When Zack Polanski, the deputy leader of the Green Party, spoke out about dental inequality and the state of Britain’s public services, he probably didn’t expect his teeth to become a political talking point. Yet that is precisely what happened after a recent media appearance, as right‑wing commentators seized on his appearance to ridicule him personally rather than engage with his arguments.In a column for The Guardian, Polanski argues that this fixation on his teeth does more than reveal a shallow strain in contemporary politics: it shows that the Greens’ message on crumbling infrastructure, widening inequality and a failing NHS is hitting uncomfortably close to home.
Personal attacks as political strategy How rightwing mockery reveals discomfort with Green gains
When critics fixate on a politician’s appearance – their teeth, clothes or accent – they are quietly admitting something they rarely say aloud: they are rattled by the ideas they cannot easily dismiss. Personal jibes offer a shortcut,a way to turn a policy debate into a playground taunt,especially when climate action,social justice and democratic reform are suddenly cutting through with voters. The louder the sneers from certain rightwing commentators, the clearer it becomes that Green arguments about clean air, fairer taxation and public ownership are landing. In place of serious engagement, we get a barrage of memes and snark designed to delegitimise not just an individual, but an entire movement that has begun to move from the margins to the mainstream.
Mockery functions as a kind of political smokescreen, obscuring the fact that many voters are tired of managed decline and are open to a radically different economic and environmental settlement. It is easier for opponents to caricature a Green politician as “odd” than to grapple with the uncomfortable polling numbers or the growing presence of Green councillors and assembly members. Consider how the attacks line up against what is actually happening:
- Rising vote share is met with louder personal insults.
- Clear climate policies are mocked as “fantasy” rather than debated on the facts.
- Community-level wins are ignored while social media piles onto an image or a clip.
| Rightwing tactic | What it really signals |
|---|---|
| Jokes about looks | Anxiety about growing visibility |
| Labels like “extremist” | Fear of shifting public mood |
| Endless culture-war riffs | Dodging climate and cost-of-living debates |
From insults to issues Linking online abuse to structural inequalities and climate inaction
When abuse fixates on appearance rather than arguments, it acts as a smokescreen for a deeper anxiety: the fear that calls for climate justice inevitably expose who has benefited from the status quo, and who has been left to breathe the fumes. Sneering at someone’s body, accent or background is easier than confronting why flood defences are weaker in poorer neighbourhoods, or why respiratory illness clusters along bus routes in working-class and racialised communities. These attacks are not random; they mirror the same hierarchies that shape who lives near an incinerator, who pays the highest proportion of their income on energy, and whose homes are insulated last. Online pile-ons function as a kind of digital riot police, deployed to protect existing privileges from the unsettling clarity of Green politics.
Behind every meme mocking environmentalists lies a refusal to acknowledge that climate inaction is not an accident but a political choice that reinforces structural inequality. While timelines fill with slurs and caricatures, decisions are quietly made that:
- Subsidise fossil fuel giants rather of home insulation programmes
- Prioritise new roads over reliable, affordable public transport
- Delay clean air zones that would benefit children and low-income workers
- Silence frontline communities who live with pollution every day
| Who Gets Mocked | Who Really Pays |
|---|---|
| Climate activists | Renters in draughty homes |
| Green politicians | Workers on toxic commutes |
| Young protesters | Communities hit by floods |
Turning ridicule into resolve How progressive campaigns can harness backlash for greater impact
When conservatives fixate on appearances – teeth, clothes, accents – they are signalling that they’ve run out of arguments on policy. That’s the moment progressive campaigns can pivot from defense to offense. Instead of apologising or retreating,campaigners can frame the sneers as proof that climate action,social justice and redistribution are now unavoidable parts of the national conversation. By calmly pointing to the contrast between petty insults and substantive proposals, they expose the emptiness of culture-war tactics and invite audiences to interrogate why, exactly, these ideas provoke such fury. This isn’t about pretending abuse doesn’t sting; it’s about redirecting that energy into a story of momentum, visibility and growing power.
Handled strategically, every barbed meme and talk‑show jibe becomes raw material for mobilisation. Campaign teams can collect antagonistic quotes and place them alongside concrete wins, illustrating how mockery reliably tracks with progress.
- Reframe attacks as evidence that policies are landing where it hurts entrenched interests.
- Show contrast between personal ridicule and detailed, costed programmes.
- Amplify solidarity by highlighting supporters who refuse to be distracted by cosmetics.
- Channel attention from viral sneers into sign‑ups,donations and doorstep conversations.
| Backlash trigger | Hidden signal | Campaign response |
|---|---|---|
| Personal jibes | Message is cutting through | Highlight policy, not appearance |
| Social‑media pile‑ons | Issue has mass reach | Turn views into email sign‑ups |
| Hostile headlines | Establishment feels threatened | Fundraise off the outrage |
Building resilience in public life Practical steps for supporting diverse voices facing coordinated harassment
Resilience in public life is not about stoicism in the face of abuse; it is indeed about building ecosystems of protection so that those targeted are never left to weather the storm alone. Parties,campaign groups and media platforms need clear,public protocols for dealing with coordinated harassment,including rapid takedown requests,escalation routes with social media companies,and pre‑agreed solidarity statements when individuals are mobbed. Creating peer support networks for councillors, activists and candidates – with regular check‑ins, access to trauma‑informed counselling and training on digital self‑defence – helps turn what could be an isolating ordeal into a shared political learning moment. It is equally vital to brief staff and volunteers on how to document abuse safely, preserve evidence, and distinguish between legitimate criticism and deliberately orchestrated pile‑ons designed to silence dissenting or minority voices.
Practical support also means resourcing people properly. That can be as simple as shared accounts for moderation tools, but it should extend to legal guidance, media coaching and out‑of‑hours crisis contacts for those at the sharpest edge of public hostility. Allies can play a concrete role by amplifying targeted voices,challenging dehumanising narratives in their own communities,and quietly taking on some of the emotional and administrative load – from filtering inboxes to helping manage press interest. The aim is not to sanitise politics, but to ensure that those who speak up, especially from marginalised backgrounds, do not pay a disproportionate personal price for doing so.
- Establish clear anti‑harassment protocols within parties and organisations
- Provide digital security and media training before crises hit
- Offer confidential counselling and peer support to targeted individuals
- Coordinate rapid public solidarity when attacks are clearly orchestrated
| Need | Practical Step |
|---|---|
| Safety online | Shared moderation tools |
| Emotional backup | Peer support circles |
| Legal clarity | Pro bono advice panels |
| Public backing | Joint solidarity statements |
Future Outlook
the fixation on one politician’s teeth says far less about personal aesthetics than it does about the anxieties gripping those invested in the status quo. When arguments over policy are replaced by sneers and memes, it is usually because the substantive critique has landed.
The Greens’ message on climate, inequality and democratic renewal is plainly cutting through if opponents feel compelled to reach for playground insults rather than principled rebuttals. That does not make the abuse any less wearying for its targets, but it does reveal a battle that is increasingly being fought on the terrain of distraction.
What matters now is whether voters can see past the noise. The choice before them is not between perfect smiles, but between parties content to mock from the sidelines and those trying, though imperfectly, to confront crises that will shape the next generation. If the best response to that project is to comment on someone’s appearance, it may be a sign that the argument, on substance, is already being lost.
