going into the workforce, does this mean that they will remove the first-year-tax-free incentive currently in place?
Because if they keep it in place, then they will make no revenue in the first year, as those women will start paying tax in their second year of re-employment.
The impression I got was that he’s nationalising the service.
It is not strict correct to say that that first year is tax free. The tax credit one can get is capped to (at present) EUR 2,000. I have had two children in the past couple of years and have had to pay tax anyway even though I hardly have a high income. There seems to be a discord between those making the policy and those implementing it.
The rule on this has changed a few times over the course of the past couple of years.
First there was a cap of eur2000 for employed women and EUR 5000 for self employed. Then the cap was removed for employed but retained for self employed thus discriminating against the latter. (most women with young children prefer to be self employed as it gives them the requisite flexibility they need to work and care for their children). Those who earn both a bit of employed income and selemployed had to choose. Now the cap is back on for all.
Convoluted to say the least. I had to seek advice from an accountant to complete my return so it ended up costing me. I might have got some of the detail wrong but even the fact that it is not a straightforward rule is very telling.
Thanks for clarifying it for me AE.
Coming from Canada, where politics is treated in a less vehement manner, you have given me much insight today, Daphne.
The doe-like subservience of the spouses of strongly political husbands, with opposite views, certainly explains the rabid, irrational behaviour of their offspring.
Enlightening, but a pity, since the near term future of our country appears to also now be in peril, Little Joey being the case in point.
Kemm kien qisu nerd. U dak ic-cintorin kien xi rigal minn ta’ Dom Mintoff?
He was the quintessential pudgy ginger mop-top. You can tell he made huge efforts to look cool since his MEP days, going as far as laser eye surgery, it would seem.
That’s all the things money can buy.
What it can’t buy is the discipline and inner steel needed to lose weight and get fit.
On that count, the verdict is TOTAL FAIL.
Well, friend. he lost his ‘mop-top’ without even trying. From what I gather from the pics with wifey, his ‘mo-jo’ is also wanting. No ‘inner steel’ there also?
qisu?
‘Qisu’ because he only looks like a nerd.
You have to be intelligent to be a real nerd.
So has PN preached togetherness. It even turned its words into action, by appointing hundreds of Laburisti to top government posts.
The result? Those who despised exploited its weaknesses, and those who formerly supported it starting doubting it.
Togetherness can only exist between different political opinions. What we have in Malta are not political differences, but different civilisations: those who yearn to be European because they recognise our shortcomings and those who believe we’re the chosen race and are better off alone.
Oscar Wilde wrote that patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Was he ever so right.
Superb, Daphne.
Two different frequencies.
And then there are the opportunisti. The perfect bilinguals: tuning as it suits.
Some spectacularly obvious and some not so evident, but for whom cash is king.
X’ser ikolli fil-but personali (and generally with hope of an unfair advantage)? Kif ser ingawdi jien?
No noble ideology, at all.
Some take advantage of the electorate, promising the earth on a case by case basis when asking for campaign funds or a vote, not bothering to explain to those of a different ideology that favuri are not ethical and that they will be ignored upon election to office.
Then there are those who call newspaper editors to ensure that it is their version that is written up and not the official one, so that their tracks are covered.
There are those who screw the system under whichever government, blatantly or under cover.
There are those who are suspect under any administration but who continue to operate because they cannot be pinned down legally. Legal injustice vs. moral injustice. The two are not always aligned. No witnesses, no evidence, no proof.
But as you so rightly put it in focusing on “policies and a vision of how a country is best run for the benefit of its citizens:” ignorance of the basics and fundamentals of political policy, or worse – the feigning of it – is not what is expected of the Leader of the Opposition (and Co.), no matter what frequency he is tuned in to.
And that, together with absolute lack of valid party identity, over generations in this case, is the crux of the matter.
And somebody else said that ‘patriotism’ is the last refuge of a scoundrel – especially when he says ‘il-pajjiz mhux taghna, ahna tal-pajjiz’ in that ‘expressive’ way.
Patriotism is also the last refuge for the scoundrel.
Daphne, I think you underestimate how many people in Malta have a tribal loyalty to their political party and would not be able to critically analyse any proposals to save their lives.
I stand to agree. I do feel a difference in the atmosphere when I travel to and back different parts of the island. Sometimes I feel like I’m travelling back and forth in time through such different parts. As in how people view the island’s economics, policies, success, etc.
Different political beliefs within the same family is consdered strange in Malta – because of its traditional tribalism.
The fact that over 90 per cent of the electorate consistently votes when voting is not compulsory speaks for itself.
Your argument that it is not possible or if it is than one of the parties must be kowtowing to the other reeks of anti-intellectualism.
[Daphne – No, it is based on fact. Politics in Malta has very real, direct bearing on every aspect of daily life, unlike in Australia, the US and even France and Britain. It is literally unavoidable, because of size and consequence direct influence, and it has nothing to do with tribalism. An anti-EU v. pro-EU stance is not tribalism. There are fundamental differences in the outlook/attitude of PN/Labour supporters that have nothing to do with tribalism. Yet, for many it is like loyalty to a bandclub, but my point here is that those who actually make real political choices simply cannot build a relationship with those who make the opposing political choices. It is actually easier to live with somebody who has a completely different religion than it is to live with somebody who has completely different political beliefs. Religion can be put in a box, but politics and current affairs are there every day. A liberal just cannot live with an extreme leftie socialist – those sort can only live with each other, really.]
Opposing political views and thus debate could be the contibuting glue that holds some partners together – the excitement of the debate, opposing philosophy, and the respect for the opposing party could be the contributor to a healthy open and respectful realtionship. The world, outside of Malta, is full of them.
[Daphne – Actually, it is not. I think you will find that most people in lasting relationships (as distinct from those who are still having exciting debates and getting off on the excitement of them) share most views on practically everything that is of significance. THAT is the glue which keeps them together. The world is full of them.]
Oh – and its premise not premiss.
[Daphne – I hate to disabuse you of the notion, but in logic, which is what we are talking about here, it’s actually premiss.]
This rhetoric of blue vs right sounds a bit familiar – as expected a similar speech was delivered by Obama in 2004 (his speechwriter at the time was a certain Joseph Muscat).
Having said that, Obama proved to be more divisive than any US president, with the exception of a few. The US is today more polarized than four years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1z2rCuC0W0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCKTBnsZdLo
Any semblance to Joseph’s Ta’ Qali Meeting was purely intentional.
Joseph’s only voluntary work was a “furcina” in the Burmarrad Festa watch at 4:01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFMIzC4Eug0
and in the Labour Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGheSJkeEZM!
Lawrence Gonzi has been actively involved in the voluntary sector, particularly in the disability rights movement and mental health sector. He was also the General President of the Malta Catholic Action between 1976 and 1986.
In November 1987, Lawrence Gonzi was appointed as the first Chairman of the National Commission for the Disabled and he retained this role until April 1994.
When he was Speaker of the House he pushed people with disabilities to do all the work in parliament encouraging them to use computers which he is so enthusiastic about.
I agree with you on this. You are absolutely right on freedom of expression.
The Labour Party still has a problem there. But let’s put thing into perspective.
We are not the UK so the culture is far from Nordic.
So you should have kept it for yourself that you support the nationalist party. Nobody from the switchers gives a hoot. So if the Nationslist Party loses the election I am sure you would be mentioned fir-rapport tat-telfa, as a prime factor for them to lose the election. Believe that would be the time when they will gag you and distance the elves from you, because the Mediterranean culture is completely different from the Nordic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio
Stems from envy if I may say. He is willing to compromise everything for approval.
Like a boy in the school ground ready to give you his lunch and when you couldn’t care less about having his ‘pakkett’, he just keeps putting in more and more hoping the Mars bar might finally do it.
Ha! There is also that slut, Manuel Cuschieri.
Now relegated to the underworld, he will return to Middle Earth if PL win the election. Precious.
Saul of Tarsus was transmogrified from a rabid persecutor of Christians to the chief promoter of Christianity among the pagans by a strong light that knocked him off his horse on his way to Damascus to destroy the Christians there.
Could anyone identify the exact point in time when the Leader of the Labour Party experienced his Damascene conversion from a Malta reserved for Labourites only to that of a Malta belonging to all of us? The impending general election would not convince anyone that the Labour Party radical conversion is as genuine as St Paul’s.
If the leaders had really converted and the followers became aware of it, they’d desert them as it’s in their blood to be anti-EU and to be divisive.
It’s not the leaders only who have to convert but the PL supporters.