The spotlights glare, the trumpets blare, and the ringmaster’s voice booms across the tent. Welcome to the modern political landscape, a three-ring circus where the culture wars rage, and the public is both audience and unwitting participant. This isn’t just politics as usual; it’s a carefully orchestrated spectacle, a “Clown Show” designed to distract, divide, and ultimately, maintain the status quo. But who are the ringmasters, who are the clowns, and are we, the audience, just helpless spectators in this carefully choreographed performance? One of the most insidious performers in this show is the “Killer Clown.” These figures, often on the fringes of the political spectrum, employ outrageous rhetoric, deliberately provocative statements, and sometimes outright offensive behaviour to garner attention. They are the Katie Hopkins, the Tommy Robinsons, the Laurence Foxes of the UK, figures who have mastered the art of walking the tightrope of public attention, generating headlines with their inflammatory pronouncements on race, immigration, gender, and other hot-button issues. They may take a tumble, but they always bounce back, ready for the next act.

For years, the feeling that our political discourse had devolved into little more than a performance troubled me. Recent discussions with experts and my own deep dive into the mechanics of modern media have confirmed these suspicions. The conclusion is as unsettling as a high-wire act without a net: the “Culture Wars,” as we experience them, are often manufactured, amplified, and exploited by a confluence of actors, ranging from shadowy think tanks and media moguls to cynical politicians and, perhaps most insidiously, the very structure of the online world we inhabit.

To understand how this spectacle works, we need to go back to the basics of rhetoric, the art of persuasion. The ancient Greeks, who practically invented the art of public debate, identified three key tools: logos (appealing to logic), ethos (establishing credibility), and pathos (stirring emotions). These tools, in themselves, are neutral. A doctor uses ethos to explain a medical procedure, a scientist uses logos to present research, and a charity uses pathos to raise funds for a worthy cause.

But in today’s hyper-partisan world, these tools are often weaponized. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech masterfully combined all three. King’s moral authority as a civil rights leader (ethos) was undeniable. His logical arguments about racial injustice (logos) were compelling. But it was his powerful use of imagery, metaphor, and emotional appeals to justice and equality (pathos) that made the speech truly iconic and deeply moving. The relationship between these three elements is dynamic and context-dependent. A speaker must carefully calibrate their approach, considering the specific audience and the desired outcome, an idea further developed by Lloyd Bitzer in “The Rhetorical Situation,” which emphasizes the interplay between audience, purpose, and context.

However, the rhetorical toolkit extends beyond logos, ethos, and pathos. Kairos, the appeal to timing and context, emphasizes the importance of delivering the right message at the right moment. A well-timed joke can diffuse tension, while a poorly timed one can offend. Telos refers to the purpose or goal of the communication, the desired outcome the speaker seeks to achieve. Mythos taps into shared cultural beliefs, values, and narratives to create a sense of collective identity and belonging. A politician invoking a nation’s founding principles, for instance, is employing mythos. Peitho represents the act of persuasion itself, encompassing all the techniques used to influence others. Nomos appeals to social norms and conventions, while Eunoia emphasizes the speaker’s goodwill and benevolent intent towards the audience. These are not an exhaustive list but give a flavour of the wider range of tools used.

Other elements such as Topos are the general themes or “places” that speakers use to develop arguments. For example, using the idea of “justice” or “freedom” as a starting point for a political argument. Enthymeme is a rhetorical syllogism, where part of the logical structure is implied rather than explicitly stated, requiring the audience to fill in the gaps. For example, “He must be guilty as he has no alibi” the unstated premise is that an innocent person would have an alibi. This is a fundamental part of how we reason and persuade in everyday life. Praeteritio is a rhetorical device where a speaker emphasizes a point by claiming not to talk about it, for example, “I’m not even going to mention my opponent’s dishonest behaviour.” Anaphora and Epiphora are the repetition of words or phrases at the beginning or end of successive sentences for emphasis. An example of Anaphora is “We will fight for justice. We will fight for freedom. We will fight for equality.” Aporia is a rhetorical device where the speaker expresses uncertainty or doubt, often to engage the audience or appear open-minded. For example, “I’m not sure how much more the people can endure this.” Framing is the way information is presented to shape perception, for instance, by describing “tax cuts” as “tax relief,” the issue is framed as though it were a problem that needed solving. Priming is preparing the audience to think in a certain way by exposing them to related concepts beforehand, for example, showing images of happy families before discussing public safety measures. Metanoia is a rhetorical device where the speaker retracts a statement to refine or soften it, for example, “I shouldn’t say he’s dishonest—let’s just say he is not entirely trustworthy.” Polysyndeton and Asyndeton are the use of excessive conjunctions or the absence of them for stylistic effect. An example of Polysyndeton is “We lived and laughed and loved and left.”

While often criticised, especially by Plato, the Sophists were instrumental in democratising rhetoric, making it accessible beyond the aristocracy. They emphasized the importance of adapting one’s arguments to specific audiences and situations (kairos), a concept that remains central to effective communication today. They believed that rhetoric was essential for navigating a complex world where absolute truth might be elusive, and skill in persuasion was necessary for individuals to advocate for themselves and their interests.

Stasis theory is a powerful tool for analysing and constructing arguments. Briefly defined, stasis theory is the process of identifying the core issues in a debate and how it helps to determine where disagreement lies (e.g., in the definition of terms, the facts of the case, the values at stake). In a debate about immigration, one side might focus on the definition of “illegal immigrant” (stasis of definition), while the other might focus on the economic impact of immigration (stasis of quality).

The use of language and style to enhance communication, Elocutio, which includes diction, tone, and figurative language, is closely tied to ethos and pathos, as style affects emotional engagement and credibility. Perlocution is the effect or outcome of a speech act on the audience, such as persuasion, inspiration, or provocation. Illocution is the intention behind the speaker’s words, such as making a promise or issuing a command.

In today’s digital age, rhetoric has transcended the limitations of classical oratory. Visual rhetoric, the use of images, videos, memes, and even emojis function as rhetorical tools, conveying complex arguments and evoking strong emotional responses. These all play equally significant roles. Social media posts, advertisements, memes, and even emojis are all imbued with rhetorical intent, seeking to influence our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours. This is particularly evident in the realm of politics where filter bubbles caused by the algorithms used on social media serve to create echo chambers where users only see content that confirms their existing biases, leading to increased polarisation and making constructive dialogue more difficult. Take for example, the targeted ads used during political campaigns. These ads, often based on sophisticated data analysis, use visual and emotional cues to manipulate viewers’ opinions, often without their conscious awareness. A seemingly innocuous image of a happy family might be used to prime an audience to think positively about a policy, even if that policy has little to do with family values.

The Rhetorical Advantage: Elite Education and the Shaping of UK Political Discourse

The corridors of power in the UK are often dominated by individuals who have passed through a particular educational pipeline: the prestigious public schools (which, confusingly, are private, fee-paying institutions) such as Eton, Harrow, and Winchester, followed by degrees like Classics or Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (PPE) at Oxford or Cambridge. This educational pathway, far from being a mere accident of birth, provides a specific type of training, one that is deeply intertwined with the art of rhetoric and its strategic deployment in public life. It is a training that, while ostensibly promoting critical thinking and eloquence, can also be seen as equipping a select few with the tools to dominate political discourse, often advocating for policies that benefit a privileged minority rather than the broader public. It is necessary to be aware of and recognise these issues in order to be more able to make informed decisions when presented with political arguments.

The “debating culture” fostered within these institutions is central to this phenomenon. Public schools often have long-standing debating societies that rigorously train students in the art of argumentation, often modelled on parliamentary debate. This training emphasizes not only the ability to construct logical arguments (logos) but also the mastery of delivery, style, and the strategic use of emotional appeals (pathos). Students learn to think on their feet, parry verbal attacks, and deploy rhetorical devices with confidence and flair. The emphasis is often on winning the argument, rather than a collaborative search for truth and this is replicated in the adversarial style of discourse in the House of Commons. However, critics argue that this “Oxbridge” debating style can prioritize quick wit and superficial cleverness over deep understanding and thoughtful analysis, rewarding glibness rather than genuine insight. It’s a system that can favour those who are already comfortable and fluent in the language of power, those who have been steeped in the rhetorical traditions of the elite from a young age.

At Oxford and Cambridge, this training is further honed through participation in renowned debating societies like the Oxford Union and the Cambridge Union. These societies, with their rich history and prestigious alumni, provide a platform for students to engage in high-level debates on topical issues, often in front of prominent guest speakers. The format of these debates, with their emphasis on wit, quick thinking, and persuasive delivery, can favour style over substance. While many talented and principled individuals emerge from this system, it’s undeniable that it can also produce politicians who are more skilled at winning rhetorical battles than at engaging in nuanced, empathetic policymaking.

The study of Classics, with its focus on the oratory of ancient Greece and Rome, further reinforces these skills. Students dissect the speeches of Cicero and Demosthenes, analysing the techniques used to sway audiences and win arguments. Similarly, the PPE degree, often considered a “finishing school” for aspiring politicians, provides a strong grounding in political philosophy, economic theory, and the art of policy argumentation. It equips students with the intellectual framework and rhetorical tools to engage in high-level policy debates, often from a perspective that prioritizes market-based solutions and individual liberty over collective well-being.

The consequence of this specialized training is a political class that is often highly skilled in the art of persuasion but may be less attuned to the lived experiences of the majority of the population. They are adept at framing debates in ways that serve their interests, deflecting criticism, and appealing to the emotions of the electorate while simultaneously appearing to be acting in the interests of the population as a whole. This can lead to policies that exacerbate inequality, dismantle social safety nets, and prioritize the interests of corporations and wealthy individuals over the needs of ordinary citizens.

Examples of this phenomenon in UK politics are numerous:

• Brexit: The Leave campaign, spearheaded by figures like Boris Johnson (Eton and Oxford) and Michael Gove (Oxford), masterfully employed rhetorical techniques to sway public opinion. The aforementioned “Take Back Control” slogan, with its potent appeal to national sovereignty and its implication that control had been lost to an external, undemocratic force (the EU), was a rhetorical triumph. The infamous “Breaking Point” poster, while widely condemned, effectively tapped into anxieties about immigration. These tactics, honed through years of elite education and debate, proved more effective than the Remain campaign’s fact-based arguments about the economic risks of leaving the EU.
• Austerity: The Conservative-led governments’ austerity policies, implemented in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, were championed by figures like David Cameron (Eton and Oxford) and George Osborne (St. Paul’s and Oxford). They successfully framed austerity as a necessary measure to reduce the national debt, employing the metaphor of the nation as a household that needed to “balance its books.” This framing, while economically dubious, resonated with a public accustomed to thinking about finances in personal terms. Critics argue that austerity disproportionately harmed the most vulnerable members of society while failing to address the root causes of the financial crisis.
• David Cameron used his authority to try and persuade the public that remaining in Europe was best for the country’s economy. Cameron was a member of the infamous Bullingdon Club whilst at Oxford University. A club known for its wealthy members, and boisterous drinking sessions often ending in vandalism for which the club members would pay for the damage on the spot, relying on their wealth and privilege to protect them from further action.
• Boris Johnson often uses Latin phrases, and complicated language to confuse his opponents and create an impression of superior education. This can be seen as a deliberate tactic to use his education and verbal dexterity to his advantage. In 2019 during a general election campaign, he hid in a fridge rather than face the questions of a TV reporter.
• Jacob Rees-Mogg, educated at Eton and Oxford is known for his strong support of Brexit. He frequently uses his knowledge of Latin and historical precedent to add weight to his arguments. In 2019 he caused outrage when he suggested that the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire lacked common sense and should have ignored the London Fire Brigade’s instruction to “stay put.”

These examples highlight how individuals trained in the elite institutions of the UK have not just risen to positions of power but have also shaped the very terms of political debate. Their rhetorical skills, honed through years of practice in privileged environments, can be used to great effect, often masking the underlying ideological assumptions and potential consequences of their preferred policies.

The Tufton Street Network: A Powerful Influence Behind the Scenes

Many of the key themes of the modern “Culture Wars” – such as opposition to climate change action, criticism of “woke” policies, and calls for tighter immigration controls – can be traced back to a network of influential think tanks based around Tufton Street in Westminster. While these groups, including the TaxPayers’ Alliance, the Centre for Policy Studies, and the Institute of Economic Affairs, present themselves as independent research organizations, critics argue that they are often opaque about their funding and promote a specific ideological agenda – typically free-market economics, deregulation, and a socially conservative worldview. The IEA, for example, has received funding from the American Institute for Economic Research, one of the backers of the Great Barrington Declaration, a document that advocated against lockdowns and for a herd immunity strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, revealing the interconnected nature of these organizations and their influence on global policy debates.

These think tanks are adept at placing their representatives in the media, using their research to influence policy, and framing debates in ways that align with their goals. They often employ the same rhetorical techniques used in the “Clown Show,” simplifying complex issues, appealing to emotion, and attacking the credibility of their opponents. Their influence on the Conservative Party, in particular, has been significant, with many of their former staff members and associates taking up positions in government or becoming MPs. They act as the barkers of the “Culture Wars,” their voices amplified by a media landscape that often favours sensationalism over substance.

The “Killer Clowns” and the Media Circus:

This is where Monbiot’s “Killer Clowns” come in. These are the acrobats of outrage, the trapeze artists of inflammatory rhetoric, swinging wildly across the political spectrum, often on the fringes. They present themselves as anti-establishment, but their antics serve to discredit genuine opposition, distract from systemic problems, and create a climate of fear and division that makes constructive dialogue almost impossible. They are the Katie Hopkins, the Tommy Robinsons, the Laurence Foxes of the UK, figures who have mastered the art of walking the tightrope of public attention, generating headlines with their inflammatory pronouncements on race, immigration, gender, and other hot-button issues. They may take a tumble, but they always bounce back, ready for the next act.

But are they independent actors, or are they, as Monbiot suggests, part of a larger, more insidious system? The “Clown Show” needs its “Killer Clowns,” just as a circus needs its sideshow attractions. The media, always hungry for clicks and ratings, amplifies their voices, giving them a platform they might not otherwise have. Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, further spread their message, often to audiences who are predisposed to agree with them. This creates a feedback loop, where outrage begets more outrage, and the “Killer Clowns” become ever more prominent, their antics filling the news cycle and dominating online discussions. The algorithms have created filter bubbles and echo chambers where these views are reinforced rather than challenged. The algorithms mean users only see the content they are most likely to agree with and any contrary views are removed from their view, they are shown the opinions they already hold rather than having to face challenging ideas.

It is important to recognise that this “Clown Show” dynamic is not confined to the realm of politics. We see it in the manufactured dramas of reality TV, the carefully curated personas of social media influencers, and the constant pursuit of viral fame. The same principles apply: outrage generates attention, conflict creates engagement, and the line between reality and performance becomes increasingly blurred.

The Consequences of the Spectacle:

The consequences of this manufactured outrage are profound. “Bread and butter” issues like the cost-of-living crisis, the housing shortage, the crumbling National Health Service, a failing education system, and the looming threat of environmental degradation are often overshadowed, lost in the roar of the crowd as it focuses on the next act in the culture war circus. This is not to say that cultural issues are unimportant, but their dominance in the public discourse can distract from more pressing concerns. The simplification of complex problems into easily digestible, often binary choices further degrades our ability to engage in meaningful debate and find solutions. The illusionists’ trick is complete when we forget that there was ever anything of substance behind the smoke and mirrors.

Moreover, the constant barrage of negativity and conflict erodes trust in institutions, experts, and even the possibility of constructive dialogue. It fosters a climate of cynicism and disengagement, where many people simply tune out of politics altogether, leaving the field open for those who are most adept at manipulating the “Clown Show” to their advantage, the puppet masters pulling the strings from behind the scenes. It’s a vicious cycle: the more we are drawn into the spectacle, the less capable we become of addressing the real challenges facing our society.

Breaking Free from the Big Top:

So, what can we do? The first step is awareness. Recognizing the tactics of the “Killer Clowns,” the mechanics of the “Clown Show,” and the influence of powerful think tanks is crucial. We must learn to distinguish between genuine debate and manufactured outrage, to identify the rhetorical tricks used to manipulate us, and to seek out information from a variety of sources, including those that challenge our own biases. We must become critical spectators, not just passive consumers of the spectacle.

We must also demand more from our media and our politicians. We need a media landscape that prioritizes in-depth analysis and nuanced discussion over sensationalism and clickbait, that acts as a responsible ringmaster, not a sideshow barker. We need politicians who are willing to engage in honest and respectful dialogue, even with those they disagree with, and who prioritize the needs of their constituents over the demands of the “Clown Show.”

Finally, we must actively cultivate our own critical thinking skills. Engaging with resources that explore the intricacies of rhetoric, such as the suggested reading list accompanying this article, can be invaluable. By understanding the tools of persuasion, we can better equip ourselves to navigate the complexities of the modern information landscape and resist manipulation.

Conclusion:

The Culture Wars, as they currently exist, are a dangerous distraction. They are a tool used to divide us, to manipulate us, and to keep us from demanding real change. It’s time to see through the spectacle, to reject the roles assigned to us by the “Clown Show,” and to engage in a more meaningful and productive political discourse. Only then can we hope to address the challenges facing our society and build a better future for all. The current state of our media and political discourse is a dangerous road. It is one where we are being led, divided, and ultimately ruled, by those who benefit from the ensuing chaos, the shadowy figures profiting from the never-ending circus. We must strive for a better way, a path that prioritizes genuine understanding, constructive dialogue, and a commitment to the common good. This is not just a matter of political preference; it is a matter of preserving the very fabric of our democracy. Let’s leave the hall of mirrors and step into the light of genuine, informed debate.

Suggested Reading List:

• Aristotle. Rhetoric. (Classical foundational text)
• Bitzer, Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 1, no. 1, 1968, pp. 1–14. (Understanding context and audience)
• Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press, 1969. (Identification and shared motives in persuasion)
• Corbett, Edward P.J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. Oxford University Press, 1999. (Comprehensive guide to classical rhetoric)
• Fisher, Walter. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. University of South Carolina Press, 1989. (Narrative paradigm)
• Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. MIT Press, 1989. (The concept of the public sphere and rational-critical debate)
• Handa, Carolyn (ed.). Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. (Visual rhetoric in digital contexts)
• Kerferd, G. B. The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge University Press, 1981. (The Sophists and their approach to rhetoric)
• Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, 2003. (The role of metaphor in shaping understanding)
• Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. (Modern rhetoric and argumentation)
• Weaver, Richard M. The Ethics of Rhetoric. Hermagoras Press, 1985. (Ethical dimensions of persuasion)

This list provides a starting point for exploring the vast and fascinating field of rhetoric. Each of these works offers unique insights into the art of persuasion and its impact on our lives.