Main Edition
US
FR
Matt Hancock has "an unbroken posture of confidence about everything connected to the pandemic". Credit: Dan Kitwood/Getty
“I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.” That’s how Donald Trump proudly described his approach to Covid-19 in an interview with veteran journalist Bob Woodward for a new book. To many voters, certainly Trump voters, it probably sounded sensible enough: surely a responsible President would want to avoid panic?
But on the front page of the Washington Post, and in media outlets around the world, it was seen as proof positive of the President’s deceitful and dangerous instinct to lie to his own people for political or economic ends. To the contemporary liberal technocrat, this kind of paternalistic obfuscation is the worst crime, the very opposite of good leadership. It is the hallmark of populists and demagogues — Bolsonaro, Duterte, Putin, Trump — for whom projecting strength is the only goal, with scant regard for truth, evidence, or transparency.
But while the coronavirus crisis has undoubtedly exposed the shortcomings of the populist approach, it has been an equally gruesome period for the technocratic leadership style. Many Western governments, Britain’s in particular, have moved from making responsible attempts at passing on information about Covid-19, to actively trying to generate fear in their populations. An overabundance of data, a desire to be seen to be proactive, and a fear of political repercussions if they are not, has led us to the weird place where a British Health Secretary thinks “Don’t Kill Your Gran” is a clever slogan to encourage better adherence to Covid-19 regulations.
So how did we get here?
As an example of the opposite philosophy of leadership to Donald Trump, Matt Hancock is a reasonable place to start. Although nominally part of a radical populist government, like most members of the current Tory cabinet Mr Hancock is really a child of Tony Blair. He came of age learning from the man many in David Cameron’s team referred to as ‘the Master,’ and then received his professional apprenticeship from George Osborne, who deployed the Blairite toolkit with brazen glee.
The central tension in this type of politician-technocrat is between a theoretical veneration of “transparency,” sharing data and basing decisions on available scientific evidence, and a deep respect for “messaging” and techniques of influencing the media and voters with compelling communications. These two instincts came together in the Cameron years with the creation of the “Nudge unit” of behavioural insights experts, and the hero-worship of political campaigners like Lynton Crosby.
According to this theory of leadership, convictions don’t count for much: politics is a science, and leaders are little more than vectors, conveying carefully calibrated versions of externally-validated truths to the masses in order to secure maximum support and compliance. Reports from the cabinet subgrouping in charge of Covid policy suggest that the new ‘rule of six’ was chosen instead of eight not for epidemiological reasons, but for purposes of “messaging clarity”. It was thought that, since the number six was already out there, it should be retained for simplicity’s sake; eight would only complicate things. And so the lives of England’s 55 million citizens are to be drastically altered “for the forseeable future” according to the principles of campaign science.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDon’t Kill your Gran. It’s far better that she dies alone and miserable, you know that’s what she really wants.
Very good word reassuring. Far too much fear mongering and bullying Covid is a minor killer worldwide
We’ll see what if anything happens with Ghislaine Maxwell; but, all indicators are that pedophilia will go the way of all the rest “born that way” sexual orientations, normalization.
I don’t know about 11 yr old’s; but, unlike the author, it’s my understanding that sex ed begins at 12. So they’re not deficient in knowledge when they chose the hooker look/behaviour.
Though, in the event they may not like, or have been able to control, the outcome, which in any case is never what it’s cracked up to be; still, except as a legal technicality, they can hardly be judged “innocent”, or “incapable of consent”, any more than their, usually also underage, partner.
The author is indulging the conventional sentimental cultural fiction that exculpates Lolita, but is repulsed by Humbert.
The ubiquitous nature of the sex drive in both genders causes concerns in all societies. Freud was controversial in his time largely because he argued that children were, indeed, sexual and not wholly “innocent”, here meaning the total absence of any sex drive. The problems arising from that drive brings the need for control or repression for both genders. Having lived through the “sexual revolution” in my youth, its unrestrained attitudes always seemed short-sighted to me.
Fine article Ms. Harrington. This vulnerability is why such girls, as daughters, need their fathers in their home full-time to protect them, and the fathers need to understand they have the right and duty to protect their daughters and not stand by helplessly as seems to have been suggested by much feminist propaganda. In addition, a father’s advice and encouragement to his daughter, to behave a particular way when around boys, can help counterbalance the pressure from a boy to behave another way.
Such a great piece of writing. So well put.
Thank you. Unherd has been my beacon of good information during this crisis.
Refreshing to have clear headed prose.
Perhaps the current government should approach Mr Sayers, to provide some well needed calm and logic during this Covid time.
I would like to add, I have been impressed with the solid thinking shown by Sweden.
Even when the Swedish officials were being chastised, by other countries for the way they were handling things, they were solid in their response.
Why are / were the Swedes able to be so pragmatic in the face of so much criticism, right or wrong, from so many countries ?
How did they remain so steadfast in their belief that their strategy was the right strategy? That hard lock down is not sustainable, and the collateral damaged caused by hard lock downs is far too great a price for society to pay, on so many levels.
Why were they able to understand this, from the beginning, see the bigger picture, and make their plans accordingly ?