No one likes being wrong. That’s obvious. Most people love that satisfying little ego boost you get when you successfully prove that that other person wrong, and most people equally hate that same person’s smug little smile when they do the same. I’m not sure if it’s human nature or anything like that, but it seems pretty unanimous.
In keeping with my trend of being a generally insufferable human with a rather large ego, I strive to keep that smile of anyone’s face as long as possible, while retaining it on mine at all times. But when it drops, it drops. There are occasions (shocking, I know) where I am in the wrong. I make a constant string of horrific moral decisions, I can be generally rather careless with other people’s feelings and I’m extremely strident in my political beliefs- these are all somewhat flaws that I’m happy to admit I have. I don’t really see the problem with admitting that. Those things aint gonna change if I don’t address them, so best start somewhere.
The only thing not admitting you’re wrong does is stunt progress. It’s the idea that women in developing countries have it much worse than women in developed countries; therefore we should totally ignore the struggle of those in the developed world. Those poor people in Britain may have it bad, but we can afford to ignore them as it’s not ‘real poverty’ yeah? Sometimes some things are just wrong because they are; something doesn’t always have to be worse. I don’t sit and consider how much I over-think things but say “ah it’s alright because SHE over-thinks things more,” I act like a grown ass adult and admit that it’s a flaw, and then proceed to over-think how I over-think things. I suppose these minor examples are excusable in day to day life because, as I said, no one likes to admit they’re wrong. But in politics, it’s different.
Take the EU referendum campaign for instance. On question time, Caroline Lucas said the EU is democratic, because it’s more democratic than our own system (due to us not having PR). Ignoring the lack of substance to that argument, why was this considered a successful rebuttal? Just because one system is rubbish doesn’t mean the other is excellent.
In the general election campaign Jeremy Corbyn was hounded over his IRA links. Labour was scrambling around for an excuse. “He was engaging in peace talks” was the best they could come up with. But another cracker that was repeated by lots of dodgy left wing political sites was that a Tory Councillor, Maria Gatland, was an ex- IRA member, which was true. The Corbynista brigade shared this same article about 50 times each on Facebook, as if this somehow got Corbyn off the hook. They seemingly forgot that one councillor is in no mathematically fucked up world equivalent to the Leader of the Opposition and his Shadow Chancellor. Instead of just admitting “yeah honestly I think the IRA links are true and they really worry me” Labour supporters were scraping the barrel for any excuse.
I never quite understood this trend, it’s as if we have to be 100% wedded to the political party we vote for, as if our beliefs have to be so perfect and so infallible that any instance in which they could be considered wrong needs to be treated not as a potential learning curve, but as a hostile force. I voted Labour in June, but whenever I take one of those 100% scientific ‘who should I vote for’ tests, I only get around 60% Labour, because I think a lot of things they do are wrong. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t vote for them, it’s just how things are.
There’s no sassy ending to this post, and I haven’t got any deep last sentence thoughts, I just think there is a lot of room in politics for people to hold their hands up and say “Lads, I think I fucked up.”