These men are not particularly inspirational. Credit: STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN/AFP via Getty Images
Emmanuel Macron, former investment banker and capitalist par excellence, now declares that he is joining the “struggle” against the malign consequences of globalisation. 180 of America’s leading CEOs call for “an economy that serves all Americans” rather than just shareholders. The World Economic Forum believes “We must move on from Neoliberalism.” From Justin Trudeau’s plan to “reimagine economic systems” to Boris Johnson and Joe Biden’s shared “Build Back Better” slogan, the talk is of a new, fairer settlement: a fresh start.
Isn’t it boring? No wonder people prefer to watch bogus videos about voter fraud, or join their local Black Trans Lives Matter protest, when the alternative is this kind of technocratic tedium. Yes, we need 143-page think-tank reports and ingenious policy wonkery and “cross-government data architecture” and all that. But eventually you want something which inspires, something which treats socio-economic questions with the beauty, drama, tragedy and pathos they deserve. You want something like the historian RH Tawney’s 1926 cult classic Religion and the Rise of Capitalism.
We hear a lot at the moment about the prospect of a more communitarian society, which acknowledges that we have responsibilities as well as rights. In Tawney’s book this is not just a theory, but a vision. For the medieval mind, he writes,
The property of the feudal lord, the labour of the peasant or the craftsman, even the ferocity of the warrior, were not dismissed as hostile or indifferent to the life of the spirit. Touched by the spear of Ithuriel, they were to be sublimated into service, vocation, and chivalry, and the ritual which surrounded them was designed to emphasise that they had undergone a rededication at the hands of religion. Baptised by the Church, privilege and power became office and duty.
I too had to Google it: Ithuriel is an angel in Paradise Lost whose spear instantly uncovers the reality behind a disguise – “for no falsehood can endure / Touch of celestial temper”. For Tawney, the medieval order revealed the truth of social relations. The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, are shown to be part of one human society, in which we owe each other justice and love.
Maybe this makes him sound like one of those sentimentalists who imagine the Middle Ages as an era of cheerful peasants, dignified craft guilds, virtuous monks and splendid cathedrals. Not so. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism describes the feudal system as “exploitation in its most naked and shameless form”. Guilds, Tawney writes, were monopolistic schemes, often corrupt, and the vast majority of workers weren’t members in any case. Catholics who want to praise the glories of Christendom will have to reckon with the fact that the pinnacle of financial immorality was the Vatican. As for the cathedrals, Tawney quotes St Bernard of Clairvaux, perhaps the greatest spiritual master of the time: “The Church is resplendent in her walls, beggarly in her poor. She clothes her stones in gold, and leaves her sons naked.”
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.
SubscribeBefore I even read the article I would like to register the sickening nature of the accompanying photo of Macron and Turdeau (sic). They embody everything that we are fighting against. Of course, Macron does sometimes talk sense, but he very rarely acts on it. And his decision to close the channel ports to the truck drivers was the act of a very nasty person indeed, an act that achieved nothing except to prevent a lot of hard working truck drivers from seeing their families at Christmas.
Well, much as I hate finding myself on the same side as one half of the biggest freak show in western politics, I would argue that it did do some good in that it moved Johnson off his backside and concentrated what we laughingly call his mind. I know the media have been spinning this like a gyroscope, claiming it’s the greatest English victory since Agincourt, but the EU would have dragged this out till the crack of doom rather than give the UK a deal which would leave it better off outside than in, and they would have been right to do so.
The English, in their usual imperial way, simply cannot understand this. To them, it’s Johnny Foreigner out to get them. It’s never Johnny just trying to look after his own interests. It’s always personal with you people. Macron, to his credit, saw this and put the squeeze on to force the issue. It worked. It was nasty, but it worked.
Absolutely agree with you. Macron’s action got the Brexit negotiation finished for better or for worse.
Never a particularly good idea to address an audience you might want to take along with you as “you people”.
Not sure what side you’re on, but judging from the votes, it doesn’t appear to be the winning side. lol.
“Turdeau” Cool!
It gave us a foretast of what a no deal Brexit might have looked like. For that we should be grateful.
One of the most irritating of recent journalistic tics is the use of the word “rightly” ““ to imply that what they have just referred to is really beyond dispute.
So, Dan Hitchens tell us:
“It’s been rightly said that the big question of politics today is Who are we? Another question lurks around the corner: What kind of universe do we live in?”
“Rightly said” or not, these questions are fodder for every pseudo-intellectual pundit, windbag and bar-room bore. When it comes to politics I would just like to see the country competently managed. But why bother dealing with the hard practicalities of a housing shortage when you can discuss the much more fascinating question of homelessness
“…as part of a cosmos illuminated by spiritual realities”.
It might also be worth remembering the trouble “inspirational leadership” has stirred up in the past. Is it any more than a tonic to get the apathetic off their backsides?
Housing and homelessness was competently managed not from the church or beer hall but the hallowed halls of academia. Apathy and the calls for a strongman are the result of that hallowed social engineering project.
Who are we to chant and slur at the intellectually superior?
Thank you for that comment. I don’t even know what “as part of a cosmos illuminated by spiritual realities” even means” and I passed the California Bar Exam on the first try.
Apologies for bringing Brexit into this but for me, there was an impassioned patriotic religiosity in the 2016 leave vote, as old as the English hills, and easily mistaken for a massive swing to the right. It’s been difficult explaining this to furious remainers & earnest hyper liberals for four years-to say the least. I myself literally lay face down on the green pasture of Biggin Hill, in May 2016, in an attempt to discuss the matter with the ancient spirit of the land. Merlin went through the gears both above & below, and my decision to leave was settled. Python as usual nailed it with the ‘strange women distributing swords’ dialogue in The Holy Grail, but it’s a useful analogy for the English psyche. It is split and the Illogical wisdom of the ancients kept hidden, or forgotten, for fear of ridicule. But it is there. We are missing a spiritual aspect in technocracy, but the two are incompatible until you ask the right questions. Like the man at the bridge. Enter David Cameron.
Perhaps you’d like to explain to the Scots and those living in Northern Ireland how your communing with nature on a hill in England took into consideration their views on Brexit.
“But eventually you want something which inspires, something which treats socio-economic questions with the beauty, drama, tragedy and pathos they deserve.”
No, we don’t. Or we shouldn’t.
Socio-economic questions should be approached rationally, dispassionately and scientifically. We should find what’s working and do more of it. We should try new things and assess the results critically. We should depoliticise socio-economic questions, which means more technocracy and less appeal to myth, emotion, tribe and identity.
Until 15 or 20 years ago I would have agreed with you. And I once hoped that New Labour would bring a technocratic competence that would give us bicycle lanes all over the country, along with some decent housing etc. But the British state, unlike the typical Scandinavian state, is hopelessly incompetent and will never deliver anything useful or beautiful. I have therefore reverted to myth and emotion.
I hope you’re not in government, what with such peculiar and absolute catastrophism.
Not sure it’s catatrophism – just ideals dashed by reality …
Stay jaunty as long as you can ðŸ‘
Can you give me one thing that any British government has got right in the last 30 years? Wherever the British state is concerned, to assume catastrophe is merely to respect reality.
The carriers were built well. The Astutes are good (not in the right number of course…). GCHQ continues to do good work.
Not that I disagree with you mind, but sometimes it helps to point out the small outposts of sanity in a governmental sea of madness.
Id say lack of awareness planning and an aptitute for losing markets can be seen here stretching back well over 100 years ( if you take out a decade for major hostilities).
Two things come to mind number one by miles is leaving the Fourth Reich/ EU whose hierarchy is so near that intended post victory by the Third Reich – And the other, although more than 30 ears ago, is raising the speed limit back to 70 soon after the fuel crises, it took the USA until the ending of Clinton to do similar!
Last night I realised how emaciated Cameron could be when I remembered his little “2% of gdp on defence” boast. Really warms the cockles to hear sort of thing, eh? Boris’ splurge on new frigates is far superior. For all his flaws, he seems to understand the importance of romanticism in government.
I’m flattered that you have such a high regard for the sort of state I live in. I am fond of it myself. But I strongly suspect that if you lived here, you’d have nothing but contempt for it, too. There’s always enough failures and inconveniences among real people for a born curmudgeon to declare something ruined beyond all repair – we have plenty of people here in Sweden who sound exactly like you do.
Too much rationalism involves false choices and lack of ambition. See all the technocrats convinced that Britain would vote remain, and then their inability to come to terms with that decision (not exactly dispassionate). All those people convinced we could not fit anti-ship missiles to our frigates and that the navy would rapidly shrink to nothing in the next century (not exactly ambitious). I’ve seen far too much of that now.
There will always be glitches. We’re human. But the enormous progress we’ve made as a species is down to science and reason and their application to human affairs.
…and religion.
Agreed. You want romantic idealism? Go talk to the woke progressives. One thing that conservatives only seem to notice when it’s convenient to them is how very much wokism resembles the excesses of self-flagellation, breast-beating Christianity. You want more of that sort of thing? Then I have good news for you, there’s plenty of it to be found. It’s a universalist creed, but so is your beloved Christianity; if what you want is noble sentiment and a contempt for practical half-measures, it’s right there.
No, you know what, I’ll take boring technocrats any day. They might actually get something done. You want heart-stirring romance, go read a fantasy novel.
“Getting something done” is easy. There’s an Austrian gent I could name who got quite a lot done. At some point, just “getting things done” is not only insufficient, it becomes actively dangerous. When people who know better than you, who feel they know things which nobody before them knew or even thought about, and who decide that, regrettable as it is, they must drive a bulldozer over everything that was built up to last Tuesday, that’s when the trouble starts. When it does, the idealism you’re so disdainful of is the only thing that will overcome.
Absolutes never work.
Really? Let’s approach the subject of organ transplants rationally, dispassionately and scientifically. A fit and healthy young person aged say 25 has about 40 years of economically productive life ahead of them. They also have a heart, two kidneys, two corneas, a liver, a spleen and various other organs, each of which when transplanted might add 10 years economic productivity to the recipient. It is therefore rational to dismantle that young person for spare parts.
One one level, it would be irrational to kill young people to keep old people alive longer because we stop replenishing the generations, and we go out in a gory blaze of ignominious obsolescence.
On the bigger level, it would be immoral.
What does morality have to do with it? That’s not being “dispassionate”, is it? What’s the scientific basis for it?
As for future generations … what do we owe them? What has the future ever done for us?
And I was careful to frame it in terms of economic productivity: 40 years versus 70, that’s rational.
Morality is rational.
How does that work exactly? Explain the rational argument that demonstrates that we shouldn’t dismantle people for spare parts.
What do you mean?
I mean that you said that dismantling people for spare parts is immoral even if it’s economically productive. Explain the rational argument that demonstrates that immorality.
But it’s not economically productive to kill young workers.
Yes it is, if by giving up 40 years of productivity by one 25 year old we gain, say 10 years of productivity by each of seven 50 years olds.
Anyway, who said it was a 25 year old worker? Perhaps it’s a 25 year old unemployed person. Rational then, surely?
But let’s be frank. You want to argue that it’s never economically productive to avoid having to explain that whole morality thing. So let me repeat my challenge: you said that dismantling people for spare parts is immoral even if it’s economically productive. Explain the rational argument that demonstrates that immorality.
Even if that’s true, it would be immoral. And a society that runs on the murder and exploitation of its people would probably fall apart in 18 months.
“Murder” and “exploitation” are hardly dispassionate words, are they? Let’s replace them by the much more scientific and dispassionate “optimal allocation of human resources”. So, how do we know that a society which efficiently allocates its human resources would collapse? Perhaps we should try new things and assess the results critically: this is a new thing, so obviously we should try it.
Again, please explain the rational argument that demonstrates that immorality
They are not dispassionate words, but they are accurate.
But I thought you were advocating for the position that all such questions should be approached rationally, dispassionately and scientifically?
I didn’t say we should murder.
So explain, if you will, the rational argument that demonstrates that immorality.
I don’t understand your question. That immorality is what?
The immorality of dismantling people, which you introduced into the discussion with the phrase “it would be immoral” and followed up with “Morality is rational.”
On an utterly unimportant grammatical point: “that immorality” as in “that one over there” as opposed to “this one over here”. “That immorality” being that one up above, introduced by you into the argument. It’s confusing that “that” introduces a subordinate clause as well, so that “that” was an adjective whereas this “that” was a subordinating conjunction.
You want me to demonstrate the immorality of killing people for their organs?
Yes. You claimed that it was “immoral” and that “morality is rational”, so presumably you have a rational argument against the optimal allocation of human resources.
Remember that you previously claimed this should be done by avoiding such irrational things as “beauty, drama, tragedy and pathos” or “myth, emotion, tribe and identity”
I don’t feel the need to explain why killing people for their organs is immoral.
By all means decline. But you started from the proposition that “Socio-economic questions should be approached rationally, dispassionately and scientifically” and then took refuge in an unexplained argument from morality.
Of course you will have realised that I was being particularly careful not to actually advocate for murdering young people for their body parts. Indeed, as I hope you might have guessed, I’m not at all in favour of it, probably for similar reasons. But I’m perfectly willing to admit that there are things which I regard as immoral for reasons that are more to do with “beauty, drama, tragedy and pathos” or “myth, emotion, tribe and identity” than with some illusory dispassionate scientific argument.
The problem. for people who argue, as you do, that all social and economic questions can be resolved by rational discussion, is that this only works when everyone occupies almost exactly the same position on the political spectrum, so that all the real questions have been agreed in advance.
I disagree. Reason and methods of scientific enquiry can provide a route out of ideological polarisation on socio-economic questions in a society like ours, where practically everyone shares a basic moral framework.
The high cost of housing, for instance, which blights the lives of younger generations, is approached by the Conservative Party through the ideological lens of free-market orthodoxy (although they backslide royally by offering state subsidies to buyers), with exactly zero attempt to experiment with a mix of approaches, and then to measure the results to arrive at the most effective set of measures to bring the cost of housing down.
Would that were so. But it is not and probably never has been. One of the most fundamental divisions in morality is between three main schools: “Might is Right”, “Do as you would be done by” and “Greatest good of the greatest number”. That leads to the division between the opposing schools “The individual takes priority over the group” and “The group takes priority over the individual”.
Would you like to say in each of those two cases which of the various statements most accurately reflects your view of the basic moral framework shared by everyone?
(Of course, you’ll have noticed that my admittedly extreme example represents an extreme but logical form of the Greatest good of the greatest number/The group takes priority over the individual combination. It seems you reject that. Is that the majority school?
“One of the most fundamental divisions in morality is between three main schools: “Might is Right”, “Do as you would be done by” and “Greatest good of the greatest number”
These three moral systems are not mutually exclusive. Each of us will fall somewhere on a spectrum in relation to our attitudes to the precepts of Utilitarianism, The Golden Rule and authoritarianism.
Your example of forcing a young person to part with organs to serve the greater good has been studied, and it’s been shown that almost no-one supports it, because we have natural rights that override morals claims of religions and nation states.
And where do these rights derive, in the context of an argument that explicitly disallows appeal to any of “beauty, drama, tragedy and pathos” or “myth, emotion, tribe and identity”?
I assume you’re familiar with the UDHR?
If your question relates to whether moral principles are innate within humans, I’d say that to a great extent they are.
Of course. But what’s happening here is that there’s an endless regress, because while you can argue from moral principles, you can’t argue to them, at least not in the way being attempted here.
I would, but unfortunately not the same ones. There are a signficant number of people who genuinely believe that Might is Right and that it’s actually morally good for them to do what they want when they want to do it, provided that it’s physically possible.
Sure, but at an individual level, when that behaviour impacts society negatively or causes harm to others, we have ‘social norms’ and failing that, laws to protect us. The trouble starts when those in positions of authority, be it political or religious, decide that Might Makes Right. Isn’t that the purpose of the UDHR – the defence of individual rights against those imposed by state, culture, religion etc?
I agree that society as a whole has decided against unlimited “Might makes Right”, and speaking personally, I’m entirely happy with that. But the discussion goes back to a claim
My point was that this is only possible after there’s common agreement on the broad principles on which we want society to operate, and that those principles cannot be discussed without bringing in such issues as “beauty, drama, tragedy and pathos” or “myth, emotion, tribe and identity”.
Roughly speaking, my position is that no statements of the form “X should or should not be done” can be rationally deduced without some initial generally accepted position that contains terms conveying “should” or some similar term such as “right” or good”.
As I said before, I’m not actually advocating such policies as dismantling people for spare parts — I’m just illustrating that the general agreement not to do such things isn’t based on discussing them “rationally, dispassionately and scientifically”. Indeed, I would hope that people would get quite passionate quite quickly if they came under serious discussion.
I didn’t expect you were advocating for it, and it’s a good thought experiment. I have to disagree on the last point though. I’d argue the opposite. Sometimes taking the heat out and leaving the light is the right choice.
A significant number believe Might is Right? How many?
It’s at least arguable that this is the foundation of libertarianism. Explicit Rand-ism a little less so. But it’s not uncommon among the more successful Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.
And of course, most criminals.
We made them up. We articulated them. Over millennia, the notion has been developed and refined.
We used to do lots of things in the past which we do differently, or not at all, now. Why should these be any different?
We may indeed ditch concepts like Human Rights, democracy and rule of law, but the trend for the last 200 years has been toward a global consensus that they’re preferable to Might is Right, so it’s likely to be the defining “orgware” for Homo Sapiens for some time, until we settle on something better.
It seems to me that “Do as you would be done by” and “Greatest good for the greatest number” do not stand in opposition, but are complementary.
Really? Let’s go back to the issue of dismantling people for spare parts. If you yourself would rather not be dismantled, as seems extremely likely, and is supported by your remarks about it being immoral, then it is wrong to do it to other people. But it is surely for the greater good of the greater number than seven people rather than one should survive and thrive.
If you combine the two principles, a combination that underpins the moral and legal frameworks of most countries on earth, the idea of killing people for their organs falls instantly outside the pale.
That isn’t correct either. Most societies do not adhere to the full scientific, rational and dispassionate application of “Greatest good for the greatest number”, and those that did something like it have largely found it disastrous: Nazism, Soviet communism, Maoism, Year Zero, …
But I take it you’re arguing for something like “Greatest good of the greatest number provided that nobody does things to other that they wouldn’t be prepared to have done to them”. Even that doesn’t rule out dismantling people, assuming everyone agrees that they’d be willing to take their chance of being dismantled. You might think it unlikely, but so far it’s one of those issues for which there has been exactly zero attempt to experiment with a mix of approaches, and then to measure the results to arrive at the most effective set of measures.
Today’s communist China? I believe prisoners and criminals can (and do) have their organs harvested for medical uses.
Deliberately or not, you’re omitting the principle of “Do as you’d be done by” or “Do unto others” ““ which means in effect “don’t harm others”. It underpins concepts like human rights and rule of law.
“Greatest good for the greatest number” could suggest democracy as a form of government, if one assumes people will take views on what they want their governments to do, and that they should be listened to.
Countries that are democratic tend to adopt the whole package, which includes human rights and rule of law.
In the last 200 years, democracy has spread like wildfire around the world, according to the Polity Project, which tracks it. There have been cataclysms and reversals, such as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Maoist China, but from near zero of the Earth’s population living in free societies in 1800, now some two thirds of the Earth’s population live in democracies (103 countries) and countries that are partly free and in transition.
The trend is clear.
Deliberately or not, you’re omitting the principle of “Do as you’d be done by” or “Do unto others” ““ which means in effect “don’t harm others”. It underpins concepts like human rights and rule of law.
“Greatest good for the greatest number” could suggest democracy as a form of government, if one assumes people will take views on what they want their governments to do, and that they should be listened to.
Countries that are democratic tend to adopt the whole package, which includes human rights and rule of law.
In the last 200 years, democracy has spread like wildfire around the world, according to the Polity Project, which tracks it. There have been cataclysms and reversals, but from near zero of the Earth’s population living in free societies in 1800, now some two thirds of the Earth’s population live in democracies (103 countries) and countries that are partly free and in transition.
Not quite. For example, punishing people for crimes is clearly a harm. But judges and jailers conform to the “Do unto others …” rule if they hold themselves liable to the same punishments (harms) is they commit the same crimes.
Surely rule by the enlightened elite, who are better than the average citizen at deciding what is good for the greatest number, is equally compatible? And that’s what this article is all about, really.
Oh, and rule of law, democracy, human rights and freedom are all different things, although it would take up too much space to unpack the relationships between them.
And why is that self-evidently the right thing to do? Some people own a house, and so bringing down the price of houses reduces their wealth. Explain the scientific reason why they should have their wealth reduced and, in effect, reallocated to other people. Recall that you have said this should be done without appeal to any of “beauty, drama, tragedy and pathos” or “myth, emotion, tribe and identity”.
The moral case for bringing the cost of housing down lies in the two principles you present below ““ Greatest good for greatest number, and Do as you’d be done by ““ which are complementary.
Firstly, as we discuss below, “Do as you would be done by” and “Greatest good for greatest number” are not always the same thing.
Secondly, “Greatest good for greatest number” only applies if those seeking an increase in wealth outnumber those whose wealth would be reduced, which is not obviously true here. “Do as you’d be done by” suggests not confiscating wealth unless you’re prepared to have your own confiscated.
Thirdly, even if I accepted either or both of those, that’s just kicking the can down the road … why is whichever of those moral principles you choose to apply self-evidently correct?
I don’t say the two are the same thing, I say they are complementary.
And bringing down housing costs is not the same thing as confiscating wealth. It might act as a brake on the rate of future wealth accumulation for some, but it isn’t confiscating wealth already gained.
Well, if they aren’t the same thing, they are different. So either there must be a situation in which they prescribe different things or they apply to such completely different things that they are never both applicable to the same thing. I don’t think the latter is the case — and indeed, I’ve given an example of a situation they both apply to — so it must be the former. When they differ, then, as they must on occasion — — and indeed, I’ve given an example of that too — on what principle do you decide between them?
As for bringing down the cost of housing, that involves bringing down the value of houses, and that constitutes removing wealth from house owners. I agree that “confiscation” would only be the correct term if there were countervailing compensation: would that be part of the plan?
It really would be simpler to admit that taking into account human emotion has its uses as well as rationality and logic.
I see that Richard is obviously a Utilitarian rather like all Utilitarians like Hitler who decided that to improve the human race by killing 6,000,000 Jews in the Holocaust or Jo Stalin who thought nothing of killing millions of his fellow citizens by forced labour projects and because they were seen as obstacles to his bright new communist future.
The answer to Richard’s question as to why it is immoral to kill people for their internal organs is to say ok. Let’s start with you, Richard. ( Nothing personal) Then we will see if he still thinks it moral.
Morality can, and has been studied extensively and rationalised. Definitions of objective and subjective morality abound. Take your pick of which one you want to reference here, but I can take a guess at which one it will be.
As I explain below, it’s not my definition of “morality” but that of the person who claimed that “Socio-economic questions should be approached rationally, dispassionately and scientifically.” and further that “Morality is rational”.
Richard Pinch, you are arguing in the same manner as Jonathan Swift did in his “A Modest Proposal”, aren’t you?
Pretty much, yes. As I said, the object is to illustrate that the notion of coming to a generally-agreed solution of socio-economic problems rests on the assumption that everyone already has a common set of values — and that is obviously not the case.
Let’s think about this. Murder is generally considered to be ‘wrong’ because it has a negative impact on what we can loosely call ‘well-being’. Arguments about whether it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ from a moral perspective are subject to whichever moral framework you happen to espouse. What’s important is that the overwhelming majority of humans recognise murder as being detrimental to society as a whole.
History doesn’t bear out your assertion. There have been many regimes that have murdered and exploited their people for decades. Once you have the monsters with their hands on the levers of power they don’t give them up easily.
It works like this. We as humans all strive for personal wellbeing, and in that pursuit we impinge on others’ strivings for the same thing. We are also social creatures, thriving best when we live and work together. It is therefore rational to promote modes of behaviour that maximise the chances for everyone to thrive, which started with the primitive prohibitions against killing and stealing, and which have evolved into quite abstract notions of rule of law.
Which is precisely the point of my hypothetical argument. The choice is between one person thriving and seven people thriving.
I disagree that “we impinge on others” when we strive for personal well-being. I was taught to never do that. Who are you people?
Socio-economics is necessarily political. No policy however smart works for everybody all the time, if it were possible to devise such a system I’m sure somebody would have come up with the answer eons ago. History is littered with genocidal disasters created by those who thought they knew best. I doubt all those authoritarian tyrants set out thinking how best to deliver evil to the world, I suspect they thought they had the perfect plan and were not going to let anything get in the way. Politics is largely about deciding who pays the costs and who gets the benefits, you cannot create a socio-economic plan without that at the fore because few want to pay the costs and most want to get the benefits and the landscape is constantly shifting
Indeed, a century of drama and tragedy and ‘meaningfulness’ in economic affaits has defined the Middle East. Seems a great idea.
I agree with the first part, but why don’t we just let people be, and quit trying to herd them somewhere? We need government to run things, not tell us what to do, or how to think and be.
I would be happy to have politicians be broadly competent and hard workers with the occasional inspirational genius, but not too many of them. Instead it seems to me every politico goes to the same school and university and studies the same politics based degree so their every day conversation is set out in all those mind numbingly awful phrases they churn out endlessly (I have a niece who is an aspiring politico but fails in this thankfully, so is unlikely to progress to high public office). I am pretty sure these phrases are meaningless but never having had such a privileged background has placed me at a disadvantage. It actually is rather refreshing when a politico speaks in non-gibberish. Mind you even they then don’t seem to do what they actually say they will. Strange that.
I broadly agree, but it would also be nice if they admitted from time to time that they had made a mistake, or that with hindsight they would have made a different decision.
However what really annoys me is politicians behaving like barristers defending a scoundrel. They know perfectly well that what they are saying is at best a half truth but still feel obliged to utter arrant nonsense.
It’s nice that in 1553 they asked God to help landowners not be rapacious. I wonder if that worked. These days it seems that laws, rights and policies worked up over time by rational thought, dialogue and political negotiations protect people much more effectively.
So their modern-day equivalents those multi-billionaire tech and social media owners, you know the ones that are busily regulating what we can see and think nowadays, they don’t exist then?
Tech companies are not the modern-day equivalents of 16th century landowners. For instance I do not rely on the generosity of Jeff Bezos to feed and house my family.
That day might not be too far away.
Strange, I don’t remember Jeff Bezos coming to my allotment and demanding 40% of all I grew.
Indeed, it worked so well they never enclosed anywhere or drove most freehold peasants into penury.
Fortunately, we don’t live in the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, the woke people threaten to make our society similarly intolerant of any dissenting ideas.
Indeed, I am getting a distinct Lucky Jim vibe from this article.
The brutality of honesty.
My own cynical view is that politicians and business leaders, once they have made money, want to hold onto their power by projecting virtue. This has two objectives, make it difficult for capitalists to operate and therefore remove competition and create an ever changing rule book that can only be followed by those in the know (people in power). For example, it is difficult to be successful without making money. But making money is frowned upon these days, but everyone needs it. Those comfortably in power, with their money, are free to talk about social causes etc. This is something of a status game- I have enough money that I can focus on these virtuous things. And at the same time look down on people who have to keep earning money. I think most people realise that these leaders wouldn’t care a bit about these things if they were poor and not in the public eye, or didn’t have something to gain from their positions. It is a well worn path, make money then absolve your sins by giving to the poor or projecting your virtue. Dismantle the rope ladder to stop others climbing and attacking your position. These politicians don’t realise that they are the problem.