slug.com slug.com

0 0

From: [seekingvirtue.com]

  1. Society and Government: Whence Vision?

Let us assume as a starting point that individuals wish to be free. Free to make their own choices regarding all the matters that affect their personal lifestyle within their personal space. It is a given that such a person will respect the right of others to do the same. Free to follow their chosen religion, free to feed their children junk food, free to enjoy the right of habeas corpus, free to hunt foxes, free to buy their bananas by the pound, free to express their opinions, free to pursue their sexual preferences, in short: free from any constraint whatsoever that is not to the physical detriment of any other human being and follows a code of morals which – always relative - is acceptable to the culture and society in which they choose to live. In the words of John Stuart Mill: The only purpose for which power can rightly be exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant1. Mill felt compelled to make this assertion as opposition to what he called the Tyranny of the Majority wherein, through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things - so-called Political Correctness being a modern exemplar of the exercise of such power.

Setting aside until later the question as to whether people really want such a degree of freedom as leaves them as individuals with the responsibilities of their actions, how could such freedom be ensured? Since no dirigiste system – whether it be communist, fascist, feudal, theocratic or autocratic – can satisfy any real desire for personal freedom, only three options remain: democracy, anarchy and enlightened self-interest, of which democracy has been the only option open to post-Enlightenment cultures. Democracy is by no means simple or straightforward - in the words of Benjamin Disraeli😘 If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of the public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence2.* Disraeli’s comments were directed at a system now labelled ‘pure’ or ‘direct’ democracy.

Little wonder, then, that the word ‘democracy’ does not once occur in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or U S Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers saw pure democracy courting self-ruin, as many voters would join factions or special interest groupings, which would cut into liberty. James Madison said A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction, which he defined as a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community3. The solution adopted was ‘Representative Democracy’.

Under this system the duly elected representatives form an independent ruling body charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives nor necessarily always according to their wishes. Edmund Burke perfectly expressed that: Your representative owes you, not only his industry, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. He continued: it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable4. This was the basis for most modern western, particularly Anglo-US, democratic systems which have evolved and developed, for the most part successfully, over the past 200 or so years. They have delivered both the stability and freedoms which we have, for the last 50 years, so taken for granted.

As with all socio-political systems, Western liberal democracy carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. This is an inevitable process which probably became manifest 40 years or so ago and we may all now be in the grip of an accelerating deterioration. The problem is one of conflict between ‘politics’ and ‘representation’. In an effort to enjoy the power, influence and wealth associated with government – and increasingly administration – men and women need to be ‘recognised’ not only as public figures but as public figures associated with some essential activity that is ‘perceived’ to be ‘in the public interest’. The questions here, of course, are ‘perceived’ by whom and who is the ‘public’ whose interests are at stake? There is nothing really new here: there have always been – and always will be – groups in society with competing if not conflicting interests. What is changing is the attitude and approach of so many of our Representatives who, in the pursuit of selection no longer owe us, not only their industry, but their judgment; and betray us if they sacrifice it to our opinion. And whose ‘perception’ is crucial to this exercise? The people themselves or ‘those who know better’. The latter, of course, comprising the Fourth Estate (which needs to sell copy) and the Third Estate (which needs to get re-elected). The media; whether it be Murdoch or BBC, print or on-line, paid for or free, the image, sound-bite and personality rule. Where is the opportunity for the exercise of ‘Judgement’ in government? To paraphrase Disraeli, such lack of judgement is today causing: great impatience of the public burdens, great increase of public expenditure, wars entered into from passion and not from reason; submission to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained which will diminish authority and endanger independence.

Politicians may be divided into two categories: those who have been dedicated to real, substantial achievement, and those who have concentrated on style and presentation. In modern times few have fallen within the first category; too many into the second category. Until, and with the benefit of hindsight, a rational judgement may be formed the latter are more elusive, tending to treat politics at least in part as a branch of the public-relations industry. From 1997 Tony Blair represented the apotheosis of this particular tradition, perfecting a new kind of government. Distrustful of democracy and fearful of its most obvious manifestations, such as robust debate and political parties, he was innately wary of big ideas, which he sought to weaken or to destroy even those with which he was instinctively sympathetic. Such as he have reinterpreted the British political tradition as a private conversation among the elite sections of business and society, the media being by far the most important, bankers and other multi-national corporations – armaments, energy and so on. Before considering what should be done, we must consider what must be undone, perhaps to embark upon a new political era, and a new way of doing things. First, politicians should be prepared to endure short-term unpopularity. Stop placing a priority on newspaper headlines, and the resulting need to react to every passing setback, often at the cost of long-term goals – put strategic objectives ahead of short-term leads in the polls. Second, it is time we remembered that success is not a virtue in and of itself. This was the catastrophic fallacy accepted by the modernisers from all political parties: for too many of our leading politicians, winning power came to matter more than truth, decency and even basic morality – a development which has had terrible consequences for our public life. Third, the very practice of politics must change. Above all, general elections must no longer be informed by the unthinking assumption that the most important factor is to secure the backing of the mass media.

This system of government has encouraged the rise of a new type of politician: obsessed with image, unable to see beyond the short term, too often expert at the dark arts, structurally compliant with the wishes of media and business elites. It also explains one of the most characteristic phenomena of modern public life: the rise of a class of politicians who achieve sky-high reputations without obvious talent, achievement or basic purpose; politicians who have risen not through brain or talent, but rather through subterranean means: namely attending the ‘right’ parties, saying the ‘right’ things and cultivating powerful people. Effectively accomplished networkers rather than front-rank or even competent politicians.

As a direct result of this government by ‘sound bite’ and ‘headlines’ vast amounts of ultimately ineffectual legislation has been enacted to satisfy pressure groups of every conceivable type. Personal freedoms have been eroded in a manner and to an extent which we have never experienced before. There are now entire populations who have delivered themselves willingly to be under the control of a so-called democratic state because the state is commonly perceived to be all-powerful despite the fact that it has failed to deliver anything of meaningful benefit to the populace at large. Given that modern democracy is failing our society – and each individual only has to consider his or her own experiences, environment, relationships, whatever (OK, the evidence is anecdotal but when this reaches a critical extent denial is pure sophistry) – where now?

Before considering what should be done, we must ask if individuals really want to be free? Do they want to be part of a mutually supportive social system? Can we ever re-establish the concept of enlightened self-interest? Can the concept of ‘The Golden Rule’ be understood as the only way to revert to a society worthy of the human potential? If the answer is ‘no’ then a one-way trip into the meta-physical is all that remains to the thinking human being. But more on this later.

The fundamental problem stems from the present and overriding – but utterly misplaced - concept of ‘rights’ and ignores the more important concept of responsibilities. It could be argued that no human being has any benefit whatsoever as a matter of ‘right’. The only Truth that is self-evident, absolute and indivisible is that every human being is born free and equal to every other human being. The concept of ‘rights’ involves some group or faction having some form of priority over another group or faction – and there is no shortage of examples within our present governing cabal and their policies. This perfectly illustrates the difference between a liberalist and a libertarian. Restrictions are imposed in the name of liberty by the most illiberal system in living memory. Libertarianism has been entirely engulfed beneath wave after wave of so-called rights. Our political leaders have belatedly re-discovered the word ‘respect’ – most ordinary people never forgot it. It is, however, the entry point into a socially satisfying future. It is a double-edged solution because every human being in this world both deserves respect and must unreservedly give it in equal measure. At the moment we are hurtling away from such an outcome rather than (however tentatively) approaching it.

Presently, the answer to any problem is for the State to arrogate more power to itself, to announce an ‘initiative’, to enforce it by criminalizing transgressors and thereafter achieve nothing. Of all the silly initiatives ‘the respect agenda’ just has to be the silliest (although there are other contenders). Ask any paediatrician or teacher: by the time a child is four years old the behavioural die is cast. By the time some jack-in-office waves an anti-social behaviour order in the face of a wayward adolescent all hope is long gone. The more power the State takes, the greater is the public funding required to enforce it. The less resources available for enforcement coupled with performance-driven efficiency standards means the law gets applied to only the soft targets, which are not the fundamental cause of the problems supposedly being addressed. Remember the words of Benjamin Disraeli on 31 March 1850 in the House of Commons?

There is also a flip-side to this problem. Those who should be deserving of particular respect because of some special responsibility that they have shouldered on behalf of society – police, priests, teachers, medico’s, social workers, even politicians – should indicate overtly by the way they present themselves and communicate that they are aware and conscious of their added responsibility. Attention to this simple aspect, whilst only symbolic, is as important as zero-tolerance is towards law enforcement. No society can exist without some underlying structure, which allows individuals to have a sense of their relative worth within it. Not a popular contemporary viewpoint; this would be interpreted as promoting a return to some class-based system. Such interpretation is, of course, utterly false. Consider, however, the means by which society has modulated its moral behaviour in the past - only effectively by the example of its institutions and common respect for them. Thus society continues in its descending spiral, partly because all confidence in its institutions has been lost but, far more significantly, because the institutions themselves have entirely lost their sense of self-confidence. The collapse of our institutions – and, more particularly the individual role models who have personified them – has been with their own acquiescence in an attempt to become more acceptable, more inclusive, more ‘user friendly’. Why? As an inevitable by-product of democracy (another example of its tendency towards self-destruction) people are perceived to require this so-called inclusiveness. The question is: perceived by whom? Of course it is, as always, ‘those who know better’ aided and abetted by ‘those who can’t be bothered’....

Plume-Du-Bois 3 Sep 15
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:52205