Yesterday, Danny Finkelstein wrote a piece in The Times (paywall) concerning the suggestion being made in some quarters that Nigel Farage might be the next Prime Minister. Finkelstein was very clear that he was not saying Farage would be the next PM. It is far too early to call the results of the next election and opinion polls this far out are wont to change significantly. But it doesn’t change the fact that, currently, the opinion polls are certainly showing Reform doing far better than the four MPs they mustered last time around when even that was considered something of a coup for them.

The essence of Finkelstein’s argument is not that Farage will be our next PM. Rather, it is that a) his growth in popularity needs to be taken seriously by the mainstream political parties, b) they need to understand why he has grown in popularity, and c) why their lines against Reform are not landing. Using the most recent Democrat debacle attempting to run Biden against Trump as his case study, Finkelstein insists:

The lesson of this episode [why Democrats lines about Republican lies did not land] is that politicians (indeed people in general) are able to see the flaws in their opponents much more easily than they can see flaws in themselves. They can’t see themselves as others see them. And this is the fate that awaits almost every argument that the mainstream will make against Nigel Farage over the next four years.

The issue, as Finkelstein sees it, offering plenty of examples of attack lines being used against Reform that could just as easily apply to those making them, is that ‘you can’t make a negative campaign work against someone else if voters feel the same or worse about you. This was the lesson for opponents of Trump, and it is the lesson for opponents of Farage.’

In his conclusion, Finkelstein states:

If the mainstream (a shorthand word, by the way, since it isn’t clear the mainstream actually is the mainstream) wants to win, the mainstream has to deliver. People will vote for Reform if the mainstream parties can’t make the system work. If the government, in particular, can’t grow the economy, improve public services, act on crime and stop illegal migration.

To make any argument against Farage work, voters have to believe that they have something to lose when voting Reform. Otherwise they will take the view that, sure, it is a bit of a gamble, but why not?

It is this, in particular, that is the nub of the issue.

I think Finkelstein is right on this point and we have one glaring example that supports it: Brexit. If one thing was clear about the Brexit vote, it is this: Pro-EU advocates were unable to see themselves as others saw them and their arguments, often about the dangers of leaving, rang hollow as many voters felt the same negative things about those advancing the arguments. In the end, many could not see how the EU – or, indeed, the mainstream political parties – worked for them in any way and so, they thought, what do we have to lose? It may be a bit of a gamble, but why not?

I think there is a parallel with this kind of political thinking and some of the current cultural shift we are seeing towards the church. The Western World has mounted a decades long negative campaign against Christian thought and biblical ethics. A secular atheistic vision of freedom and joy against the shackles of church control and religious limitation. Rather than the promise of jam tomorrow (or pie in the sky when you die), there were promises of liberty and happiness. That campaign, for a long time, was remarkably successful. Christian religious participation dropped exponentially and secular liberal values ruled the roost.

But the negative campaign is beginning to lose its force. People are beginning to see the fruit of what they were promised and it is bitter. It turns out what we had before is not nearly as bad as it may have seemed and, indeed, the negative claims of the foremost secular atheistic campaigners against any and all religion are finding every time they finger point at the church, there are four fingers pointing right back at them. Gen Z are increasingly taking the view that the secularist atheistic vision they were offered is really not working for them. As far as they are concerned, it may be something of a gamble, but when secular atheism hasn’t delivered – and even some of its foremost proponents are now desperately trying to claw back the values that were lost under the guise of ‘cultural Christianity’ – many are simply asking about trying the church again ‘what have we got to lose?’

This should not be cause for complacency in the church. A shift back to Christianity – whether merely to its cultural values or more to the actual Christian gospel itself – means the church needs to be careful. Negative campaigns need to be careful lest it turn out that we are guilty of the same things and cannot see ourselves as others see us. It is not uncommon to hear phrases from the pulpit like, ‘the world often think…’ or ‘people out there do X…’ when, not only have we sometimes misjudged it, but we fail to see that some of those same things land back on us too. Whilst it may be tempting to mount negative campaigns against rival beliefs, philosophies or worldviews- particularly when you are in the ascendancy (and I’m not suggesting that is where the church is right now) – it seems better to present the positive case for Christ and his gospel. After all, if we are going to win people, we must preach to their affections and if – as seems to be human nature – people run with whatever they most want and seems most pleasing or conducive to personal happiness as they judge it, perhaps the case the scriptures make to that end might be the order of the day.