The politics of feelings

In a democracy, when a majority agrees upon a rule, a minority must tolerate it, even if it feels hurt or offended. In it, the right to disagree is tolerated, but the duty to accept the agreement of the majority is a common-sense norm.

If this offence gets too much or is intolerable, peaceful, legal, and rational means should be considered, i.e., political activism, complaints or legal procedures, or referendum-the potential for constructive change within our democratic systems.

Let us take the reversed decision of Australian Venue Co., which has now apologised after the Australia Day cancellation backlash. Initially, the pub group told the Herald Sunthat Australia Day celebrations would be cancelled for 2025, for "Australia Day is a day that causes sadness for some members of our community, so we have decided not to specifically celebrate a day that causes hurt for some of our patrons and our team." What is at stake here is that the company initially clearly took sides with a group that feels hurt while neglecting the feelings of others who may be joyful with Australian Day celebrations. The company does not know which side is the majority, nor do they have the legitimate power, apart from business influences, to decide on whether to go ahead with the Australia Day celebrations.

Even if a majority of Australians may feel hurt by the celebrations of Australia Day, the decision on whether to celebrate this day must be made in a politically appropriate and legally acceptable way. This can help to reduce social intolerance, tensions, and conflicts, and prevent the use of public sentiments to advance the agenda of virtue signalling and empathetic victimhood.

In some cases, under the influence of Wokeism, the tyranny of a minority is imposed upon a majority by provocation and manipulation of feelings. This provocation, instead of reconciling the interests of different groups through the democratic process, only seeks to fuel tensions.

While I do not discount the role of feelings and emotions in our political life, I am concerned about the excessive influence of "How I feel" in political discourse and activism. When feelings and emotions are used as a tool of persuasion, it blurs the lines between truth and falsity, and good and evil. This undermines our ability to engage in rational discussions, leading to political incompetence and the spread of untruth and virtue signalling that corrupts public intelligence.