Pages

Sunday 21 January 2018

Feckless opinions

In a modern democracy where most lives are tolerably comfortable, is it possible to have a rational electorate? Do we need the stimulus of privation to make democracy work rationally? Once privation has gone do we become democratically feckless?

One of our major problems is that so many middle class people have political opinions which entail no personal risk. They seem silly because they are, but they are not personally risky in the short to medium term. What risk there is tends to fall upon other people, mostly poor people and those with uncertain employment prospects such as the young. Hardly surprising if we see things through the lens of self-interest because that is human nature, but what value should we place on the political opinions of people with no skin in the game? 

Political life seems to have reached a stage where huge numbers of middle class people are virtually isolated from economic and social realities in spite of fashionable claims to the contrary, often centred on supposed concerns for minorities. The situation is particularly marked in large swathes of the public sector with its secure employment and generous pension provisions. I know, I was there.

Such people can afford to be politically radical because there are virtually no personal consequences for modern radicals. Radicalism has always been something of an indulgence for those in a comfortable situation, but when the indulgence catches on and becomes fashionable we have a problem. A few trite phrases about equality, immigration and racism, endless demands for the government to do something, a spot of recycling, a vegetarian cookery book, some finger-pointing and a basic knowledge of political fashions will do. There is absolutely no risk of being called to the barricades.

Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May are good examples, particularly Mr Corbyn, a middle class radical in comfortable circumstances who has enjoyed a long and fecklessly radical political career with never a hint of personal risk. If anything the risk of an undistinguished career seems to be one he welcomed rather than regretted. The safety of radical impotence seems to have been his preferred option until quite recently and even party leadership was not something he actively engineered. Even that development is safer than it seems now a comfortable retirement is his for the taking.

Mr Corbyn cannot possibly cause himself any personal harm however much damage he may do if voters are as politically feckless as he is and usher him into No 10. If his past is any guide then he may have no desire to be Prime Minister anyway but that may be a question for the future. He has no skin in the game. His political ideology and promises are worth less than nothing.

Mrs May is in much the same position. It hardly matters to her personally if Brexit succeeds or fails. She will always live her life in comfortable circumstances well beyond the aspirations of the vast majority of voters.

Of course this is not a problem we can resolve, but useful experience outside politics could go some way to mitigate it. Successful people outside the political bubble are less likely to disregard the prospect of failure and more likely to care about outcomes. As far as our current political class is concerned failure hardly matters one way or the other - it doesn't really affect them.  It doesn't affect far too many voters either. Not yet.

4 comments:

Sam Vega said...

Excellent post - one of your best, not least because it seems to encapsulate and tie in with a lot of your other stuff.

There is an opposing view (originally, I think, from 1990s psephologists) that middle class radicals were astutely rational, in that they were part of a broader group of people in society who were state-dependent. Labour was supported by a coalition of poor people who were reliant on state benefits, and relatively wealthy people who were reliant on state employment: teachers, health and social workers, charity workers, and the Equality and Diversity minions.

What I like about your view is that it allows that sentiment and stupidity play as big a part as rationality. The bien-pensant middle classes are very keen to say that others (Brexiteers, deplorables, and the like) have been duped out of knowing their rational self-interest. But they never think it might have happened to them; and that it might be self-inflicted.

Anyway, more, please!

Or a book. Seriously, you ought to think about it...

Anonymous said...

Snag is we have arrived at binary politics, this party or that, Corbyn or May, Brexit or Momentum. The parties are no longer supported by their electorates but by their media bosses. No more knocking on doors and pressing the flesh or speaking in town halls. Put out the tweets and campaigns and messages in the Mail, the DT, the Express, the Sun, Facebook and the telly and Facebook. Binary politics suits the media, its cheaper to control, slow news day = more tits, bums, cruises and 4X4s.

Any sane political activist will know that turning out rentamob (of any class, colour or persuasion) will come right to the top of the politician's attention via the camera lens. Any sane political activist will also know that a good lobbyist, think tank, foundation/funding provider will be the real power behind the throne. Put the two together and the activists are unbeatable. Joe and Jill Average will believe what they are told, Joe and Jill don't really matter any more.

Back in ancient times politicians bought elections via the crowd cheerers and the tavern beer buyers. Same thing now, we only had a short period whilst politics was in any way a matter of individual contact and persuasion. Too good to last, the crowd pleasers and beer buyers are now on social media.

Demetrius said...

The electoral system is not working, the political parties are collapsing in membership, the media is largely a sales and advertising service and the promises made in the past cannot be honoured. And we cannot think of any new ideas to deal with the very different world we are in now. So we scrape around for old ones that appeal to the people we think will vote. This is not going to work.

A K Haart said...

Sam - thank you - crikey I'll soon need a new hat. You are right, the bien-pensant middle classes are keen to say that deplorables etc have been duped out of knowing their rational self-interest. They are also keen to say that deplorables should not be heard which oddly enough isn't rational because it undermines the evolution of ideas.

The book idea is interesting and probably worth a post.

Roger - I agree, the crowd pleasers and beer buyers are now running the show again. It isn't difficult to see it going on, but people choose not to see it.

Demetrius - an additional problem is that old ideas are available, they are already in the public domain and familiar enough to evade analysis.