I'm going to try again after last night's post went puff!
I think, to a large extent, we get the politicians we deserve. People vote for free beer and circuses ot for the person who tries to discuss economics and how difficult and time consuming things will be to resolve. Therefore politicians promise free beer and circuses. It's rather circular. There was a woman interviewed on Newsnight before the referendum saying "I'm going to vote UKIP. They talk common sense. Why can't the other parties do that?". This summed it up for me - because the answer is that macroeconomics is complex. There are differing theories and differing preferences for outcomes. It can't be reduced to a simple to understand sound bite. But we have got to a position where people don't seem to get that anymore - and feel entitled to express - and have respected - a firm opinion on any and every issue no matter how little they actually know about the subject. I'm always reminded of that episode of the West Wing where President Barlet says "There are very few days when things are black and white, and they always involve a body count." Life is shades of grey. It's complicated. But people find that hard to accept - and politicians pander to that.
Sorry to take this into Brexit territory, but I was talking to my uncle the other day. He's a reasonably, if not brilliantly, educated man. He said he voted Leave "because of the bureaucracy". Ten minutes of a discussion about the current account deficit and the potential for inflation resulting from the currency deflation left him gaping and asking "Why did nobody say that?" The answer of course, is that they did, Uncle Bob. The IMF did. The Bank of England did etc etc. But they are dry, complicated subjects to discuss. And it's easier to look at Boris in front of a bus promising £350m free money. And politicians know this and this is why they do it....
As a result, people sense that politics "isn't genuine" - in the same way a child can tell if you are giving her a load of soft soap or waffle. This is fair - it isn't. So then the backlash begins ("we were lied to" etc). So someone like Rees Mogg comes along and is able to articulate a straightforward opinion he obviously believes and people like that. Because it's a contrast.
As I've said upthread, I respect that. Not least because he knows it's politically perilous. And it's a perfectly reasonable belief in the context of his Catholicism (albeit one with which I profoundly disagree). Where's the problem? The problem is that it isn't black and white, just like life isn't black and white - and people can't move on from that to a sensible debate about the wider issue, which is inevitably very complex. It ends up about liking or not liking the man, not about debating the views he has expressed. People seem unable to do that anymore. Everything has to be simplified and personal. You see that on here all the time. Someone expresses a view someone else disagrees with - she's called a bigot, a misogynist, a rape apologist, a victim blamer. This is part of the problem too. Debate should be seen as a positive thing that allows all views to be expressed and a working consensus to emerge, not as an us versus them battle.
Sorry - long.... 