An open letter to Suzanne Moore of The Guardian

Dear Suzanne,

I was once something of an admirer of your writing and I used to read your articles often. Sadly, I think we must now part company.

The articles you have posted on the Labour leadership election have eroded my trust.

In your article posted on the 22nd of July you smeared Jeremy Corbyn thus:   

“that slightly less feral version of Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn”

but happy to endorse Nick Clegg:

…The Tories, no longer hampered by the moral compass of Nick Clegg

and Tony Blair:

…Blair is right, surely, to talk of the challenges of the future.

In your article on the 5th of August , your rubbishing of Corbyn was absolute. You painted Corbyn’s foreign policy platform as ‘scary’,  derided his capacity to deal with the challenges of leadership and stated bluntly that his election would mean the de facto end of Labour as a political force.

The actual job that Corbyn is applying for is leader of an old party. Winning would mean him doing really boring things, such as rallying his entire party, uniting his MPs, securing funding from his donors, having policies on international affairs that were not simply scary. There is nothing in his record to suggest he would be good at any of these things, which would be fine if these things didn’t matter. But they do. If Corbyn wins, the Labour party will become little more than a pressure group.

You were happy to put his supporters in their place too. I doubt I was the only reader of that article who found the following sound bite patronising:

the self-soothing comfort blanket of supporting Corbyn is a strange denial.

While your articles have  certainly been very much in tune with the prevailing political climate at The Guardian – one could question quite why the tone of your output has to be so insulting.

In your article on the 12th August you said:

Corbynism now represents a kind of purity. And, on the left, purity always shades into puritanism, an unbecoming exercise in self-flagellation that is curiously indulgent.

 So now Corbyn’s supporters are not merely cradling a comfort blanket but we are engaged in dour self-indulgent self-flagellation as well. Really? The vibe I detect from the packed out meeting halls that Jeremy has addressed over the last few weeks has  instead been one of hope and optimism.

Many commentators have acknowledged (including Guardian editorials and his rivals) that Corbyn has added engagement, energy and excitement to the leadership campaign, but you continue to paint this development as somehow dark and sinister. Why?

So, in Labour we now have an entire party going into some spaced-out detox mode. 

Which is odd given the huge rise in Labour’s membership and profile.

But all those new members and all the excitement must be generated by some very odd people, as for you…

… It’s so dull. Where is the vision of socialism that involves the sharing of life’s joys as well as life’s hardships? Where is the left that argued that nothing is too good for ordinary people – be it clothes, buildings, music.

All over the country as far as I can see, you seem to be wearing to some very dark glasses when looking at Corbyn’s campaign to lead Labour.

Perhaps you take your cues from The Daily Mail? They ran a vitally relevant article in which it was revealed that Corbyn has eaten cold baked beans in the past and of course we warned by your colleague Michael White that he wears sandals.

Perhaps you had foreknowledge of Corbyn’s supporters being lampooned as Jerrymiahs  in The Mirror?

Anyway, you are certainly in step with many articles in the media when you smear Corbyn’s supporters with this one line:

So you have your Bennite tea, I shall continue to demand the finest wines known to humanity.

There is no reason why you shouldn’t be a part of the mainstream media if that is your wish. I was simply minded to stop reading your articles, vote for Jeremy Corbyn and leave it at that, but after seeing your article published yesterday in The Guardian I had to speak out and publically.

The opening line of that article is an unsubtle insult:

It’s nice, isn’t it, that Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t “do” personality?

Is that really necessary?

With admirable persistence you went straight back to your favourite dynamic of late – smearing Corbyn’s supporters:

the specialist subject of some of his supporters is vile abuse.

Now who is kidding who here? We all know that any high profile event that exists in these hyper-connected times will get its fair share of internet traffic that is nasty and unhelpful.

As you said yourself in your article on the 5th August:

because the pro- and anti–Jeremy Corbyn rhetoric has become so inflammatory and ill-tempered (my emphasis)

I can relate predictably that opponents of Corbyn have referred to me directly as smelly, thick, retarded, retro and naïve. I have been ‘invited’ to leave the country or at least go back to a Socialist Workers Party I have never been in.

I think we both know that the internet facilitates the need some have to descend into nasty abuse – I get it every day. Since that is true for all shades of political opinion, I wonder why a section of Corbyn’s supporters are suddenly of such interest to you.

I also find it extraordinary that of all the people you could choose to defend, you chose to ride to the rescue of Gordon Brown! Gordon is a big boy, Suzanne – and I doubt very much that he will lose any sleep over some haters on the internet.  If you are in politics you have to expect flak, it is a sad truth I agree, but it is the same truth for everyone in public life.

You offered us yet another smear against Corbyn’s supporters while apparently defending Gordon Brown:

The ideals of the Corbyn campaign may be laudable, but to cast anyone with any doubts about it as the same enemy is completely ridiculous.

This is a vulgar generalisation of the nuanced views of a very large body of people. Why are you doing this? I suspect that you have no interest in defending Gordon Brown at all. I think you saw an opportunity to further broadcast your prejudice against Corbyn and his supporters and took it.

I doubt you are fooling anyone by casting Gordon Brown as a victim and yourself as a noble rescuer. I encourage you to consider the Drama Triangle outlined in 1968 by Stephen Karpman, M.D and see if you can recognise yourself on it.  

Your recent articles have been aggressive and insulting: more the work of a bully than a ‘disturbed’ observer.

I wonder whether you occupy the place on the Drama Triangle of a victim aggressor. Victim aggressors in this model operate from a position of victimhood. They imagine they have no option but to bully those they deem to be weak “for their own good”. That certainly seems to be encapsulate your attitude towards the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn.   

Anyone who gets paid to air their opinions in a media giant like The Guardian has an opportunity to speak out on behalf of the powerless, the voiceless and the desperate. It is such a shame that in recent weeks you have instead joined a veritable mob of media derision against Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters.  

I write this letter to you – not in anger but in sadness. I think you have written some valuable articles in the past.

If you genuinely want to improve the quality of debate about the Labour leadership campaign, then why not be the change you seek? Stop the put downs, insults, smears and innuendo and address in detail the policies being offered.

If you can’t find it in your heart to do this, perhaps you could at least stop the rank hypocrisy of deriding a section of  Corbyn’s supporters for bad behaviour that you frequently indulge in yourself.

John Lynch

Killard,

County Clare

18th August 2015

this letter has been e-mailed to Suzanne Moore at The Guardian.

If she responds we will let you know.

.

See also: Follow Sodium Haze on Facebook

.