Between the ongoing Brexit bloodbath, the Trumpkin still (gas) lighting up a White House window, and the Casey scarecrow standing terrifyingly in the Irish political field, you could be forgiven for a few sleepless nights.

It’s racism. It’s bigotry. It’s discrimination. It’s the world gone mad.

But what is opening the door to these extremist views, or at least the rise in support for previously irrelevant opportunists who ape them, is also about something far more complex.

And, although nowhere near as headline-grabbing, it is an issue that will be just as damaging to society as any of the above concerns unless it is properly acknowledged and remedied.

While the growth of PC culture is an undeniably positive step, increasingly in political debate, it is at risk of being taken one step too far, with complex issues shoe-horned into a one-size-fits-all viewpoint to avoid any unseemly rows which risk losing voters.

Similarly, catchy but ultimately hollow PR slogans repeated ad nauseum instead of genuine, mature debate on the nitty gritty of coherent policies on which there are inevitably going to be polar opposite views — the whole point of politics in the first place — have become the order of the day.

Although understandable, the situation is increasingly gagging genuine discussion in mainstream politics and the media on complex issues which sensibly reflect societal concerns.

It risks inadvertently leaving space for extremists who claim to be the only ones who “tell it like it is” to win the support of people who feel their frustrations are not being heard — opening the door for Trump, Casey and others to take advantage with an over-the-top version of those same concerns.

It is important not to misinterpret what is being said. This is not about giving extremists a platform. And it is certainly not agreeing with them. Far from it.

Instead, it is about encouraging sensible, mature debate on real issues among legitimate politicians instead of trying to whitewash problems away, thereby cutting off some voters’ perceived need to even start to listen to extremist candidates because “they are the only ones who tell it like it is” in the first place.

While different scenarios, the issue is apparent in Ireland, the US, the UK, and elsewhere, and unless politicians stop obsessing over PR slogans and start really engaging with the public, it is unlikely to get better any time soon.

Think about it.

In the months preceding the 2016 US elections, Hillary Clinton was repeatedly warned about Trump trundling upwards in the polls, in part because the multi-millionaire businessman was claiming to be standing up for ordinary people and “telling it like it is”.

Ms Clinton could have talked with rust belt voters vital to an election outcome and acknowledged they have real issues that were being used by Trump supporters as a Trojan horse to push racist and bigoted views.

Instead, she gave them bland nods in speeches, limited the time she spent in their areas as a ‘difficult’ welcome could damage her campaign, deafened the one person — Bernie Sanders — who was trying to listen and threw normal voters with concerns in with Trump extremists by labelling them “a basket of deplorables”.

Hardly a way to convince people you hear what they are saying, and a strategy that in hindsight contributed to the disastrous November 2016 outcome.

Similarly, the calamitous Brexit result was partially caused by legitimate concerns over voters outside London struggling with a faltering economy and a lack of jobs not having their views listened to or addressed, meaning the likes of Nigel Farage — another millionaire who claims to be a man of the people who “tells it like it is” (what is it with millionaires?) — to take advantage.

And while it is not quite at the same level, in Ireland we see it too, where the minority view, whatever side it may fall, being shunned if it does not fit with the majority narrative — pushing those who hold it further out into the risk-filled margins where their concerns can be manipulated, and preventing real, sensible debate central to a functioning democracy.

It is partially why Peter Casey’s deeply controversial and offensive views gained such traction, as the anxiety on the issues in some areas was not properly debated or countered by mainstream politicians with facts, evidence, and above all else, an ability to at least hear what was being said.

There are some political exceptions — including but not limited to Simon Harris, Micheál Martin and Catherine Murphy — who are always willing to engage with opposing views.

But the situation is not being helped by the bubblegum politics of today which sees ‘debate’ on issues all too often reduced to scenes like Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s presidential ‘campaigning’ amounting to him serving tea with a Michael “Tea” Higgins tea pot cosy.

And the chance to debate, and therefore defuse, the legitimate public concerns is being hindered even further when one Fine Gael minister regularly refuses to engage on issues she has not been briefed on — simply saying “no, please”. And some journalists are pushing for the democratically vital McKenna judgement which guarantees TV and radio balance during votes to be removed.

Oddly enough, the former Conservative party serial minister Ken Clarke raised a similar point this summer during an interview with Channel Four News, one of the few British media outlets keen to hold genuine discussions on topics instead of embarking on fluffy, vacuous pageantry.

Asked what is the ‘problem’ with politics today and why it appears people are lurching towards extreme views, he said simply the lack of legitimate public debate on difficult issues is pushing people to ‘out there’ candidates who claim to be the only ones who speak honestly.

“It [engaging with voters] was part of the job I always thought... I wanted to go out there, take part in the debate, explain why I was doing what I was doing, answer my critics. Try to win the argument.

“But then the parties started paying millions on experts, message discipline, saying what you need is a simple message and a slogan, and you have to repeat it all the time.

“So you only give interviews on subjects where the opinion polls show that you’re popular, and you don’t give interviews on subjects where you’re unpopular because that’s the other side’s subject, so don’t feed the debate.

“It’s farcical. That’s why no political party can actually win an election now, the campaigns on both sides are usually useless. It’s one of the things that feeds a very considerable public cynicism about politics.”

The message is clear: whitewashing, PR slogans and one-size-fits-all views may sound nice, but they only hide problems away. And it is damaging, not helping, democracy and wider society.

If politicians, and journalists, are serious about addressing the real causes of increased support for the Brexits, Trumps and Caseys of this world, it is essential to realise photo-ops and PR only work if they go hand in hand with real, unvarnished debate on difficult subjects.

Peter Casey may be a pariah politically, but almost one in four people who voted last Friday put the x beside his name. Racism and class discrimination are factors, but there’s a far more deep-rooted reason why.

And unless it is acknowledged, the political ‘crisis’ of the past week risks becoming more than just a one-off Halloween nightmare.