Lourensa Eckard acknowledges that the Democratic Alliance (DA), and in particular its Federal Council Chairperson Helen Zille, are held to a double standard by the media.
The DA would be crucified if it protected and defended a party office-bearer accused of child rape as the ANC did in Mpumalanga. If a DA leader ever threatened the police in the manner EFF Julius Malema did, his or her political career would be destroyed in a flash.
Yet, having conceded this hypocrisy, Eckard proceeds to blame the DA’s recent difficulties on its own “tone-deafness”. The party, she writes, is so focused on policy that it is blind to how that policy is packaged and communicated. The upshot is that while the DA’s decision to abandon race as a proxy for advantage – taken at its policy conference in September – appears sensible on paper, in reality the move was “tone-deaf”.
“Tone-deaf” is simultaneously the most overused and meaningless adjective employed by commentators writing about politics today. No other epithet manages to combine the qualities of authorial dismissiveness and sanctimony quite as well, while being of such little analytical value.
The expression is a facile slur. It is one of those words that the historian Robert Conquest would have called a “brain blindfold”, “mind blocker” and “thought extinguisher”. Allegations of “tone-deafness” are easy to make but hard to rebut. After all, the perception of tone is entirely subjective. Tone is in the ear of the beholder.
The biggest problem with the evidence-free assertion of “tone-deafness”, however, is that it simplifies the causes of complex phenomena. It obscures understanding and stifles debate about real issues.