I really enjoyed this article when I first read it a few months ago. The author tries to address what I believe are the most important questions facing the west.
Why do our political leaders continue to make decisions that don’t help the majority of people they serve, and why do they pursue policy solutions that defy even grade school common sense?
The policy-making process has been corrupted. We see it everywhere – defund the police, net zero, puberty blockers for kids, mandatory lockdowns. These policies are infinitely worse than the problems they are meant to address. How do reasonably intelligent people think any of these will work?
The author provides some valuable insight, but I’m not sure he nails it down. And maybe that’s just not possible because it’s a wickedly complex issue.
I think the education system plays a role, secularization of society plays a role, as well as the disconnect of political leaders from the people they serve.
One item that shocked me was the suggestion to nationalize the energy industry. To think the people who caused the energy crisis should actually have more power is bonkers. This will almost certainly magnify the crisis.
It’s certainly interesting to revisit these articles several months on, and a great idea by Unherd to republish them with previous comments erased; to look at how things have moved on ever so slightly and with fresh perspective. Not just this article: the “Best of…” series, with some being read for the first time if we encountered Unherd during the year. For any longer term readers, did Unherd do something similar at the end of 2021?
It’s a great time of year for reflection, of course: the slightly odd period between Christmas and New Year when its easy to lose track of what day it is; days themselves are short and it seems like the world pauses for breath (unless you’re Ukrainian).
The picture of a Boris caricature with this article also reminds us of how quickly history can move on. I’m not sure that the premise, that this winter will lead to social turmoil, still has as much traction, although there’s a long way to go yet. In the US, the terrible storm has put people into basic survival mode, at least for now. In the UK, we have a wave of strikes not seen for a generation but the public mood seems to be one of stoically taking things as they come, typical of our national character. I’ve thought, after reading other articles by Fazi, that he doesn’t really understand the British psyche. It’s not that we’re acquiescent, more that we retain a kind of collective folk memory that we dig into, to remind us of our past travails, and that we’ve got a very long history of pulling through.
The government is run by psychopaths and they never consider the consequences of their actions because they cannot accept that they can be wrong. Most countries are now the same which is why they seemed to act in unison to create a pandemic. The psychopath, Schwab, confirms that every cabinet has been penetrated by WEF acolytes.
I hear occasionally about this Schwab person, but when I mention the name to those friends who are well-read and politically well-informed they have no idea who I’m talking about. If he is in fact some kind of sinister Bond villain type, why does no one seem to know anything about him? It’s bizarre. Who is he and why is his name never mentioned outside of obscure social media posts?
Jane – try this for size. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeykREAlYSg&feature=youtu.be
You will see how the means by which the Chinese government controls its population is much admired by the non-elected quasi fascist Klaus Schwab, who, in turn, is greatly admired by non other than King Charles III. One would have thought that our King might have been rather more circumspect in his political leanings, but not so, apparently.
Jane – I tried to reply by providing a link to a YouTube clip that showed how this Schwab character who much admires China is in turn very much admired by a certain very high level aristocrat who appeared on tv this Christmas.. But my comment was removed, sorry! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeykREAlYSg&feature=youtu.be
He’s so unknown that he was invited to the recent G20 summit in Bali as an “international organisation guest” (with his mate Bill Gates).
The other guests under this heading were the usual suspects: UN, WHO, WTO, IMF, OECD – all constituted under mandates from world governments, therefore with some democratic claim to be present. I wonder why Santa Klaus was there representing the totally undemocratic WEF and who invited him?
They should know who Schwab is. That’s a tell about their news consumption habits – legacy, legacy and more legacy. I don’t buy the junk about some WEF global cabal, but it certainly has influence on international politics. The PM and deputy PM of Canada are both grads of its young leaders program.
Jane – try this for size. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeykREAlYSg&feature=youtu.be
You will see how the means by which the Chinese government controls its population is much admired by the non-elected quasi fascist Klaus Schwab, who, in turn, is greatly admired by non other than King Charles III. One would have thought that our King might have been rather more circumspect in his political leanings, but not so, apparently.
Jane – I tried to reply by providing a link to a YouTube clip that showed how this Schwab character who much admires China is in turn very much admired by a certain very high level aristocrat who appeared on tv this Christmas.. But my comment was removed, sorry! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeykREAlYSg&feature=youtu.be
He’s so unknown that he was invited to the recent G20 summit in Bali as an “international organisation guest” (with his mate Bill Gates).
The other guests under this heading were the usual suspects: UN, WHO, WTO, IMF, OECD – all constituted under mandates from world governments, therefore with some democratic claim to be present. I wonder why Santa Klaus was there representing the totally undemocratic WEF and who invited him?
They should know who Schwab is. That’s a tell about their news consumption habits – legacy, legacy and more legacy. I don’t buy the junk about some WEF global cabal, but it certainly has influence on international politics. The PM and deputy PM of Canada are both grads of its young leaders program.
I hear occasionally about this Schwab person, but when I mention the name to those friends who are well-read and politically well-informed they have no idea who I’m talking about. If he is in fact some kind of sinister Bond villain type, why does no one seem to know anything about him? It’s bizarre. Who is he and why is his name never mentioned outside of obscure social media posts?
To me, Fazi falls under the category, and it’s a large category, of people making the right observations then drawing faulty conclusions, possibly from attachment to a particular ideology or social/familial pressures or w/e else. He articulates quite intelligently and thoroughly how globalization is A.) usurping democratic governance through international institutions and international commerce and B.) also beginning to fail to maintain the prosperity that this social bargain has been based upon, and C.) creating, enriching, and protecting a global aristocrat class. Even so, he seems unwilling to wholly let go of the notion of global cooperation on things like climate change, energy management, and international diplomacy, not quite ready to admit that while most issues allow room for compromise, there are times when one faces stark either/or choices. Two objects cannot exist in the same space at the same time. Oil does not mix with water. We can either have affordable energy for all with climate change, or some command system of global energy rationing that limits climate change to some degree possibly. Sanctioning a large provider of energy has costs that cannot be waved away with creative economics or government spending. Basic needs and resources like food, energy, water are an either/or. A country either has enough to provide for its economy and population, or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, it has to buy that energy from others whom they cannot antagonize without consequence. Countries can either have their own cultures with their own values, religions, laws, and norms, or we can have unlimited free movement for all humanity. We can either have unlimited free commerce that reduces the world to a state of neofeudalism with only a small aristocracy and a mass of peasants, or we can have a middle class based on a limited labor supply and a system of laws and standards that limit the worst aspects of capitalist exploitation. Globalist/neoliberal goals and attitudes are not compatible with a return to traditional notions of nationalism and democratic rule of law governance. Like Harry and Voldemort, ‘either must die at the hand of the other, for neither can live while the other survives.’ I fear, and strongly suspect, that things much worse than civil disobedience are coming.
I don’t think he thinks that. It’s not about ‘controlling’ the climate, it’s about trying to manage our behaviour. It’s a big ask & probably likely to fail, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Maybe you’re one of those people who doesn’t believe that we humans have an effect on the planet we inhabit & this doesn’t resonate with you. But we are a part of nature and all of nature is connected & intertwined.
Human behavior is a part of nature. Climate is a part of nature. Governments have very little control over either. Democratic governments have even less. In the twentieth century, we witnessed the utter failure of an ideology that tried to get people to prioritize the collective good over their individual self interest with the claim that the results would be better for everyone. We’re not so far removed from the days of Mao and Stalin that people should have forgotten how spectacularly and how completely Communism failed. It wasn’t better for everyone, or anyone. Now, in the 21st century, we have another ideology that claims humans acting individually, freely, following their own self-interest is inherently destructive and freedom must be limited to provide for the collective good, and we’re supposed to believe what didn’t work just four decades ago should suddenly be embraced by all. People never really learn the lessons of history, seemingly even when the history is so recent we have people still living who remember it. Getting people to accept poverty for the sake of “the planet” isn’t simply a ‘big ask’, it’s demonstrably impossible. If the Russians/Chinese/etc. needed a totalitarian police state to enforce their collectivist ideology in the 1900’s, and still ultimately lost or were forced to compromise their ideology to retain power, why does anybody seriously believe that Americans or Europeans will walk stupidly into the gulags and reeducation camps without complaint in the 2000’s? I’m genuinely curious what you think has changed in the past thirty or so years will make large scale collectivism work now when it hasn’t worked anywhere ever before.
I didn’t mean to give the impression that I’m an advocate of collectivism. I simply said that, whatever one’s thoughts on whether govts can control people (I’m aware that when they try, the effects are dire. And ironically hive mentality is making a comeback in some areas of society & it looks ugly) it’s a scientific truism that we can’t actually ‘control’ the climate. We can only hope to manage how we deal with the reality of the negative effects of its rapid change. I am in agreement with the prevailing scientific consensus that accelerating climate change is very likely down to human activity. And that if humans were interested and motivated enough, we might be able to do something to mitigate those effects. As unlikely as that is – or even impossible as you suggest – I don’t think what I said amounts to an endorsement of collectivism.
I didn’t mean to give the impression that I’m an advocate of collectivism. I simply said that, whatever one’s thoughts on whether govts can control people (I’m aware that when they try, the effects are dire. And ironically hive mentality is making a comeback in some areas of society & it looks ugly) it’s a scientific truism that we can’t actually ‘control’ the climate. We can only hope to manage how we deal with the reality of the negative effects of its rapid change. I am in agreement with the prevailing scientific consensus that accelerating climate change is very likely down to human activity. And that if humans were interested and motivated enough, we might be able to do something to mitigate those effects. As unlikely as that is – or even impossible as you suggest – I don’t think what I said amounts to an endorsement of collectivism.
Human behavior is a part of nature. Climate is a part of nature. Governments have very little control over either. Democratic governments have even less. In the twentieth century, we witnessed the utter failure of an ideology that tried to get people to prioritize the collective good over their individual self interest with the claim that the results would be better for everyone. We’re not so far removed from the days of Mao and Stalin that people should have forgotten how spectacularly and how completely Communism failed. It wasn’t better for everyone, or anyone. Now, in the 21st century, we have another ideology that claims humans acting individually, freely, following their own self-interest is inherently destructive and freedom must be limited to provide for the collective good, and we’re supposed to believe what didn’t work just four decades ago should suddenly be embraced by all. People never really learn the lessons of history, seemingly even when the history is so recent we have people still living who remember it. Getting people to accept poverty for the sake of “the planet” isn’t simply a ‘big ask’, it’s demonstrably impossible. If the Russians/Chinese/etc. needed a totalitarian police state to enforce their collectivist ideology in the 1900’s, and still ultimately lost or were forced to compromise their ideology to retain power, why does anybody seriously believe that Americans or Europeans will walk stupidly into the gulags and reeducation camps without complaint in the 2000’s? I’m genuinely curious what you think has changed in the past thirty or so years will make large scale collectivism work now when it hasn’t worked anywhere ever before.
I don’t think he thinks that. It’s not about ‘controlling’ the climate, it’s about trying to manage our behaviour. It’s a big ask & probably likely to fail, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Maybe you’re one of those people who doesn’t believe that we humans have an effect on the planet we inhabit & this doesn’t resonate with you. But we are a part of nature and all of nature is connected & intertwined.
It’s certainly interesting to revisit these articles several months on, and a great idea by Unherd to republish them with previous comments erased; to look at how things have moved on ever so slightly and with fresh perspective. Not just this article: the “Best of…” series, with some being read for the first time if we encountered Unherd during the year. For any longer term readers, did Unherd do something similar at the end of 2021?
It’s a great time of year for reflection, of course: the slightly odd period between Christmas and New Year when its easy to lose track of what day it is; days themselves are short and it seems like the world pauses for breath (unless you’re Ukrainian).
The picture of a Boris caricature with this article also reminds us of how quickly history can move on. I’m not sure that the premise, that this winter will lead to social turmoil, still has as much traction, although there’s a long way to go yet. In the US, the terrible storm has put people into basic survival mode, at least for now. In the UK, we have a wave of strikes not seen for a generation but the public mood seems to be one of stoically taking things as they come, typical of our national character. I’ve thought, after reading other articles by Fazi, that he doesn’t really understand the British psyche. It’s not that we’re acquiescent, more that we retain a kind of collective folk memory that we dig into, to remind us of our past travails, and that we’ve got a very long history of pulling through.
The government is run by psychopaths and they never consider the consequences of their actions because they cannot accept that they can be wrong. Most countries are now the same which is why they seemed to act in unison to create a pandemic. The psychopath, Schwab, confirms that every cabinet has been penetrated by WEF acolytes.
To me, Fazi falls under the category, and it’s a large category, of people making the right observations then drawing faulty conclusions, possibly from attachment to a particular ideology or social/familial pressures or w/e else. He articulates quite intelligently and thoroughly how globalization is A.) usurping democratic governance through international institutions and international commerce and B.) also beginning to fail to maintain the prosperity that this social bargain has been based upon, and C.) creating, enriching, and protecting a global aristocrat class. Even so, he seems unwilling to wholly let go of the notion of global cooperation on things like climate change, energy management, and international diplomacy, not quite ready to admit that while most issues allow room for compromise, there are times when one faces stark either/or choices. Two objects cannot exist in the same space at the same time. Oil does not mix with water. We can either have affordable energy for all with climate change, or some command system of global energy rationing that limits climate change to some degree possibly. Sanctioning a large provider of energy has costs that cannot be waved away with creative economics or government spending. Basic needs and resources like food, energy, water are an either/or. A country either has enough to provide for its economy and population, or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, it has to buy that energy from others whom they cannot antagonize without consequence. Countries can either have their own cultures with their own values, religions, laws, and norms, or we can have unlimited free movement for all humanity. We can either have unlimited free commerce that reduces the world to a state of neofeudalism with only a small aristocracy and a mass of peasants, or we can have a middle class based on a limited labor supply and a system of laws and standards that limit the worst aspects of capitalist exploitation. Globalist/neoliberal goals and attitudes are not compatible with a return to traditional notions of nationalism and democratic rule of law governance. Like Harry and Voldemort, ‘either must die at the hand of the other, for neither can live while the other survives.’ I fear, and strongly suspect, that things much worse than civil disobedience are coming.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
I really enjoyed this article when I first read it a few months ago. The author tries to address what I believe are the most important questions facing the west.
Why do our political leaders continue to make decisions that don’t help the majority of people they serve, and why do they pursue policy solutions that defy even grade school common sense?
The policy-making process has been corrupted. We see it everywhere – defund the police, net zero, puberty blockers for kids, mandatory lockdowns. These policies are infinitely worse than the problems they are meant to address. How do reasonably intelligent people think any of these will work?
The author provides some valuable insight, but I’m not sure he nails it down. And maybe that’s just not possible because it’s a wickedly complex issue.
I think the education system plays a role, secularization of society plays a role, as well as the disconnect of political leaders from the people they serve.
One item that shocked me was the suggestion to nationalize the energy industry. To think the people who caused the energy crisis should actually have more power is bonkers. This will almost certainly magnify the crisis.
Lancastrian Oik
1 year ago
A very neat analysis; unfortunately nearly all the lefties of my acquaintance are still banging on about Brexit (or even the impact, of Thatcherism, forty years on), and/or have been captured by the CAGW scam. Many on the right are also moaning about Brexit and its legacy of “denied opportunities”. Those few Americans I know are mainly suffering from TDS.
Very few people understand the reality of our situation- we are well on the way to a dystopic future at the hands of big tech marching hand in hand with governments which waft the odours of soothing quasi-leftist nostrums in our general direction; in other words the very embodiment of the Fascism that everybody (especially the Left) is supposed to detest but which most of them are eagerly embracing.
Man is Woman, Truth is Illusion, Oppression is Compassion, Fascism is Democracy, Peace is War, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Lancastrian Oik
1 year ago
A very neat analysis; unfortunately nearly all the lefties of my acquaintance are still banging on about Brexit (or even the impact, of Thatcherism, forty years on), and/or have been captured by the CAGW scam. Many on the right are also moaning about Brexit and its legacy of “denied opportunities”. Those few Americans I know are mainly suffering from TDS.
Very few people understand the reality of our situation- we are well on the way to a dystopic future at the hands of big tech marching hand in hand with governments which waft the odours of soothing quasi-leftist nostrums in our general direction; in other words the very embodiment of the Fascism that everybody (especially the Left) is supposed to detest but which most of them are eagerly embracing.
Last edited 1 year ago by Lancastrian Oik
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
“forcing the government, including through civil disobedience, to take serious action to solve the energy crisis in the interests of the people, for example by bringing energy suppliers into public ownership”
This section undermines everything the author has to say and reveals him to be an old fashioned authoritarian socialist that believes that seizing the means of production and putting it in the hands of the politicians that have proved themselves spectacularly incompetent and self deluded when it comes to managing the energy needs of the country is a sensible solution. These people will never invest sensibly for the future but try to buy off trouble by doing the opposite of whatever is actually needed.
Blame not the scarcity of Russian gas or the war in Ukraine, but the green parties who have forced the shutdown of nuclear and coal fired power stations for “renewable free energy” to save the planet.
Blame not the scarcity of Russian gas or the war in Ukraine, but the green parties who have forced the shutdown of nuclear and coal fired power stations for “renewable free energy” to save the planet.
I’m not sure that he is saying that he wants it to happen, rather it is a likely outcome.
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
“forcing the government, including through civil disobedience, to take serious action to solve the energy crisis in the interests of the people, for example by bringing energy suppliers into public ownership”
This section undermines everything the author has to say and reveals him to be an old fashioned authoritarian socialist that believes that seizing the means of production and putting it in the hands of the politicians that have proved themselves spectacularly incompetent and self deluded when it comes to managing the energy needs of the country is a sensible solution. These people will never invest sensibly for the future but try to buy off trouble by doing the opposite of whatever is actually needed.
FacRecte NilTime
1 year ago
Great diagnosis. Less clear about the prescriptions in the final para.
It’s clear that big corporates in near-monopoly conditions are not running utilities and basic infrastructure in the interests of citizens – the railways, power and water sectors get worse while billions are extracted without investment for the future.
But those of us who remember the seventies are unlikely to be nostalgic for nationalisation.
And the call to “In the longer term, it means taking the struggle to the heart of the political establishment itself.” is unhelpfully vague.
So what practical steps can we actually take to oblige a political class in thrall to global corporates to govern in the interests of the nation and its people?
Keep sacking them (at every election cycle) until someone comes along that will change behaviour.
It won’t be quick …. but Brexit was always a multi-generational endeavour.
Persuading any owner they should invest for tomorrow is always very difficult. State ownership certainly didn’t; corporate ownership, however well run, is always at risk from vulture funds. Cooperatives always seem a potential solution for universal service businesses, and used to work well, until they tried to turn themselves into corporates.
But the need is for the government to restrict itself to making sure no monopolies arise, unless it is a cooperative. That is not difficult; it merely requires a thoughtful regulator, preferably with a board chosen from the disinterested public.
Keep sacking them (at every election cycle) until someone comes along that will change behaviour.
It won’t be quick …. but Brexit was always a multi-generational endeavour.
Persuading any owner they should invest for tomorrow is always very difficult. State ownership certainly didn’t; corporate ownership, however well run, is always at risk from vulture funds. Cooperatives always seem a potential solution for universal service businesses, and used to work well, until they tried to turn themselves into corporates.
But the need is for the government to restrict itself to making sure no monopolies arise, unless it is a cooperative. That is not difficult; it merely requires a thoughtful regulator, preferably with a board chosen from the disinterested public.
FacRecte NilTime
1 year ago
Great diagnosis. Less clear about the prescriptions in the final para.
It’s clear that big corporates in near-monopoly conditions are not running utilities and basic infrastructure in the interests of citizens – the railways, power and water sectors get worse while billions are extracted without investment for the future.
But those of us who remember the seventies are unlikely to be nostalgic for nationalisation.
And the call to “In the longer term, it means taking the struggle to the heart of the political establishment itself.” is unhelpfully vague.
So what practical steps can we actually take to oblige a political class in thrall to global corporates to govern in the interests of the nation and its people?
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
How disappointed he must be. None of the alarmist nonsense he predicted has happened. The loss of Russian fossil fuels is having a very limited impact, and the Orcs are licking their wounds.
I grew up in NI during the late Ian Paisley’s lifetime. He was a colourful and charismatic (and oddly likable) character, but also an extremist, full of wild conspiracy theories which he was adept at fomenting. One of his favourite words was “betrayal”, delivered in his trademark thundering, stentorian tones. See my blog on the Big Mawn: https://thebigmawn.blogspot.com/
To this day though, when I see words like “betrayal” in a serious article, I am inclined to think that the author is a cynic with an agenda, or a naive conspiracy theorist.
The most interesting part of this Citizen Smith article (“parasitic, cancerous elite” lol – I knew plenty of teenagers at college who analysed politics in such terms, and, at times, Unherd permits the odd sensation of having wondered by mistake into an online cabal of naïve old Trots) is the author’s desire for a “process of democratic rejuvenation of the country, by making elected officials directly accountable to the British people for their decisions. The Conservatives have betrayed this promise.”
What exactly is he talking about here? I’m not sure whether he realises it yet, but it could be that the writer is calling for the replacement of the (increasingly misunderstood) system of representative democracy by a system of plebiscite democracy, whereunder Britain would be ran more like a bake=-off competition, and wherein elected officials are reduced to mere ciphers, without manifestos agency.
It depends on whether you think people who voted to name a ship “Boaty McBoat Face” should be in charge of nuclear codes or setting local taxation. The author, like all idealists, exhibits a touching faith in the ethical superiority of “the people”, whilst simultaneously viewing any of those same people who are elected or otherwise successful in life as part of a toxic elite who ideally should be guillotined.
Same old barmy utopian snake oil I’ve been listening to from the unthinkers of the hard right and the hard left for all my life. Simple solutions for every multi-faceted issue, with the rage and the purity and the societal divisions pre-baked into the solution.
If you’re interested in Putin’s / Russia’s long game, check out Alexey Arestovich, speaking in 2019: https://youtu.be/1xNHmHpERH8
His insights are a necessary counter-balance to the author’s de facto appeasement of a dictator.
I tried to say much the same – that this article has not aged well over even a few months. For some reason my comment still hasn’t appeared here.
But some of these wishful thinking projections of the author were predictably false even when written.
As for the proposed “solution” to the energy crisis – let’s nationalise the energy suppliers. The author seems to ignore that obvious fact that this will have no effect on supply and demand. One despairs …
Phew, thank you for that. A classic tell of such barmy snake oil salesmen – of left or right – is the perennial denunciation of ‘The Elite’, and ‘The MSM’ (or The West/East, The Bankers, The People etc etc ad nauseam, anytime, any place in history). As if all those would be members form monolithic blocks of badness acting in a unison of malevolent conspiracy. The World and the people in it are apparently not complex, paradoxical, chaotic, nuanced, unpredictable. So whilst claims are made – supposedly expressing political points concerning society’s ills – what is actually displayed are psychological matters: personal ills involving a lot of splitting and projection. Solipcisitic shadow boxers.
Where there is overwhelming anxiety, conspiracy theories supply certainty (a sure path when one feels lost); where there are self-esteem problems prestige (‘I possess important information most people do not have) and ability (‘I have the power to reject “experts” and expose hidden cabals’); vindication when one feels besieged (my ‘enemies’ are wrong, morally, scientifically)’; connection when one feels alone (huddling in those dark corners of the internet where The MSM refuses to go – must be a conspiracy!) ; and liberation: ‘If I imagine my foes are completely malevolent, then I can use any tactic I want’.
Again another excellent critique of the author’s essay.
But again, I do think the west is entering an era where political leadership seems particularly incapable of adopting sensible policies.
Take the energy crisis. Russia certainly was the short term cause, but the long term cause is all about nonsensical domestic energy policy. Even if you think climate change is very dangerous, it only takes rudimentary logic to understand that wind and solar are not the solution. The adults in the room would have pursued a nuclear power program.
So why do we have political leaders across the west acting in ways that will harm their constituencies?
I guess leaders have always done things that harm the people – this is not new. What is new is the expectation that they should be all things to all people, and failure is personal – maybe this is an effect of the narcissitic times we live in. Another explanation was coverered in unherd recently – the increasing unattractiveness of politics (other than to narcissistic masochists). Apparently MPs used to be paid the equivalent of £600,000 a year, and they certainly were not watched, hounded every days on multiple platforms!
Hmm. I get what you’re saying. Leaders have always made poor decisions – no question. I also recognize the social and economic upheaval we seem to be experiencing now is not unique. The 70s were quite tumultuous.
But it seems to me the context has changed. Let’s take inflation for example. This is a very complex issue. Raise interest rates and it reduces demand pressure. Helps reduce inflation, but causes other obvious harms. Complex problems with complex solutions. You can appreciate bad policy choices under such circumstances.
Now let’s look at race relations. When this first ignited in the late 60s, most western govts introduced policies to create more equality and opportunities for people who faced discrimination. Fast forward 50 years, when racism isn’t nearly as prevalent, and we get policies to Defund the police, which on its face will clearly harm the people it is meant to help. Or we get policies to create affinity groups that divide people into oppressed and oppressor groups. On its face, this is nonsense and will only serve to segregate groups. Yet we don’t seem to have any interest in addressing the real economic and social barriers challenging some people at the lower rungs of racial minorities.
This unserious political response seems to be everywhere. Give puberty blockers to children suffering gender dysphoria. Build wind and solar to address climate change.
In Canada, the Trudeau govt has been in power since 2015, yet I can’t think of a single policy that has been introduced to promote human progress and flourishing. They either fiddle around with inconsequential issues like decriminalizing weed, or promote policies like net zero that actually harm the economy. Even meat and potatoes issues like pension plan funding or health care simply get ignored.
Is it any different in Britain? What have the Tories even attempted to do in the last decade that promotes human progress, or addresses fundamental meat and potato issues?
Hmm. I get what you’re saying. Leaders have always made poor decisions – no question. I also recognize the social and economic upheaval we seem to be experiencing now is not unique. The 70s were quite tumultuous.
But it seems to me the context has changed. Let’s take inflation for example. This is a very complex issue. Raise interest rates and it reduces demand pressure. Helps reduce inflation, but causes other obvious harms. Complex problems with complex solutions. You can appreciate bad policy choices under such circumstances.
Now let’s look at race relations. When this first ignited in the late 60s, most western govts introduced policies to create more equality and opportunities for people who faced discrimination. Fast forward 50 years, when racism isn’t nearly as prevalent, and we get policies to Defund the police, which on its face will clearly harm the people it is meant to help. Or we get policies to create affinity groups that divide people into oppressed and oppressor groups. On its face, this is nonsense and will only serve to segregate groups. Yet we don’t seem to have any interest in addressing the real economic and social barriers challenging some people at the lower rungs of racial minorities.
This unserious political response seems to be everywhere. Give puberty blockers to children suffering gender dysphoria. Build wind and solar to address climate change.
In Canada, the Trudeau govt has been in power since 2015, yet I can’t think of a single policy that has been introduced to promote human progress and flourishing. They either fiddle around with inconsequential issues like decriminalizing weed, or promote policies like net zero that actually harm the economy. Even meat and potatoes issues like pension plan funding or health care simply get ignored.
Is it any different in Britain? What have the Tories even attempted to do in the last decade that promotes human progress, or addresses fundamental meat and potato issues?
I disagree fundamentally with this assertion that the leaders are acting against the interests of their electorate (for some unexplained reason my original comment made 6 hours ago saying this is still unpublished).
If politicians are following ill thought out, short term policies and have been repeatedly doing so for 30 years or more (I’m not sure this has always been true), it can only be because they have the approval of a sufficient majority of the population.
It’s reminsiscent of the argument of the left in the 1980s that the “right wing press” was somehow unfairly working against them – conveniently ignoring that fact that millions of people were voluntarily paying for these newspapers with their own money.
If people have decided that consumerism, lots of cheap stuff and gadgets, fake news and celeb TV are what they want, why is anyone surprised that politics moves to reflect that ?
But no – the public must always be the innocent victims of some supposed elite working against them.
I’m not arguing political leaders are intentionally harming citizens. I’m arguing they fail to recognize the self evident, unintended consequences of their policy choices. They choose policies that defy common sense.
The essence of my question is why is this happening. And I’m certainly not arguing there’s some grand conspiracy to do anything.
I see similar self-destructive policies across the west and question why this is happening.
I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing that much.
But you are rather assuming that the public as a whole both recognise and want these [in your view and mine] “common sense” policies. I see plenty of evidence that they do not. Or do not care enough to change things. The net zero stuff appears to have majority public support (as far as we’re told – who knows in reality).
You are also assuming that the politicians are so stupid that they do not recognise the consequences of what they are doing. I suggest that is not always the case. When George Osborne introduced the ludicrous “Help to Buy” state-backed house price support scheme (without doing anything about house-building, planning or immigration), he knew full well the effects that this would have and that it would lock much of a younger generation out of home ownership by supporting prices beyond the reach of ordinary people without inherited wealth. But again, these crazy policies seem to win elections … . And these have been the concensus policies for 30 years now.
I do think we largely agree. I’m not familiar with the Help to Buy program. I can only assume it pleased his voting base. I can understand the self interest at work here.
But many of the policies today don’t help anyone. Puberty blockers don’t help anyone. Net zero might inflict more harm on poor people, but it doesn’t actually help anyone – not even the environment.
So what are we left with? The general populace is so stupid or misinformed that it demands policies that cause self harm?
I can see that with the Covid response. I think most people supported lockdowns, even though it harmed their long-term economic interests, and even though pre Covid this was seen as a bad policy option by health experts.
I can’t wrap my head around it. Very few people lack common sense. I can see it in specific policy areas like Covid, but not across multiple issues.
And I don’t buy into conspiracy theories like the WEF masterminding some global takeover. I do believe, however, that many political leaders are in the thrall of Schwab and the WEF, similar to the millions of Americans in the thrall of Trump.
Still, I’m trying to understand what is actually happening out there. IDK too complex for me I guess.
Perhaps think about it this way. Instead of “against their own interests”, think about it as a trade-off between short and longer term interests. We’ve become a society largely fixated on instant gratification – it’s a vicious spiral created by politicians giving people what they want now to gain votes. Short term gains, longer term costs. Exactly as we see right now. And one reason why Asia has grown so dramatically relative to the West – because they are more skewed to delayed gratification (as we used to be). And that’s the key to long term growth and productivity.
I don’t find any of this in the least suprising or confusing. At least until reality busts my explanation – and then I’ll be lost.
Well, you can mark me down as lost. I think you can make the case of short term gain vs long term loss in some instances. But I don’t think that applies to a large set of issues, which I have mentioned, that have neither short or long term benefits.
I wonder whether part of the reason is a creeping apathy. More and more it seems that people just can’t be arsed to use those democratic tools that are still available.
Technology is moving fast to divorce us from the ways that society, economics, governance function (just try contacting any organisation that either provides us with or sells products or services – they don’t want to talk to us) We’re expected to just put up with a deteriorating infrastructure. And we do. Look at how the entertainment industry is exploding with escapist movies. The frivolous end of the retail industry plies us with ever more useless objects to keep us distracted.
It’s Bread & Circuses.
Most people are too tied up with our toys & games to make the effort. It’s been made easy for us to whinge and complain about our lot via our electronic devices & shouty, superficial social media platforms, and when some outlying group does get up and try to make their case, it never seems to hit the spot. The powers that be dismiss them and invariably the public just get cross because it interferes with the smooth running of our busy lives.
But we do still have agency. We can still go to our MPs & make our case. We can still vote. The only way we will get a better quality of representatives is if we get involved, become more politically active, not just gluing ourselves to roads. But more of us need to do it.
By the way, I’m not necessarily referring to people on this forum – I’m in excellent thinking company here! Mostly far better informed than I am – but there does seem to be a trance-like pall falling over us citizens. Are we sleepwalking into the very dystopia we fear?
I wonder whether part of the reason is a creeping apathy. More and more it seems that people just can’t be arsed to use those democratic tools that are still available.
Technology is moving fast to divorce us from the ways that society, economics, governance function (just try contacting any organisation that either provides us with or sells products or services – they don’t want to talk to us) We’re expected to just put up with a deteriorating infrastructure. And we do. Look at how the entertainment industry is exploding with escapist movies. The frivolous end of the retail industry plies us with ever more useless objects to keep us distracted.
It’s Bread & Circuses.
Most people are too tied up with our toys & games to make the effort. It’s been made easy for us to whinge and complain about our lot via our electronic devices & shouty, superficial social media platforms, and when some outlying group does get up and try to make their case, it never seems to hit the spot. The powers that be dismiss them and invariably the public just get cross because it interferes with the smooth running of our busy lives.
But we do still have agency. We can still go to our MPs & make our case. We can still vote. The only way we will get a better quality of representatives is if we get involved, become more politically active, not just gluing ourselves to roads. But more of us need to do it.
By the way, I’m not necessarily referring to people on this forum – I’m in excellent thinking company here! Mostly far better informed than I am – but there does seem to be a trance-like pall falling over us citizens. Are we sleepwalking into the very dystopia we fear?
Well, you can mark me down as lost. I think you can make the case of short term gain vs long term loss in some instances. But I don’t think that applies to a large set of issues, which I have mentioned, that have neither short or long term benefits.
Perhaps think about it this way. Instead of “against their own interests”, think about it as a trade-off between short and longer term interests. We’ve become a society largely fixated on instant gratification – it’s a vicious spiral created by politicians giving people what they want now to gain votes. Short term gains, longer term costs. Exactly as we see right now. And one reason why Asia has grown so dramatically relative to the West – because they are more skewed to delayed gratification (as we used to be). And that’s the key to long term growth and productivity.
I don’t find any of this in the least suprising or confusing. At least until reality busts my explanation – and then I’ll be lost.
I do think we largely agree. I’m not familiar with the Help to Buy program. I can only assume it pleased his voting base. I can understand the self interest at work here.
But many of the policies today don’t help anyone. Puberty blockers don’t help anyone. Net zero might inflict more harm on poor people, but it doesn’t actually help anyone – not even the environment.
So what are we left with? The general populace is so stupid or misinformed that it demands policies that cause self harm?
I can see that with the Covid response. I think most people supported lockdowns, even though it harmed their long-term economic interests, and even though pre Covid this was seen as a bad policy option by health experts.
I can’t wrap my head around it. Very few people lack common sense. I can see it in specific policy areas like Covid, but not across multiple issues.
And I don’t buy into conspiracy theories like the WEF masterminding some global takeover. I do believe, however, that many political leaders are in the thrall of Schwab and the WEF, similar to the millions of Americans in the thrall of Trump.
Still, I’m trying to understand what is actually happening out there. IDK too complex for me I guess.
I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing that much.
But you are rather assuming that the public as a whole both recognise and want these [in your view and mine] “common sense” policies. I see plenty of evidence that they do not. Or do not care enough to change things. The net zero stuff appears to have majority public support (as far as we’re told – who knows in reality).
You are also assuming that the politicians are so stupid that they do not recognise the consequences of what they are doing. I suggest that is not always the case. When George Osborne introduced the ludicrous “Help to Buy” state-backed house price support scheme (without doing anything about house-building, planning or immigration), he knew full well the effects that this would have and that it would lock much of a younger generation out of home ownership by supporting prices beyond the reach of ordinary people without inherited wealth. But again, these crazy policies seem to win elections … . And these have been the concensus policies for 30 years now.
I’m not arguing political leaders are intentionally harming citizens. I’m arguing they fail to recognize the self evident, unintended consequences of their policy choices. They choose policies that defy common sense.
The essence of my question is why is this happening. And I’m certainly not arguing there’s some grand conspiracy to do anything.
I see similar self-destructive policies across the west and question why this is happening.
I guess leaders have always done things that harm the people – this is not new. What is new is the expectation that they should be all things to all people, and failure is personal – maybe this is an effect of the narcissitic times we live in. Another explanation was coverered in unherd recently – the increasing unattractiveness of politics (other than to narcissistic masochists). Apparently MPs used to be paid the equivalent of £600,000 a year, and they certainly were not watched, hounded every days on multiple platforms!
I disagree fundamentally with this assertion that the leaders are acting against the interests of their electorate (for some unexplained reason my original comment made 6 hours ago saying this is still unpublished).
If politicians are following ill thought out, short term policies and have been repeatedly doing so for 30 years or more (I’m not sure this has always been true), it can only be because they have the approval of a sufficient majority of the population.
It’s reminsiscent of the argument of the left in the 1980s that the “right wing press” was somehow unfairly working against them – conveniently ignoring that fact that millions of people were voluntarily paying for these newspapers with their own money.
If people have decided that consumerism, lots of cheap stuff and gadgets, fake news and celeb TV are what they want, why is anyone surprised that politics moves to reflect that ?
But no – the public must always be the innocent victims of some supposed elite working against them.
Again another excellent critique of the author’s essay.
But again, I do think the west is entering an era where political leadership seems particularly incapable of adopting sensible policies.
Take the energy crisis. Russia certainly was the short term cause, but the long term cause is all about nonsensical domestic energy policy. Even if you think climate change is very dangerous, it only takes rudimentary logic to understand that wind and solar are not the solution. The adults in the room would have pursued a nuclear power program.
So why do we have political leaders across the west acting in ways that will harm their constituencies?
Thanks for that eulogy to the late Reverend Ian Paisley, it brought back many happy memories.
We shall probably not see his like again for many a year, more’s the pity.
My favourite memory of Paisley isn’t, oddly enough, of Paisley himself but of the utterly brilliant sketch by Harry Enfield playing the Reverend at a typically louche London party where the dissonance between his rhetoric and the other uncomprehending guests was probably the best thing Enfield ever did.
Just looked that up too! Oh for someone of Enfield’s talent now.
Thanks, Unherd. These exchanges have given me the biggest laugh of the festive season!
Just looked that up too! Oh for someone of Enfield’s talent now.
Thanks, Unherd. These exchanges have given me the biggest laugh of the festive season!
Apparently “William Ulsterman” was based on someone else (if that’s the sketch you’re thinking of – and it really is a classic which also nicely captures English incomprehension about Northern Ireland and a belief that muddling through with good manners can fix things).
I stand corrected!! Harry Enfield – Ulsterman – YouTube
It surely owes its origins to Paisley though. If Paisley hadn’t existed, this sketch would never have happened.
I stand corrected!! Harry Enfield – Ulsterman – YouTube
It surely owes its origins to Paisley though. If Paisley hadn’t existed, this sketch would never have happened.
Apparently “William Ulsterman” was based on someone else (if that’s the sketch you’re thinking of – and it really is a classic which also nicely captures English incomprehension about Northern Ireland and a belief that muddling through with good manners can fix things).
My favourite memory of Paisley isn’t, oddly enough, of Paisley himself but of the utterly brilliant sketch by Harry Enfield playing the Reverend at a typically louche London party where the dissonance between his rhetoric and the other uncomprehending guests was probably the best thing Enfield ever did.
Excellent, excellent counter point to the author’s analysis.
I do think we are living in different times though – something like the decline of the west.
What fascinates and troubles me is why do political leaders now embrace policies that are not only bad, but actually harmful?
Defund the police, net zero, puberty blockers, economic lockdowns – why would any reasonable human being pursue these policies? What forces are pushing political leaders to pursue policies that are nonsense?
Eg. The state of New York just approved a new net zero policy after two years of deliberations. At no point during this process did they provide a comprehensive costing analysis.
I tried to say much the same – that this article has not aged well over even a few months. For some reason my comment still hasn’t appeared here.
But some of these wishful thinking projections of the author were predictably false even when written.
As for the proposed “solution” to the energy crisis – let’s nationalise the energy suppliers. The author seems to ignore that obvious fact that this will have no effect on supply and demand. One despairs …
Phew, thank you for that. A classic tell of such barmy snake oil salesmen – of left or right – is the perennial denunciation of ‘The Elite’, and ‘The MSM’ (or The West/East, The Bankers, The People etc etc ad nauseam, anytime, any place in history). As if all those would be members form monolithic blocks of badness acting in a unison of malevolent conspiracy. The World and the people in it are apparently not complex, paradoxical, chaotic, nuanced, unpredictable. So whilst claims are made – supposedly expressing political points concerning society’s ills – what is actually displayed are psychological matters: personal ills involving a lot of splitting and projection. Solipcisitic shadow boxers.
Where there is overwhelming anxiety, conspiracy theories supply certainty (a sure path when one feels lost); where there are self-esteem problems prestige (‘I possess important information most people do not have) and ability (‘I have the power to reject “experts” and expose hidden cabals’); vindication when one feels besieged (my ‘enemies’ are wrong, morally, scientifically)’; connection when one feels alone (huddling in those dark corners of the internet where The MSM refuses to go – must be a conspiracy!) ; and liberation: ‘If I imagine my foes are completely malevolent, then I can use any tactic I want’.
Thanks for that eulogy to the late Reverend Ian Paisley, it brought back many happy memories.
We shall probably not see his like again for many a year, more’s the pity.
Excellent, excellent counter point to the author’s analysis.
I do think we are living in different times though – something like the decline of the west.
What fascinates and troubles me is why do political leaders now embrace policies that are not only bad, but actually harmful?
Defund the police, net zero, puberty blockers, economic lockdowns – why would any reasonable human being pursue these policies? What forces are pushing political leaders to pursue policies that are nonsense?
Eg. The state of New York just approved a new net zero policy after two years of deliberations. At no point during this process did they provide a comprehensive costing analysis.
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
How disappointed he must be. None of the alarmist nonsense he predicted has happened. The loss of Russian fossil fuels is having a very limited impact, and the Orcs are licking their wounds.
I grew up in NI during the late Ian Paisley’s lifetime. He was a colourful and charismatic (and oddly likable) character, but also an extremist, full of wild conspiracy theories which he was adept at fomenting. One of his favourite words was “betrayal”, delivered in his trademark thundering, stentorian tones. See my blog on the Big Mawn: https://thebigmawn.blogspot.com/
To this day though, when I see words like “betrayal” in a serious article, I am inclined to think that the author is a cynic with an agenda, or a naive conspiracy theorist.
The most interesting part of this Citizen Smith article (“parasitic, cancerous elite” lol – I knew plenty of teenagers at college who analysed politics in such terms, and, at times, Unherd permits the odd sensation of having wondered by mistake into an online cabal of naïve old Trots) is the author’s desire for a “process of democratic rejuvenation of the country, by making elected officials directly accountable to the British people for their decisions. The Conservatives have betrayed this promise.”
What exactly is he talking about here? I’m not sure whether he realises it yet, but it could be that the writer is calling for the replacement of the (increasingly misunderstood) system of representative democracy by a system of plebiscite democracy, whereunder Britain would be ran more like a bake=-off competition, and wherein elected officials are reduced to mere ciphers, without manifestos agency.
It depends on whether you think people who voted to name a ship “Boaty McBoat Face” should be in charge of nuclear codes or setting local taxation. The author, like all idealists, exhibits a touching faith in the ethical superiority of “the people”, whilst simultaneously viewing any of those same people who are elected or otherwise successful in life as part of a toxic elite who ideally should be guillotined.
Same old barmy utopian snake oil I’ve been listening to from the unthinkers of the hard right and the hard left for all my life. Simple solutions for every multi-faceted issue, with the rage and the purity and the societal divisions pre-baked into the solution.
If you’re interested in Putin’s / Russia’s long game, check out Alexey Arestovich, speaking in 2019: https://youtu.be/1xNHmHpERH8
His insights are a necessary counter-balance to the author’s de facto appeasement of a dictator.
j watson
1 year ago
Agree that it’s good of UnHerd to re-publish such articles a few months.
Author has a number of themes at work here, possibly trying too hard to link them into a comprehensive narrative but certainly gives food for thought. Some questions to perhaps pose:
1. Big tech and Big pharma – do these the not need more than just individual states to counter? Is this not where an effective EU, or similar, can exert leverage a small state alone cannot?
2. His historical sweep forgets that pre-1990 most of eastern Europe was not democratic at all. We can forget how transformative things have been even if the path has been bumpy and remains so.
3. Nationalising energy companies is not about to happen, but certain decisions Govt could and should better control – e.g: in the UK Centrica’s decision to decommission it’s Rough Storage capacity for short term profit gain clearly had a ‘rose tinted’ view of the future and should arguably have been blocked by Govt on national security grounds.
4. The Brexit ‘Taking Back Control’ while a persuasive slogan seems limited to a highly centralised UK state, reluctant to explore further devolution and quite happy to continue having the reward of a seat in the House of Lords for donors. Not exactly a consistent pursuit of democratic virtues and simply a transfer to a wealthy elite?
5. And yet despite so many problems we muddle through. The support Ukraine as a young democracy has been largely solid. One would not have predicted that 10mths ago.
Ukraine has become less corrupt, less miserable as it separated itself politically and culturally from the abusive step-father Russia. This is why Putin attacked – Ukraine’s gaze was irrevocably turning to the West, away from Moscow – a crushing rejection of his boyhood Chekist vision; and we all know what happens if you say anything that displeases this manchild.
No not correct and way too simplistic a statement.
Firstly Putin wanted Medvedchuk to win the Ukrainian elections and used all his and the FSBs influence to that end. Yet Zelensky won. However Zelensky wasn’t the most anti-Russian candidate. That was Poroshenko, and if anyone received some US support it was him, not the ex-actor.
One interpretation is the Ukrainians clearly didn’t want a Putin stooge yet didn’t want a firebrand who might provoke Russia. As it turned out Putin didn’t need provoking.
Zelensky also probably won because of his anti-corruption agenda, which included more transparent defence procurement, and the cessation of immunity for MPs from corruption charges. Up until the invasion he was battling to get these measures fully implemented. Politics is often messy and involves compromise, but this back story is another strong reason for our support of this leader.
Ukraine has become less corrupt, less miserable as it separated itself politically and culturally from the abusive step-father Russia. This is why Putin attacked – Ukraine’s gaze was irrevocably turning to the West, away from Moscow – a crushing rejection of his boyhood Chekist vision; and we all know what happens if you say anything that displeases this manchild.
No not correct and way too simplistic a statement.
Firstly Putin wanted Medvedchuk to win the Ukrainian elections and used all his and the FSBs influence to that end. Yet Zelensky won. However Zelensky wasn’t the most anti-Russian candidate. That was Poroshenko, and if anyone received some US support it was him, not the ex-actor.
One interpretation is the Ukrainians clearly didn’t want a Putin stooge yet didn’t want a firebrand who might provoke Russia. As it turned out Putin didn’t need provoking.
Zelensky also probably won because of his anti-corruption agenda, which included more transparent defence procurement, and the cessation of immunity for MPs from corruption charges. Up until the invasion he was battling to get these measures fully implemented. Politics is often messy and involves compromise, but this back story is another strong reason for our support of this leader.
Ukraine is nothing more than an American outpost and is as corrupt as Russia.
j watson
1 year ago
Agree that it’s good of UnHerd to re-publish such articles a few months.
Author has a number of themes at work here, possibly trying too hard to link them into a comprehensive narrative but certainly gives food for thought. Some questions to perhaps pose:
1. Big tech and Big pharma – do these the not need more than just individual states to counter? Is this not where an effective EU, or similar, can exert leverage a small state alone cannot?
2. His historical sweep forgets that pre-1990 most of eastern Europe was not democratic at all. We can forget how transformative things have been even if the path has been bumpy and remains so.
3. Nationalising energy companies is not about to happen, but certain decisions Govt could and should better control – e.g: in the UK Centrica’s decision to decommission it’s Rough Storage capacity for short term profit gain clearly had a ‘rose tinted’ view of the future and should arguably have been blocked by Govt on national security grounds.
4. The Brexit ‘Taking Back Control’ while a persuasive slogan seems limited to a highly centralised UK state, reluctant to explore further devolution and quite happy to continue having the reward of a seat in the House of Lords for donors. Not exactly a consistent pursuit of democratic virtues and simply a transfer to a wealthy elite?
5. And yet despite so many problems we muddle through. The support Ukraine as a young democracy has been largely solid. One would not have predicted that 10mths ago.
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
A brilliant article by Fazi, enjoyed even more in the second reading. His examples of the systematic “de-democritisation” of Western societies are ever present, as in shutting down in the US of any dissenting voices to Congressional allocation of another $38 billion to Ukraine, on top of the $68 billion allocated already this year. Even those who failed to applaud Zèlensky’s demand that Congress needs to do better, are accused of being Putin puppets or “anti-democracy” because they refuse to inhale the official narrative of Ukraine as a bulwark of democracy.
So defending so-called democracy requires shaming and silencing of those democratic lawmakers who believe naively that their first duty is to represent their constituencies. But the ruling elites have other priorities, and that is to fuel the military industrial complex and the lobbyists who ensure politicians’ re-election.
The ruling elite have found a winning cocktail of fear – of COVID, of Russia, of far-right ” semi-fascists” – to cow the public into silence and obedience, and accept curtailment of democratic will.
Last edited 1 year ago by Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
A brilliant article by Fazi, enjoyed even more in the second reading. His examples of the systematic “de-democritisation” of Western societies are ever present, as in shutting down in the US of any dissenting voices to Congressional allocation of another $38 billion to Ukraine, on top of the $68 billion allocated already this year. Even those who failed to applaud Zèlensky’s demand that Congress needs to do better, are accused of being Putin puppets or “anti-democracy” because they refuse to inhale the official narrative of Ukraine as a bulwark of democracy.
So defending so-called democracy requires shaming and silencing of those democratic lawmakers who believe naively that their first duty is to represent their constituencies. But the ruling elites have other priorities, and that is to fuel the military industrial complex and the lobbyists who ensure politicians’ re-election.
The ruling elite have found a winning cocktail of fear – of COVID, of Russia, of far-right ” semi-fascists” – to cow the public into silence and obedience, and accept curtailment of democratic will.
Last edited 1 year ago by Douglas McNeish
Douglas H
1 year ago
Tom, mate – you haven’t a clue what to do, have you? You’re great at complaining, at sounding clever and superior, but that’s about it. I really doubt we’d be better off with you in charge.
Douglas H
1 year ago
Tom, mate – you haven’t a clue what to do, have you? You’re great at complaining, at sounding clever and superior, but that’s about it. I really doubt we’d be better off with you in charge.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
a National Socialist Republictoylitte of nu britn with Harry and Meghan as puppet presidents?
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
a National Socialist Republictoylitte of nu britn with Harry and Meghan as puppet presidents?
I really enjoyed this article when I first read it a few months ago. The author tries to address what I believe are the most important questions facing the west.
Why do our political leaders continue to make decisions that don’t help the majority of people they serve, and why do they pursue policy solutions that defy even grade school common sense?
The policy-making process has been corrupted. We see it everywhere – defund the police, net zero, puberty blockers for kids, mandatory lockdowns. These policies are infinitely worse than the problems they are meant to address. How do reasonably intelligent people think any of these will work?
The author provides some valuable insight, but I’m not sure he nails it down. And maybe that’s just not possible because it’s a wickedly complex issue.
I think the education system plays a role, secularization of society plays a role, as well as the disconnect of political leaders from the people they serve.
One item that shocked me was the suggestion to nationalize the energy industry. To think the people who caused the energy crisis should actually have more power is bonkers. This will almost certainly magnify the crisis.
It’s certainly interesting to revisit these articles several months on, and a great idea by Unherd to republish them with previous comments erased; to look at how things have moved on ever so slightly and with fresh perspective. Not just this article: the “Best of…” series, with some being read for the first time if we encountered Unherd during the year. For any longer term readers, did Unherd do something similar at the end of 2021?
It’s a great time of year for reflection, of course: the slightly odd period between Christmas and New Year when its easy to lose track of what day it is; days themselves are short and it seems like the world pauses for breath (unless you’re Ukrainian).
The picture of a Boris caricature with this article also reminds us of how quickly history can move on. I’m not sure that the premise, that this winter will lead to social turmoil, still has as much traction, although there’s a long way to go yet. In the US, the terrible storm has put people into basic survival mode, at least for now. In the UK, we have a wave of strikes not seen for a generation but the public mood seems to be one of stoically taking things as they come, typical of our national character. I’ve thought, after reading other articles by Fazi, that he doesn’t really understand the British psyche. It’s not that we’re acquiescent, more that we retain a kind of collective folk memory that we dig into, to remind us of our past travails, and that we’ve got a very long history of pulling through.
The government is run by psychopaths and they never consider the consequences of their actions because they cannot accept that they can be wrong. Most countries are now the same which is why they seemed to act in unison to create a pandemic. The psychopath, Schwab, confirms that every cabinet has been penetrated by WEF acolytes.
I hear occasionally about this Schwab person, but when I mention the name to those friends who are well-read and politically well-informed they have no idea who I’m talking about. If he is in fact some kind of sinister Bond villain type, why does no one seem to know anything about him? It’s bizarre. Who is he and why is his name never mentioned outside of obscure social media posts?
Jane – try this for size.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeykREAlYSg&feature=youtu.be
You will see how the means by which the Chinese government controls its population is much admired by the non-elected quasi fascist Klaus Schwab, who, in turn, is greatly admired by non other than King Charles III. One would have thought that our King might have been rather more circumspect in his political leanings, but not so, apparently.
Jane – I tried to reply by providing a link to a YouTube clip that showed how this Schwab character who much admires China is in turn very much admired by a certain very high level aristocrat who appeared on tv this Christmas.. But my comment was removed, sorry!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeykREAlYSg&feature=youtu.be
“it means taking the struggle to the heart of the political establishment itself” – how? Am I alone in entertaining assassination fantasies?
He’s so unknown that he was invited to the recent G20 summit in Bali as an “international organisation guest” (with his mate Bill Gates).
The other guests under this heading were the usual suspects: UN, WHO, WTO, IMF, OECD – all constituted under mandates from world governments, therefore with some democratic claim to be present. I wonder why Santa Klaus was there representing the totally undemocratic WEF and who invited him?
They should know who Schwab is. That’s a tell about their news consumption habits – legacy, legacy and more legacy. I don’t buy the junk about some WEF global cabal, but it certainly has influence on international politics. The PM and deputy PM of Canada are both grads of its young leaders program.
Jane – try this for size.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeykREAlYSg&feature=youtu.be
You will see how the means by which the Chinese government controls its population is much admired by the non-elected quasi fascist Klaus Schwab, who, in turn, is greatly admired by non other than King Charles III. One would have thought that our King might have been rather more circumspect in his political leanings, but not so, apparently.
Jane – I tried to reply by providing a link to a YouTube clip that showed how this Schwab character who much admires China is in turn very much admired by a certain very high level aristocrat who appeared on tv this Christmas.. But my comment was removed, sorry!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeykREAlYSg&feature=youtu.be
“it means taking the struggle to the heart of the political establishment itself” – how? Am I alone in entertaining assassination fantasies?
He’s so unknown that he was invited to the recent G20 summit in Bali as an “international organisation guest” (with his mate Bill Gates).
The other guests under this heading were the usual suspects: UN, WHO, WTO, IMF, OECD – all constituted under mandates from world governments, therefore with some democratic claim to be present. I wonder why Santa Klaus was there representing the totally undemocratic WEF and who invited him?
They should know who Schwab is. That’s a tell about their news consumption habits – legacy, legacy and more legacy. I don’t buy the junk about some WEF global cabal, but it certainly has influence on international politics. The PM and deputy PM of Canada are both grads of its young leaders program.
I hear occasionally about this Schwab person, but when I mention the name to those friends who are well-read and politically well-informed they have no idea who I’m talking about. If he is in fact some kind of sinister Bond villain type, why does no one seem to know anything about him? It’s bizarre. Who is he and why is his name never mentioned outside of obscure social media posts?
To me, Fazi falls under the category, and it’s a large category, of people making the right observations then drawing faulty conclusions, possibly from attachment to a particular ideology or social/familial pressures or w/e else. He articulates quite intelligently and thoroughly how globalization is A.) usurping democratic governance through international institutions and international commerce and B.) also beginning to fail to maintain the prosperity that this social bargain has been based upon, and C.) creating, enriching, and protecting a global aristocrat class. Even so, he seems unwilling to wholly let go of the notion of global cooperation on things like climate change, energy management, and international diplomacy, not quite ready to admit that while most issues allow room for compromise, there are times when one faces stark either/or choices. Two objects cannot exist in the same space at the same time. Oil does not mix with water. We can either have affordable energy for all with climate change, or some command system of global energy rationing that limits climate change to some degree possibly. Sanctioning a large provider of energy has costs that cannot be waved away with creative economics or government spending. Basic needs and resources like food, energy, water are an either/or. A country either has enough to provide for its economy and population, or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, it has to buy that energy from others whom they cannot antagonize without consequence. Countries can either have their own cultures with their own values, religions, laws, and norms, or we can have unlimited free movement for all humanity. We can either have unlimited free commerce that reduces the world to a state of neofeudalism with only a small aristocracy and a mass of peasants, or we can have a middle class based on a limited labor supply and a system of laws and standards that limit the worst aspects of capitalist exploitation. Globalist/neoliberal goals and attitudes are not compatible with a return to traditional notions of nationalism and democratic rule of law governance. Like Harry and Voldemort, ‘either must die at the hand of the other, for neither can live while the other survives.’ I fear, and strongly suspect, that things much worse than civil disobedience are coming.
Nice post. I’m not sure I agree with it all, but this is a wickedly complex issue.
Except that he thinks mankind can control the Earth’s climate.
I don’t think he thinks that. It’s not about ‘controlling’ the climate, it’s about trying to manage our behaviour. It’s a big ask & probably likely to fail, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Maybe you’re one of those people who doesn’t believe that we humans have an effect on the planet we inhabit & this doesn’t resonate with you. But we are a part of nature and all of nature is connected & intertwined.
Human behavior is a part of nature. Climate is a part of nature. Governments have very little control over either. Democratic governments have even less. In the twentieth century, we witnessed the utter failure of an ideology that tried to get people to prioritize the collective good over their individual self interest with the claim that the results would be better for everyone. We’re not so far removed from the days of Mao and Stalin that people should have forgotten how spectacularly and how completely Communism failed. It wasn’t better for everyone, or anyone. Now, in the 21st century, we have another ideology that claims humans acting individually, freely, following their own self-interest is inherently destructive and freedom must be limited to provide for the collective good, and we’re supposed to believe what didn’t work just four decades ago should suddenly be embraced by all. People never really learn the lessons of history, seemingly even when the history is so recent we have people still living who remember it. Getting people to accept poverty for the sake of “the planet” isn’t simply a ‘big ask’, it’s demonstrably impossible. If the Russians/Chinese/etc. needed a totalitarian police state to enforce their collectivist ideology in the 1900’s, and still ultimately lost or were forced to compromise their ideology to retain power, why does anybody seriously believe that Americans or Europeans will walk stupidly into the gulags and reeducation camps without complaint in the 2000’s? I’m genuinely curious what you think has changed in the past thirty or so years will make large scale collectivism work now when it hasn’t worked anywhere ever before.
I didn’t mean to give the impression that I’m an advocate of collectivism. I simply said that, whatever one’s thoughts on whether govts can control people (I’m aware that when they try, the effects are dire. And ironically hive mentality is making a comeback in some areas of society & it looks ugly) it’s a scientific truism that we can’t actually ‘control’ the climate. We can only hope to manage how we deal with the reality of the negative effects of its rapid change. I am in agreement with the prevailing scientific consensus that accelerating climate change is very likely down to human activity. And that if humans were interested and motivated enough, we might be able to do something to mitigate those effects. As unlikely as that is – or even impossible as you suggest – I don’t think what I said amounts to an endorsement of collectivism.
I didn’t mean to give the impression that I’m an advocate of collectivism. I simply said that, whatever one’s thoughts on whether govts can control people (I’m aware that when they try, the effects are dire. And ironically hive mentality is making a comeback in some areas of society & it looks ugly) it’s a scientific truism that we can’t actually ‘control’ the climate. We can only hope to manage how we deal with the reality of the negative effects of its rapid change. I am in agreement with the prevailing scientific consensus that accelerating climate change is very likely down to human activity. And that if humans were interested and motivated enough, we might be able to do something to mitigate those effects. As unlikely as that is – or even impossible as you suggest – I don’t think what I said amounts to an endorsement of collectivism.
Human behavior is a part of nature. Climate is a part of nature. Governments have very little control over either. Democratic governments have even less. In the twentieth century, we witnessed the utter failure of an ideology that tried to get people to prioritize the collective good over their individual self interest with the claim that the results would be better for everyone. We’re not so far removed from the days of Mao and Stalin that people should have forgotten how spectacularly and how completely Communism failed. It wasn’t better for everyone, or anyone. Now, in the 21st century, we have another ideology that claims humans acting individually, freely, following their own self-interest is inherently destructive and freedom must be limited to provide for the collective good, and we’re supposed to believe what didn’t work just four decades ago should suddenly be embraced by all. People never really learn the lessons of history, seemingly even when the history is so recent we have people still living who remember it. Getting people to accept poverty for the sake of “the planet” isn’t simply a ‘big ask’, it’s demonstrably impossible. If the Russians/Chinese/etc. needed a totalitarian police state to enforce their collectivist ideology in the 1900’s, and still ultimately lost or were forced to compromise their ideology to retain power, why does anybody seriously believe that Americans or Europeans will walk stupidly into the gulags and reeducation camps without complaint in the 2000’s? I’m genuinely curious what you think has changed in the past thirty or so years will make large scale collectivism work now when it hasn’t worked anywhere ever before.
I don’t think he thinks that. It’s not about ‘controlling’ the climate, it’s about trying to manage our behaviour. It’s a big ask & probably likely to fail, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Maybe you’re one of those people who doesn’t believe that we humans have an effect on the planet we inhabit & this doesn’t resonate with you. But we are a part of nature and all of nature is connected & intertwined.
Except that he thinks mankind can control the Earth’s climate.
Nice post. I’m not sure I agree with it all, but this is a wickedly complex issue.
It’s certainly interesting to revisit these articles several months on, and a great idea by Unherd to republish them with previous comments erased; to look at how things have moved on ever so slightly and with fresh perspective. Not just this article: the “Best of…” series, with some being read for the first time if we encountered Unherd during the year. For any longer term readers, did Unherd do something similar at the end of 2021?
It’s a great time of year for reflection, of course: the slightly odd period between Christmas and New Year when its easy to lose track of what day it is; days themselves are short and it seems like the world pauses for breath (unless you’re Ukrainian).
The picture of a Boris caricature with this article also reminds us of how quickly history can move on. I’m not sure that the premise, that this winter will lead to social turmoil, still has as much traction, although there’s a long way to go yet. In the US, the terrible storm has put people into basic survival mode, at least for now. In the UK, we have a wave of strikes not seen for a generation but the public mood seems to be one of stoically taking things as they come, typical of our national character. I’ve thought, after reading other articles by Fazi, that he doesn’t really understand the British psyche. It’s not that we’re acquiescent, more that we retain a kind of collective folk memory that we dig into, to remind us of our past travails, and that we’ve got a very long history of pulling through.
The government is run by psychopaths and they never consider the consequences of their actions because they cannot accept that they can be wrong. Most countries are now the same which is why they seemed to act in unison to create a pandemic. The psychopath, Schwab, confirms that every cabinet has been penetrated by WEF acolytes.
To me, Fazi falls under the category, and it’s a large category, of people making the right observations then drawing faulty conclusions, possibly from attachment to a particular ideology or social/familial pressures or w/e else. He articulates quite intelligently and thoroughly how globalization is A.) usurping democratic governance through international institutions and international commerce and B.) also beginning to fail to maintain the prosperity that this social bargain has been based upon, and C.) creating, enriching, and protecting a global aristocrat class. Even so, he seems unwilling to wholly let go of the notion of global cooperation on things like climate change, energy management, and international diplomacy, not quite ready to admit that while most issues allow room for compromise, there are times when one faces stark either/or choices. Two objects cannot exist in the same space at the same time. Oil does not mix with water. We can either have affordable energy for all with climate change, or some command system of global energy rationing that limits climate change to some degree possibly. Sanctioning a large provider of energy has costs that cannot be waved away with creative economics or government spending. Basic needs and resources like food, energy, water are an either/or. A country either has enough to provide for its economy and population, or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, it has to buy that energy from others whom they cannot antagonize without consequence. Countries can either have their own cultures with their own values, religions, laws, and norms, or we can have unlimited free movement for all humanity. We can either have unlimited free commerce that reduces the world to a state of neofeudalism with only a small aristocracy and a mass of peasants, or we can have a middle class based on a limited labor supply and a system of laws and standards that limit the worst aspects of capitalist exploitation. Globalist/neoliberal goals and attitudes are not compatible with a return to traditional notions of nationalism and democratic rule of law governance. Like Harry and Voldemort, ‘either must die at the hand of the other, for neither can live while the other survives.’ I fear, and strongly suspect, that things much worse than civil disobedience are coming.
I really enjoyed this article when I first read it a few months ago. The author tries to address what I believe are the most important questions facing the west.
Why do our political leaders continue to make decisions that don’t help the majority of people they serve, and why do they pursue policy solutions that defy even grade school common sense?
The policy-making process has been corrupted. We see it everywhere – defund the police, net zero, puberty blockers for kids, mandatory lockdowns. These policies are infinitely worse than the problems they are meant to address. How do reasonably intelligent people think any of these will work?
The author provides some valuable insight, but I’m not sure he nails it down. And maybe that’s just not possible because it’s a wickedly complex issue.
I think the education system plays a role, secularization of society plays a role, as well as the disconnect of political leaders from the people they serve.
One item that shocked me was the suggestion to nationalize the energy industry. To think the people who caused the energy crisis should actually have more power is bonkers. This will almost certainly magnify the crisis.
A very neat analysis; unfortunately nearly all the lefties of my acquaintance are still banging on about Brexit (or even the impact, of Thatcherism, forty years on), and/or have been captured by the CAGW scam. Many on the right are also moaning about Brexit and its legacy of “denied opportunities”. Those few Americans I know are mainly suffering from TDS.
Very few people understand the reality of our situation- we are well on the way to a dystopic future at the hands of big tech marching hand in hand with governments which waft the odours of soothing quasi-leftist nostrums in our general direction; in other words the very embodiment of the Fascism that everybody (especially the Left) is supposed to detest but which most of them are eagerly embracing.
Man is Woman, Truth is Illusion, Oppression is Compassion, Fascism is Democracy, Peace is War, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Man is Woman, Truth is Illusion, Oppression is Compassion, Fascism is Democracy, Peace is War, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
A very neat analysis; unfortunately nearly all the lefties of my acquaintance are still banging on about Brexit (or even the impact, of Thatcherism, forty years on), and/or have been captured by the CAGW scam. Many on the right are also moaning about Brexit and its legacy of “denied opportunities”. Those few Americans I know are mainly suffering from TDS.
Very few people understand the reality of our situation- we are well on the way to a dystopic future at the hands of big tech marching hand in hand with governments which waft the odours of soothing quasi-leftist nostrums in our general direction; in other words the very embodiment of the Fascism that everybody (especially the Left) is supposed to detest but which most of them are eagerly embracing.
“forcing the government, including through civil disobedience, to take serious action to solve the energy crisis in the interests of the people, for example by bringing energy suppliers into public ownership”
This section undermines everything the author has to say and reveals him to be an old fashioned authoritarian socialist that believes that seizing the means of production and putting it in the hands of the politicians that have proved themselves spectacularly incompetent and self deluded when it comes to managing the energy needs of the country is a sensible solution. These people will never invest sensibly for the future but try to buy off trouble by doing the opposite of whatever is actually needed.
Blame not the scarcity of Russian gas or the war in Ukraine, but the green parties who have forced the shutdown of nuclear and coal fired power stations for “renewable free energy” to save the planet.
I’m not sure that he is saying that he wants it to happen, rather it is a likely outcome.
Blame not the scarcity of Russian gas or the war in Ukraine, but the green parties who have forced the shutdown of nuclear and coal fired power stations for “renewable free energy” to save the planet.
I’m not sure that he is saying that he wants it to happen, rather it is a likely outcome.
“forcing the government, including through civil disobedience, to take serious action to solve the energy crisis in the interests of the people, for example by bringing energy suppliers into public ownership”
This section undermines everything the author has to say and reveals him to be an old fashioned authoritarian socialist that believes that seizing the means of production and putting it in the hands of the politicians that have proved themselves spectacularly incompetent and self deluded when it comes to managing the energy needs of the country is a sensible solution. These people will never invest sensibly for the future but try to buy off trouble by doing the opposite of whatever is actually needed.
Great diagnosis. Less clear about the prescriptions in the final para.
It’s clear that big corporates in near-monopoly conditions are not running utilities and basic infrastructure in the interests of citizens – the railways, power and water sectors get worse while billions are extracted without investment for the future.
But those of us who remember the seventies are unlikely to be nostalgic for nationalisation.
And the call to “In the longer term, it means taking the struggle to the heart of the political establishment itself.” is unhelpfully vague.
So what practical steps can we actually take to oblige a political class in thrall to global corporates to govern in the interests of the nation and its people?
Keep sacking them (at every election cycle) until someone comes along that will change behaviour.
It won’t be quick …. but Brexit was always a multi-generational endeavour.
Persuading any owner they should invest for tomorrow is always very difficult. State ownership certainly didn’t; corporate ownership, however well run, is always at risk from vulture funds. Cooperatives always seem a potential solution for universal service businesses, and used to work well, until they tried to turn themselves into corporates.
But the need is for the government to restrict itself to making sure no monopolies arise, unless it is a cooperative. That is not difficult; it merely requires a thoughtful regulator, preferably with a board chosen from the disinterested public.
Keep sacking them (at every election cycle) until someone comes along that will change behaviour.
It won’t be quick …. but Brexit was always a multi-generational endeavour.
Persuading any owner they should invest for tomorrow is always very difficult. State ownership certainly didn’t; corporate ownership, however well run, is always at risk from vulture funds. Cooperatives always seem a potential solution for universal service businesses, and used to work well, until they tried to turn themselves into corporates.
But the need is for the government to restrict itself to making sure no monopolies arise, unless it is a cooperative. That is not difficult; it merely requires a thoughtful regulator, preferably with a board chosen from the disinterested public.
Great diagnosis. Less clear about the prescriptions in the final para.
It’s clear that big corporates in near-monopoly conditions are not running utilities and basic infrastructure in the interests of citizens – the railways, power and water sectors get worse while billions are extracted without investment for the future.
But those of us who remember the seventies are unlikely to be nostalgic for nationalisation.
And the call to “In the longer term, it means taking the struggle to the heart of the political establishment itself.” is unhelpfully vague.
So what practical steps can we actually take to oblige a political class in thrall to global corporates to govern in the interests of the nation and its people?
How disappointed he must be. None of the alarmist nonsense he predicted has happened. The loss of Russian fossil fuels is having a very limited impact, and the Orcs are licking their wounds.
I grew up in NI during the late Ian Paisley’s lifetime. He was a colourful and charismatic (and oddly likable) character, but also an extremist, full of wild conspiracy theories which he was adept at fomenting. One of his favourite words was “betrayal”, delivered in his trademark thundering, stentorian tones. See my blog on the Big Mawn: https://thebigmawn.blogspot.com/
To this day though, when I see words like “betrayal” in a serious article, I am inclined to think that the author is a cynic with an agenda, or a naive conspiracy theorist.
The most interesting part of this Citizen Smith article (“parasitic, cancerous elite” lol – I knew plenty of teenagers at college who analysed politics in such terms, and, at times, Unherd permits the odd sensation of having wondered by mistake into an online cabal of naïve old Trots) is the author’s desire for a “process of democratic rejuvenation of the country, by making elected officials directly accountable to the British people for their decisions. The Conservatives have betrayed this promise.”
What exactly is he talking about here? I’m not sure whether he realises it yet, but it could be that the writer is calling for the replacement of the (increasingly misunderstood) system of representative democracy by a system of plebiscite democracy, whereunder Britain would be ran more like a bake=-off competition, and wherein elected officials are reduced to mere ciphers, without manifestos agency.
It depends on whether you think people who voted to name a ship “Boaty McBoat Face” should be in charge of nuclear codes or setting local taxation. The author, like all idealists, exhibits a touching faith in the ethical superiority of “the people”, whilst simultaneously viewing any of those same people who are elected or otherwise successful in life as part of a toxic elite who ideally should be guillotined.
Same old barmy utopian snake oil I’ve been listening to from the unthinkers of the hard right and the hard left for all my life. Simple solutions for every multi-faceted issue, with the rage and the purity and the societal divisions pre-baked into the solution.
If you’re interested in Putin’s / Russia’s long game, check out Alexey Arestovich, speaking in 2019:
https://youtu.be/1xNHmHpERH8
His insights are a necessary counter-balance to the author’s de facto appeasement of a dictator.
I tried to say much the same – that this article has not aged well over even a few months. For some reason my comment still hasn’t appeared here.
But some of these wishful thinking projections of the author were predictably false even when written.
As for the proposed “solution” to the energy crisis – let’s nationalise the energy suppliers. The author seems to ignore that obvious fact that this will have no effect on supply and demand. One despairs …
Phew, thank you for that. A classic tell of such barmy snake oil salesmen – of left or right – is the perennial denunciation of ‘The Elite’, and ‘The MSM’ (or The West/East, The Bankers, The People etc etc ad nauseam, anytime, any place in history). As if all those would be members form monolithic blocks of badness acting in a unison of malevolent conspiracy. The World and the people in it are apparently not complex, paradoxical, chaotic, nuanced, unpredictable. So whilst claims are made – supposedly expressing political points concerning society’s ills – what is actually displayed are psychological matters: personal ills involving a lot of splitting and projection. Solipcisitic shadow boxers.
Where there is overwhelming anxiety, conspiracy theories supply certainty (a sure path when one feels lost); where there are self-esteem problems prestige (‘I possess important information most people do not have) and ability (‘I have the power to reject “experts” and expose hidden cabals’); vindication when one feels besieged (my ‘enemies’ are wrong, morally, scientifically)’; connection when one feels alone (huddling in those dark corners of the internet where The MSM refuses to go – must be a conspiracy!) ; and liberation: ‘If I imagine my foes are completely malevolent, then I can use any tactic I want’.
Again another excellent critique of the author’s essay.
But again, I do think the west is entering an era where political leadership seems particularly incapable of adopting sensible policies.
Take the energy crisis. Russia certainly was the short term cause, but the long term cause is all about nonsensical domestic energy policy. Even if you think climate change is very dangerous, it only takes rudimentary logic to understand that wind and solar are not the solution. The adults in the room would have pursued a nuclear power program.
So why do we have political leaders across the west acting in ways that will harm their constituencies?
I guess leaders have always done things that harm the people – this is not new. What is new is the expectation that they should be all things to all people, and failure is personal – maybe this is an effect of the narcissitic times we live in. Another explanation was coverered in unherd recently – the increasing unattractiveness of politics (other than to narcissistic masochists). Apparently MPs used to be paid the equivalent of £600,000 a year, and they certainly were not watched, hounded every days on multiple platforms!
Hmm. I get what you’re saying. Leaders have always made poor decisions – no question. I also recognize the social and economic upheaval we seem to be experiencing now is not unique. The 70s were quite tumultuous.
But it seems to me the context has changed. Let’s take inflation for example. This is a very complex issue. Raise interest rates and it reduces demand pressure. Helps reduce inflation, but causes other obvious harms. Complex problems with complex solutions. You can appreciate bad policy choices under such circumstances.
Now let’s look at race relations. When this first ignited in the late 60s, most western govts introduced policies to create more equality and opportunities for people who faced discrimination. Fast forward 50 years, when racism isn’t nearly as prevalent, and we get policies to Defund the police, which on its face will clearly harm the people it is meant to help. Or we get policies to create affinity groups that divide people into oppressed and oppressor groups. On its face, this is nonsense and will only serve to segregate groups. Yet we don’t seem to have any interest in addressing the real economic and social barriers challenging some people at the lower rungs of racial minorities.
This unserious political response seems to be everywhere. Give puberty blockers to children suffering gender dysphoria. Build wind and solar to address climate change.
In Canada, the Trudeau govt has been in power since 2015, yet I can’t think of a single policy that has been introduced to promote human progress and flourishing. They either fiddle around with inconsequential issues like decriminalizing weed, or promote policies like net zero that actually harm the economy. Even meat and potatoes issues like pension plan funding or health care simply get ignored.
Is it any different in Britain? What have the Tories even attempted to do in the last decade that promotes human progress, or addresses fundamental meat and potato issues?
Hmm. I get what you’re saying. Leaders have always made poor decisions – no question. I also recognize the social and economic upheaval we seem to be experiencing now is not unique. The 70s were quite tumultuous.
But it seems to me the context has changed. Let’s take inflation for example. This is a very complex issue. Raise interest rates and it reduces demand pressure. Helps reduce inflation, but causes other obvious harms. Complex problems with complex solutions. You can appreciate bad policy choices under such circumstances.
Now let’s look at race relations. When this first ignited in the late 60s, most western govts introduced policies to create more equality and opportunities for people who faced discrimination. Fast forward 50 years, when racism isn’t nearly as prevalent, and we get policies to Defund the police, which on its face will clearly harm the people it is meant to help. Or we get policies to create affinity groups that divide people into oppressed and oppressor groups. On its face, this is nonsense and will only serve to segregate groups. Yet we don’t seem to have any interest in addressing the real economic and social barriers challenging some people at the lower rungs of racial minorities.
This unserious political response seems to be everywhere. Give puberty blockers to children suffering gender dysphoria. Build wind and solar to address climate change.
In Canada, the Trudeau govt has been in power since 2015, yet I can’t think of a single policy that has been introduced to promote human progress and flourishing. They either fiddle around with inconsequential issues like decriminalizing weed, or promote policies like net zero that actually harm the economy. Even meat and potatoes issues like pension plan funding or health care simply get ignored.
Is it any different in Britain? What have the Tories even attempted to do in the last decade that promotes human progress, or addresses fundamental meat and potato issues?
I disagree fundamentally with this assertion that the leaders are acting against the interests of their electorate (for some unexplained reason my original comment made 6 hours ago saying this is still unpublished).
If politicians are following ill thought out, short term policies and have been repeatedly doing so for 30 years or more (I’m not sure this has always been true), it can only be because they have the approval of a sufficient majority of the population.
It’s reminsiscent of the argument of the left in the 1980s that the “right wing press” was somehow unfairly working against them – conveniently ignoring that fact that millions of people were voluntarily paying for these newspapers with their own money.
If people have decided that consumerism, lots of cheap stuff and gadgets, fake news and celeb TV are what they want, why is anyone surprised that politics moves to reflect that ?
But no – the public must always be the innocent victims of some supposed elite working against them.
I’m not arguing political leaders are intentionally harming citizens. I’m arguing they fail to recognize the self evident, unintended consequences of their policy choices. They choose policies that defy common sense.
The essence of my question is why is this happening. And I’m certainly not arguing there’s some grand conspiracy to do anything.
I see similar self-destructive policies across the west and question why this is happening.
I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing that much.
But you are rather assuming that the public as a whole both recognise and want these [in your view and mine] “common sense” policies. I see plenty of evidence that they do not. Or do not care enough to change things. The net zero stuff appears to have majority public support (as far as we’re told – who knows in reality).
You are also assuming that the politicians are so stupid that they do not recognise the consequences of what they are doing. I suggest that is not always the case. When George Osborne introduced the ludicrous “Help to Buy” state-backed house price support scheme (without doing anything about house-building, planning or immigration), he knew full well the effects that this would have and that it would lock much of a younger generation out of home ownership by supporting prices beyond the reach of ordinary people without inherited wealth. But again, these crazy policies seem to win elections … . And these have been the concensus policies for 30 years now.
I do think we largely agree. I’m not familiar with the Help to Buy program. I can only assume it pleased his voting base. I can understand the self interest at work here.
But many of the policies today don’t help anyone. Puberty blockers don’t help anyone. Net zero might inflict more harm on poor people, but it doesn’t actually help anyone – not even the environment.
So what are we left with? The general populace is so stupid or misinformed that it demands policies that cause self harm?
I can see that with the Covid response. I think most people supported lockdowns, even though it harmed their long-term economic interests, and even though pre Covid this was seen as a bad policy option by health experts.
I can’t wrap my head around it. Very few people lack common sense. I can see it in specific policy areas like Covid, but not across multiple issues.
And I don’t buy into conspiracy theories like the WEF masterminding some global takeover. I do believe, however, that many political leaders are in the thrall of Schwab and the WEF, similar to the millions of Americans in the thrall of Trump.
Still, I’m trying to understand what is actually happening out there. IDK too complex for me I guess.
Perhaps think about it this way. Instead of “against their own interests”, think about it as a trade-off between short and longer term interests. We’ve become a society largely fixated on instant gratification – it’s a vicious spiral created by politicians giving people what they want now to gain votes. Short term gains, longer term costs. Exactly as we see right now. And one reason why Asia has grown so dramatically relative to the West – because they are more skewed to delayed gratification (as we used to be). And that’s the key to long term growth and productivity.
I don’t find any of this in the least suprising or confusing. At least until reality busts my explanation – and then I’ll be lost.
Well, you can mark me down as lost. I think you can make the case of short term gain vs long term loss in some instances. But I don’t think that applies to a large set of issues, which I have mentioned, that have neither short or long term benefits.
I wonder whether part of the reason is a creeping apathy. More and more it seems that people just can’t be arsed to use those democratic tools that are still available.
Technology is moving fast to divorce us from the ways that society, economics, governance function (just try contacting any organisation that either provides us with or sells products or services – they don’t want to talk to us) We’re expected to just put up with a deteriorating infrastructure. And we do. Look at how the entertainment industry is exploding with escapist movies. The frivolous end of the retail industry plies us with ever more useless objects to keep us distracted.
It’s Bread & Circuses.
Most people are too tied up with our toys & games to make the effort. It’s been made easy for us to whinge and complain about our lot via our electronic devices & shouty, superficial social media platforms, and when some outlying group does get up and try to make their case, it never seems to hit the spot. The powers that be dismiss them and invariably the public just get cross because it interferes with the smooth running of our busy lives.
But we do still have agency. We can still go to our MPs & make our case. We can still vote. The only way we will get a better quality of representatives is if we get involved, become more politically active, not just gluing ourselves to roads. But more of us need to do it.
By the way, I’m not necessarily referring to people on this forum – I’m in excellent thinking company here! Mostly far better informed than I am – but there does seem to be a trance-like pall falling over us citizens. Are we sleepwalking into the very dystopia we fear?
I wonder whether part of the reason is a creeping apathy. More and more it seems that people just can’t be arsed to use those democratic tools that are still available.
Technology is moving fast to divorce us from the ways that society, economics, governance function (just try contacting any organisation that either provides us with or sells products or services – they don’t want to talk to us) We’re expected to just put up with a deteriorating infrastructure. And we do. Look at how the entertainment industry is exploding with escapist movies. The frivolous end of the retail industry plies us with ever more useless objects to keep us distracted.
It’s Bread & Circuses.
Most people are too tied up with our toys & games to make the effort. It’s been made easy for us to whinge and complain about our lot via our electronic devices & shouty, superficial social media platforms, and when some outlying group does get up and try to make their case, it never seems to hit the spot. The powers that be dismiss them and invariably the public just get cross because it interferes with the smooth running of our busy lives.
But we do still have agency. We can still go to our MPs & make our case. We can still vote. The only way we will get a better quality of representatives is if we get involved, become more politically active, not just gluing ourselves to roads. But more of us need to do it.
By the way, I’m not necessarily referring to people on this forum – I’m in excellent thinking company here! Mostly far better informed than I am – but there does seem to be a trance-like pall falling over us citizens. Are we sleepwalking into the very dystopia we fear?
Well, you can mark me down as lost. I think you can make the case of short term gain vs long term loss in some instances. But I don’t think that applies to a large set of issues, which I have mentioned, that have neither short or long term benefits.
Perhaps think about it this way. Instead of “against their own interests”, think about it as a trade-off between short and longer term interests. We’ve become a society largely fixated on instant gratification – it’s a vicious spiral created by politicians giving people what they want now to gain votes. Short term gains, longer term costs. Exactly as we see right now. And one reason why Asia has grown so dramatically relative to the West – because they are more skewed to delayed gratification (as we used to be). And that’s the key to long term growth and productivity.
I don’t find any of this in the least suprising or confusing. At least until reality busts my explanation – and then I’ll be lost.
I do think we largely agree. I’m not familiar with the Help to Buy program. I can only assume it pleased his voting base. I can understand the self interest at work here.
But many of the policies today don’t help anyone. Puberty blockers don’t help anyone. Net zero might inflict more harm on poor people, but it doesn’t actually help anyone – not even the environment.
So what are we left with? The general populace is so stupid or misinformed that it demands policies that cause self harm?
I can see that with the Covid response. I think most people supported lockdowns, even though it harmed their long-term economic interests, and even though pre Covid this was seen as a bad policy option by health experts.
I can’t wrap my head around it. Very few people lack common sense. I can see it in specific policy areas like Covid, but not across multiple issues.
And I don’t buy into conspiracy theories like the WEF masterminding some global takeover. I do believe, however, that many political leaders are in the thrall of Schwab and the WEF, similar to the millions of Americans in the thrall of Trump.
Still, I’m trying to understand what is actually happening out there. IDK too complex for me I guess.
I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing that much.
But you are rather assuming that the public as a whole both recognise and want these [in your view and mine] “common sense” policies. I see plenty of evidence that they do not. Or do not care enough to change things. The net zero stuff appears to have majority public support (as far as we’re told – who knows in reality).
You are also assuming that the politicians are so stupid that they do not recognise the consequences of what they are doing. I suggest that is not always the case. When George Osborne introduced the ludicrous “Help to Buy” state-backed house price support scheme (without doing anything about house-building, planning or immigration), he knew full well the effects that this would have and that it would lock much of a younger generation out of home ownership by supporting prices beyond the reach of ordinary people without inherited wealth. But again, these crazy policies seem to win elections … . And these have been the concensus policies for 30 years now.
I’m not arguing political leaders are intentionally harming citizens. I’m arguing they fail to recognize the self evident, unintended consequences of their policy choices. They choose policies that defy common sense.
The essence of my question is why is this happening. And I’m certainly not arguing there’s some grand conspiracy to do anything.
I see similar self-destructive policies across the west and question why this is happening.
I guess leaders have always done things that harm the people – this is not new. What is new is the expectation that they should be all things to all people, and failure is personal – maybe this is an effect of the narcissitic times we live in. Another explanation was coverered in unherd recently – the increasing unattractiveness of politics (other than to narcissistic masochists). Apparently MPs used to be paid the equivalent of £600,000 a year, and they certainly were not watched, hounded every days on multiple platforms!
I disagree fundamentally with this assertion that the leaders are acting against the interests of their electorate (for some unexplained reason my original comment made 6 hours ago saying this is still unpublished).
If politicians are following ill thought out, short term policies and have been repeatedly doing so for 30 years or more (I’m not sure this has always been true), it can only be because they have the approval of a sufficient majority of the population.
It’s reminsiscent of the argument of the left in the 1980s that the “right wing press” was somehow unfairly working against them – conveniently ignoring that fact that millions of people were voluntarily paying for these newspapers with their own money.
If people have decided that consumerism, lots of cheap stuff and gadgets, fake news and celeb TV are what they want, why is anyone surprised that politics moves to reflect that ?
But no – the public must always be the innocent victims of some supposed elite working against them.
Again another excellent critique of the author’s essay.
But again, I do think the west is entering an era where political leadership seems particularly incapable of adopting sensible policies.
Take the energy crisis. Russia certainly was the short term cause, but the long term cause is all about nonsensical domestic energy policy. Even if you think climate change is very dangerous, it only takes rudimentary logic to understand that wind and solar are not the solution. The adults in the room would have pursued a nuclear power program.
So why do we have political leaders across the west acting in ways that will harm their constituencies?
Thanks for that eulogy to the late Reverend Ian Paisley, it brought back many happy memories.
We shall probably not see his like again for many a year, more’s the pity.
My favourite memory of Paisley isn’t, oddly enough, of Paisley himself but of the utterly brilliant sketch by Harry Enfield playing the Reverend at a typically louche London party where the dissonance between his rhetoric and the other uncomprehending guests was probably the best thing Enfield ever did.
Many thanks indeed, I’ve just looked it up on YouTube…..brilliant, on a par with the infamous “Women know your place”, also by Mr Enfield.
Just looked that up too! Oh for someone of Enfield’s talent now.
Thanks, Unherd. These exchanges have given me the biggest laugh of the festive season!
Just looked that up too! Oh for someone of Enfield’s talent now.
Thanks, Unherd. These exchanges have given me the biggest laugh of the festive season!
Apparently “William Ulsterman” was based on someone else (if that’s the sketch you’re thinking of – and it really is a classic which also nicely captures English incomprehension about Northern Ireland and a belief that muddling through with good manners can fix things).
I stand corrected!!
Harry Enfield – Ulsterman – YouTube
It surely owes its origins to Paisley though. If Paisley hadn’t existed, this sketch would never have happened.
I stand corrected!!
Harry Enfield – Ulsterman – YouTube
It surely owes its origins to Paisley though. If Paisley hadn’t existed, this sketch would never have happened.
Many thanks indeed, I’ve just looked it up on YouTube…..brilliant, on a par with the infamous “Women know your place”, also by Mr Enfield.
Apparently “William Ulsterman” was based on someone else (if that’s the sketch you’re thinking of – and it really is a classic which also nicely captures English incomprehension about Northern Ireland and a belief that muddling through with good manners can fix things).
My favourite memory of Paisley isn’t, oddly enough, of Paisley himself but of the utterly brilliant sketch by Harry Enfield playing the Reverend at a typically louche London party where the dissonance between his rhetoric and the other uncomprehending guests was probably the best thing Enfield ever did.
Excellent, excellent counter point to the author’s analysis.
I do think we are living in different times though – something like the decline of the west.
What fascinates and troubles me is why do political leaders now embrace policies that are not only bad, but actually harmful?
Defund the police, net zero, puberty blockers, economic lockdowns – why would any reasonable human being pursue these policies? What forces are pushing political leaders to pursue policies that are nonsense?
Eg. The state of New York just approved a new net zero policy after two years of deliberations. At no point during this process did they provide a comprehensive costing analysis.
I tried to say much the same – that this article has not aged well over even a few months. For some reason my comment still hasn’t appeared here.
But some of these wishful thinking projections of the author were predictably false even when written.
As for the proposed “solution” to the energy crisis – let’s nationalise the energy suppliers. The author seems to ignore that obvious fact that this will have no effect on supply and demand. One despairs …
Phew, thank you for that. A classic tell of such barmy snake oil salesmen – of left or right – is the perennial denunciation of ‘The Elite’, and ‘The MSM’ (or The West/East, The Bankers, The People etc etc ad nauseam, anytime, any place in history). As if all those would be members form monolithic blocks of badness acting in a unison of malevolent conspiracy. The World and the people in it are apparently not complex, paradoxical, chaotic, nuanced, unpredictable. So whilst claims are made – supposedly expressing political points concerning society’s ills – what is actually displayed are psychological matters: personal ills involving a lot of splitting and projection. Solipcisitic shadow boxers.
Where there is overwhelming anxiety, conspiracy theories supply certainty (a sure path when one feels lost); where there are self-esteem problems prestige (‘I possess important information most people do not have) and ability (‘I have the power to reject “experts” and expose hidden cabals’); vindication when one feels besieged (my ‘enemies’ are wrong, morally, scientifically)’; connection when one feels alone (huddling in those dark corners of the internet where The MSM refuses to go – must be a conspiracy!) ; and liberation: ‘If I imagine my foes are completely malevolent, then I can use any tactic I want’.
Thanks for that eulogy to the late Reverend Ian Paisley, it brought back many happy memories.
We shall probably not see his like again for many a year, more’s the pity.
Excellent, excellent counter point to the author’s analysis.
I do think we are living in different times though – something like the decline of the west.
What fascinates and troubles me is why do political leaders now embrace policies that are not only bad, but actually harmful?
Defund the police, net zero, puberty blockers, economic lockdowns – why would any reasonable human being pursue these policies? What forces are pushing political leaders to pursue policies that are nonsense?
Eg. The state of New York just approved a new net zero policy after two years of deliberations. At no point during this process did they provide a comprehensive costing analysis.
How disappointed he must be. None of the alarmist nonsense he predicted has happened. The loss of Russian fossil fuels is having a very limited impact, and the Orcs are licking their wounds.
I grew up in NI during the late Ian Paisley’s lifetime. He was a colourful and charismatic (and oddly likable) character, but also an extremist, full of wild conspiracy theories which he was adept at fomenting. One of his favourite words was “betrayal”, delivered in his trademark thundering, stentorian tones. See my blog on the Big Mawn: https://thebigmawn.blogspot.com/
To this day though, when I see words like “betrayal” in a serious article, I am inclined to think that the author is a cynic with an agenda, or a naive conspiracy theorist.
The most interesting part of this Citizen Smith article (“parasitic, cancerous elite” lol – I knew plenty of teenagers at college who analysed politics in such terms, and, at times, Unherd permits the odd sensation of having wondered by mistake into an online cabal of naïve old Trots) is the author’s desire for a “process of democratic rejuvenation of the country, by making elected officials directly accountable to the British people for their decisions. The Conservatives have betrayed this promise.”
What exactly is he talking about here? I’m not sure whether he realises it yet, but it could be that the writer is calling for the replacement of the (increasingly misunderstood) system of representative democracy by a system of plebiscite democracy, whereunder Britain would be ran more like a bake=-off competition, and wherein elected officials are reduced to mere ciphers, without manifestos agency.
It depends on whether you think people who voted to name a ship “Boaty McBoat Face” should be in charge of nuclear codes or setting local taxation. The author, like all idealists, exhibits a touching faith in the ethical superiority of “the people”, whilst simultaneously viewing any of those same people who are elected or otherwise successful in life as part of a toxic elite who ideally should be guillotined.
Same old barmy utopian snake oil I’ve been listening to from the unthinkers of the hard right and the hard left for all my life. Simple solutions for every multi-faceted issue, with the rage and the purity and the societal divisions pre-baked into the solution.
If you’re interested in Putin’s / Russia’s long game, check out Alexey Arestovich, speaking in 2019:
https://youtu.be/1xNHmHpERH8
His insights are a necessary counter-balance to the author’s de facto appeasement of a dictator.
Agree that it’s good of UnHerd to re-publish such articles a few months.
Author has a number of themes at work here, possibly trying too hard to link them into a comprehensive narrative but certainly gives food for thought. Some questions to perhaps pose:
1. Big tech and Big pharma – do these the not need more than just individual states to counter? Is this not where an effective EU, or similar, can exert leverage a small state alone cannot?
2. His historical sweep forgets that pre-1990 most of eastern Europe was not democratic at all. We can forget how transformative things have been even if the path has been bumpy and remains so.
3. Nationalising energy companies is not about to happen, but certain decisions Govt could and should better control – e.g: in the UK Centrica’s decision to decommission it’s Rough Storage capacity for short term profit gain clearly had a ‘rose tinted’ view of the future and should arguably have been blocked by Govt on national security grounds.
4. The Brexit ‘Taking Back Control’ while a persuasive slogan seems limited to a highly centralised UK state, reluctant to explore further devolution and quite happy to continue having the reward of a seat in the House of Lords for donors. Not exactly a consistent pursuit of democratic virtues and simply a transfer to a wealthy elite?
5. And yet despite so many problems we muddle through. The support Ukraine as a young democracy has been largely solid. One would not have predicted that 10mths ago.
Ukraine is nothing more than an American outpost and is as corrupt as Russia.
Ukraine has become less corrupt, less miserable as it separated itself politically and culturally from the abusive step-father Russia. This is why Putin attacked – Ukraine’s gaze was irrevocably turning to the West, away from Moscow – a crushing rejection of his boyhood Chekist vision; and we all know what happens if you say anything that displeases this manchild.
No not correct and way too simplistic a statement.
Firstly Putin wanted Medvedchuk to win the Ukrainian elections and used all his and the FSBs influence to that end. Yet Zelensky won. However Zelensky wasn’t the most anti-Russian candidate. That was Poroshenko, and if anyone received some US support it was him, not the ex-actor.
One interpretation is the Ukrainians clearly didn’t want a Putin stooge yet didn’t want a firebrand who might provoke Russia. As it turned out Putin didn’t need provoking.
Zelensky also probably won because of his anti-corruption agenda, which included more transparent defence procurement, and the cessation of immunity for MPs from corruption charges. Up until the invasion he was battling to get these measures fully implemented. Politics is often messy and involves compromise, but this back story is another strong reason for our support of this leader.
Ukraine has become less corrupt, less miserable as it separated itself politically and culturally from the abusive step-father Russia. This is why Putin attacked – Ukraine’s gaze was irrevocably turning to the West, away from Moscow – a crushing rejection of his boyhood Chekist vision; and we all know what happens if you say anything that displeases this manchild.
No not correct and way too simplistic a statement.
Firstly Putin wanted Medvedchuk to win the Ukrainian elections and used all his and the FSBs influence to that end. Yet Zelensky won. However Zelensky wasn’t the most anti-Russian candidate. That was Poroshenko, and if anyone received some US support it was him, not the ex-actor.
One interpretation is the Ukrainians clearly didn’t want a Putin stooge yet didn’t want a firebrand who might provoke Russia. As it turned out Putin didn’t need provoking.
Zelensky also probably won because of his anti-corruption agenda, which included more transparent defence procurement, and the cessation of immunity for MPs from corruption charges. Up until the invasion he was battling to get these measures fully implemented. Politics is often messy and involves compromise, but this back story is another strong reason for our support of this leader.
Ukraine is nothing more than an American outpost and is as corrupt as Russia.
Agree that it’s good of UnHerd to re-publish such articles a few months.
Author has a number of themes at work here, possibly trying too hard to link them into a comprehensive narrative but certainly gives food for thought. Some questions to perhaps pose:
1. Big tech and Big pharma – do these the not need more than just individual states to counter? Is this not where an effective EU, or similar, can exert leverage a small state alone cannot?
2. His historical sweep forgets that pre-1990 most of eastern Europe was not democratic at all. We can forget how transformative things have been even if the path has been bumpy and remains so.
3. Nationalising energy companies is not about to happen, but certain decisions Govt could and should better control – e.g: in the UK Centrica’s decision to decommission it’s Rough Storage capacity for short term profit gain clearly had a ‘rose tinted’ view of the future and should arguably have been blocked by Govt on national security grounds.
4. The Brexit ‘Taking Back Control’ while a persuasive slogan seems limited to a highly centralised UK state, reluctant to explore further devolution and quite happy to continue having the reward of a seat in the House of Lords for donors. Not exactly a consistent pursuit of democratic virtues and simply a transfer to a wealthy elite?
5. And yet despite so many problems we muddle through. The support Ukraine as a young democracy has been largely solid. One would not have predicted that 10mths ago.
A brilliant article by Fazi, enjoyed even more in the second reading. His examples of the systematic “de-democritisation” of Western societies are ever present, as in shutting down in the US of any dissenting voices to Congressional allocation of another $38 billion to Ukraine, on top of the $68 billion allocated already this year. Even those who failed to applaud Zèlensky’s demand that Congress needs to do better, are accused of being Putin puppets or “anti-democracy” because they refuse to inhale the official narrative of Ukraine as a bulwark of democracy.
So defending so-called democracy requires shaming and silencing of those democratic lawmakers who believe naively that their first duty is to represent their constituencies. But the ruling elites have other priorities, and that is to fuel the military industrial complex and the lobbyists who ensure politicians’ re-election.
The ruling elite have found a winning cocktail of fear – of COVID, of Russia, of far-right ” semi-fascists” – to cow the public into silence and obedience, and accept curtailment of democratic will.
A brilliant article by Fazi, enjoyed even more in the second reading. His examples of the systematic “de-democritisation” of Western societies are ever present, as in shutting down in the US of any dissenting voices to Congressional allocation of another $38 billion to Ukraine, on top of the $68 billion allocated already this year. Even those who failed to applaud Zèlensky’s demand that Congress needs to do better, are accused of being Putin puppets or “anti-democracy” because they refuse to inhale the official narrative of Ukraine as a bulwark of democracy.
So defending so-called democracy requires shaming and silencing of those democratic lawmakers who believe naively that their first duty is to represent their constituencies. But the ruling elites have other priorities, and that is to fuel the military industrial complex and the lobbyists who ensure politicians’ re-election.
The ruling elite have found a winning cocktail of fear – of COVID, of Russia, of far-right ” semi-fascists” – to cow the public into silence and obedience, and accept curtailment of democratic will.
Tom, mate – you haven’t a clue what to do, have you? You’re great at complaining, at sounding clever and superior, but that’s about it. I really doubt we’d be better off with you in charge.
Tom, mate – you haven’t a clue what to do, have you? You’re great at complaining, at sounding clever and superior, but that’s about it. I really doubt we’d be better off with you in charge.
a National Socialist Republictoylitte of nu britn with Harry and Meghan as puppet presidents?
a National Socialist Republictoylitte of nu britn with Harry and Meghan as puppet presidents?