How Britpoppers Killed Patriotism

 From Mary Harrington at UnHerd:

This generation came of age in the End of History era, in which the kind of hard-edged patriotism that inspires young men to enlist in armies seemed obsolete, hopefully for good. In its place emerged something softer: a vision of nationhood as without enemies, only friends we hadn’t met yet. Now, though, the world is changing. Can this kind of inclusive patriotism still awaken the fighting spirit, in an emergency? The Britpoppers have, until now, presided over a world sufficiently peaceful that this question never really came up. But as the world has grown more dangerous, the shrillness of their bellicosity suggests they’re worried the answer might be “no”.

Starmer himself is arguably himself a post-national Britpopper par excellence. He declares himself “proud of being patriotic”, though the Tories demur; for example Robert Jenrick recently called him a “quisling” for seeking to hand control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. More generally, conservatives of both small and large C varieties accuse his regime of harbouring deep animus toward Britain, as expressed in Labour policy toward anything even tenuously English-coded, from independent schools to small farmers, provincial churches, and even history itself.

How does this add up? The explanation is simple: Starmer is all for Britpopper patriotism, of the Spice Girls Union Jack and globalisation variety: the kind where national identity is lightly worn, inclusive, and adequately expressed by “British Values”, like a Three Lions football shirt, for sale to anyone who wants to wear one. By contrast, the older, harder style of patriotism saw nations as having both friends and enemies. But since the war, and especially since the End of History, this version has become indelibly associated with racism, jingoism, and hostile, exclusionary sentiments. Starmer’s not for that.

The gap between this End of History Britpopper patriotism, and the harder-edged one that preceded it, was captured in vivid microcosm in the LBC exchange between Matthew Wright and John the Cockney. John tried to explain to Wright that Britain going to war today would be a non-starter, simply because patriotic solidarity has ebbed along with ethnic homogeneity. He was circumspect in his phrasing, saying only that Britain can’t fight because “we haven’t got the people any more”. He continued with the example of how the East End Cockneys left London and “ran for refuge”. And though he doesn’t say what they were running from, the clear implication is that he’s referring to that area’s well-documented postwar demographic change. In John’s view, those who replaced the Cockneys are unlikely to be as willing as they were, to fight for Britain: “If you went by these schools in the morning…you know…it’s unbelievable. Them kids wouldn’t be fighting.” (Read more.)

Share