I'd put it to you what we observe here is a generation conflict in terms of politcal style – a conflict far too complex to be encompassed by Timetraveller's simple logic of "round 'em up".
This phenomenon first caught my eye after the murder of Jo Cox.
Conservative politicians and members of the media all reacted the common way, somewhat among the following lines: 'Even though I didn't always agree with her, I mourn Cox's death' and so forth. However, there was a difference between what turned out to be two types of opinion makers.
The older semesters meant the political phrase as an amplifier to console Cox's family and colleagues, so as to show them the extent to which shock and grief transcended party lines. Look, I'm standing here in shock and grief although I didn't agree with her policies – that's how badly I'm shook, how deeply I'm griefed.
And that's how the old guard on the other side of the aisle seemed to understand it.
But newer generations seemingly used the same words to express something entirely different. In their case, the political qualifier didn't address Cox's family and colleagues, but their own side as a disclaimer of sorts: These people felt they had to avoid the impression they could be exonerating Cox's policies.
And to add insult to injury, their counterparts on the recipient side were most eager to interpret the qualifier as an attempt to somehow accuse Cox of having brought about her own demise.
This is but one example, and both sides give each other a run for their money.
What modern politics lack is a presumption of innocence. We shouldn't enter the debate suspecting our counterparts of seeking the absolute worst. Unfortunately, that's quickly becoming the default state of mind. Is it mostly the fault of the left? I think it is; it's a scientific fact emotions play a bigger part in progressivism than in conservatism. However, the right is every bit as responsible if it stoops to the same low.
