Dear Editor,
I read John Harris' piece on "a society too complex for its people risks everything" (29th December 2016) and feel that, yes, Mr Harris hits the nail on the head when he writes that fear of complexity and mistrust of globalisation are important reasons for the rise in popularism.
But somehow the article didn't take the logical next step which would be to propose a solution. This frustrated me immensely.
If the public yearns for simplicity and "regionalism", then we need to ask why mainstream politics has failed to take up this cause and, instead, has firmly "nailed its colours" to the mast of rapacious globalisation?
Why can't regionalism (with a simplified, low-carbon, reduced-consumption, regional economy at its core) be a promoted by honorable politicians? Why is regionalism instantly equated with "nationalism" which is then quickly compared to Nazism? Why can't you have a brand of regionalism where everyone is proud of their local culture (and local products which haven't been shipped many thousands of miles) but is also accepting and enthusiastic about other, different cultures.
The current, binary choice between (neo-)liberalism (i.e. globalisation) and narrow-minded nationalism is simply wrong and needs to be urgently reassessed!
Regards
How can any of this be called honorable?