| Can We Stop Blaming Everyone Else? Consensus, cynicism, debate and the need to restore faith in the political process. Opposition Although there is not always a great divergence between the two main parties in terms of their policies, political discussion in Britain is often rancorous and polarised. Are we, rather than being divided by serious issues, simply failing to find consensus because we mistrust one another and refuse to listen to each other, preferring a lazy habit of blame, suspicion and cynicism? And does this result in a failure to make political, social and economic progress? There are limitations in the argument for consensus. It can, among other failings, lead to complacency and to the exclusion of views which happen to fall outside of the consensus. However, some bad things can also come from the absence of consensus, and this article will seek to describe them, as they manifest themselves in current political debate and opinion in Britain, with some reference to how certain habits of thought and in conversation or argument, on a personal level, perhaps influence how we tend to form our opinions. We have in Britain, a pretty vigorous political debate, in parliament, in the media, and then on the internet and at the personal level. Views are often held strongly and expressed forcefully. People of all classes and levels of education commonly have quite decided and distinct views on a range of subjects. Many people can give their opinion readily on almost anything, while others are reluctant to voice their opinions or even to form any for themselves. Some people are happy to voice opinions that they have not thought about very much about but have heard and agree with, and sometimes voice them forcefully, and have the impression they thought of them themselves. To a great degree, the range of thoughts we are likely to adopt as our own opinions, is determined by our social environment, by what is current and acceptable. In politics and related subjects, (and of course the range of these related subjects can be very wide) people's opinions often fall along certain familiar demarcations, one of the most common being what we call left and right wing, or conservative and radical. There are many pairs of words which we think of as opposites which might be used in the same way as right and left. In parliament the Opposition to the government is part of the checks and balances that sets limits to the power that can be wielded by government, and ensures proper scrutiny of their actions; In the media, on television in particular, it is felt that pitching opposing views in vigorous opposition to each other is the best way to provide for “debate”, confrontation is believed to be the best way of scrutinising ideas and opinions. It also makes for entertainment, just as in the drama world we are taught that drama=conflict. When people discuss politics the strength of their own ideas is easily matched by their dislike of what they think of as contrary ideas to their own. Sometimes it can seem as if peoples opinions are formed mainly in opposition to other ideas rather than around actual proposals of their own. Being in opposition to things we dislike can give us a strong sense of our own identity, curiously enough. Opinion In Education In education too, opinion is highly prised and there is some confusion, certainly in the minds of children if not teachers too, about the nature of opinion and its potential value relative to knowledge. De-constructionism, especially when it filters down to school level in a garbled form, has cast doubt on he very possibility of knowledge, while the design of the syllabus and the teacher training manual has cast doubt on the value of knowledge itself in a classroom. The result is that in many ways knowledge is less prised than opinion. There has been a good intention to make people able to think and form (informed) opinions, which because the informed aspect has been forgotten, has led to almost its opposite, so that some pupils are left with the contradictory impression that opinion itself is as good as knowledge, and that all opinions are of equal value. To many school pupils the mantra that one opinion is as good as another, has led to a fatal misidentification of bigotry and closed mindedness as some form of egalitarianism. It is the same thing as mob rule, it leads to the extinguishing of reason and fairness...and of toleration itself, as the strongest not the best opinion asserts itself. A well-intentioned pursuit of toleration and the understanding of others has resulted in its corollary - bigotry. The break of the link between knowledge and the formation of opinion releases people from the requirement to listen to others people's opinions, for if all opinions are as good as each other, then we may as well stick with our own held opinion and disregard the other person's. A belief that all opinions are equal doesn't seem to stop us forming opinions and holding our own more strongly than other people's. It merely confirms to us that no-one has the right to criticise us, or question our views. It may mean that we cannot question anyone else's but it needn't in practise mean that we need take other people's opinions into account. It can be consistent with living as we think fit and riding roughshod over other people. This of course is not the intention in the teaching, it is the opposite of the intention, but is a result of a mistake in the thinking behind it. Scepticism – And Poverty We live in a period of widely felt scepticism about our political system and those who are part of it. That scepticism is applied to everyone; the government, MPs, judges, civil servants, the parties, their leaders and members, right down to anyone who expresses an opinion in public or even in private. The British have perhaps always tended towards varying forms of scepticism, in their philosophy (including a sceptical limit to scepticism itself) and in their attitudes to politics. It sometimes stops us following big dangerous ideas, it is perhaps related to our well developed sense of humour. It can't be said however to have necessarily led us to always making the best political decisions and choices. While it is a useful and certainly amusing tool in the political debate, it cannot on its own, if it is on its own, lead to wise choices or to constructive discussion and the understanding of ideas. Scepticism about politics is partly the result of the exclusion of large numbers of the electorate from the wealth and prosperity enjoyed by the majority. The minority, and it is a very large one, have not seen enough progress in their material conditions to rationally warrant belief in the system in which they live, neither the economic nor the political. If you are poor in a society which seems to speak of wealth, and speak of fairness, your conclusion is likely to be one of some scepticism. If the broadest and loosest understanding of the word 'democracy' suggests more than just being able to vote for and dismiss your government, then the 8 million or so who are paid only subsistence wages, are likely to feel disappointment and lack of faith in that system. When that system, in other words the party system which forms the policy part of it, fails to offer even hope of significant improvement, then we can expect scepticism to grow and spread. And that scepticism eventually includes that very central idea of voting for and dismissing your government. Whatever your feelings about the EU, the facts concerning its lack of democracy are plain for all to see, on its own website, by its own admission. The success and acceptance of the EU, in which 450 million Europeans lose the power chose and dismiss their government, (as the EU government is not elected or dismissed by the European elections) show that many people do not care about that right, are sceptical of its usefulness. The reason for the continuing poverty of large numbers of us, in other words, the continuation of glaring inequalities of material wealth, can be the result of a number of things. It can be because we think it is a necessary part of our economic system; it can be because we think it is a necessary part of our political system, and we would like to keep both of them at that cost; or it can be because after reasoned debate we have concluded that it is best that way for some other reason, (such as it is an unavoidable part of natural or moral life and shouldn't be interfered with); or it can be because we would like it to be otherwise but can't agree on the best way to change it; or it can be that we cannot discuss it except symbolically – in other words when we are discussing it we are actually arguing about something else, arguing about who each one of us is; in other words the politics of identity. It is likely to be a mixture of some of these. Identity Politics In politics where one's own identity is the real subject, we are chiefly intent upon identifying ourselves as someone who holds the right sort of opinions, the kind of opinions we think we ought to have, or would like to have, or would like other people to think we have. To achieve this we don't have to think for ourselves beyond correctly identifying what those opinions are, which opinions suit which identity, and match them to the one of our choice. This process also involves identifying who the typical enemies are to the typical set of opinions we aspire to having, and begin to hate or dislike those people. One extension of this is to deliberately identify anyone who opposes us or holds a different view, as something far worse than they actually are. If someone is a Conservative and we don't like Conservatives then we call them fascists. If someone is a Labourite and we don’t like Labourites we call them socialists or communists, and so on. Or we attribute to them the negative characteristics we associate to people who hold opinions of the stamp we dislike. This process is very widespread, we are all guilty of it. It comes from a real dislike, it comes from suspicion and fear , and mistrust. In a society where political opinions (if not policies) are polarised, there is likely to be a lot of mistrust. Political opinions generally held in Britain are arguably far more polarised than the policies of the parties we vote for. This might be because one or more of the parties we vote for doesn't offer us the policies that match our opinions. It might alternatively be because there is no strong link between what we say and what we do, or what we say others should do, and our ability or determination to make that happen, which might in turn come from a lack of real conviction. It might be because we speak or think rashly but vote more sensibly (for lack of choice). It might come from a failure to form ideas of sufficient coherence to find their way into the manifestos of major political parties likely to hold governmental responsibility. Rashly held opinions don't easily find themselves into policy, luckily. In other words, maybe we get better parties and policies than we deserve, not worse. Many people think our political parties are not worthy of us, the truth might be the contrary. Cynicism And Blame We like to blame other people. That is part of relying on rashly held and formed opinions, sometimes based on little more than bigotry of one kind or another. Blaming other people has become the pass-time of a population sometimes lacking in idealism or ideas. Blaming other people is a symptom of being powerless, or feeling powerless. Blaming other people is a symptom of anger, and of cowardice and dishonesty. It is of course a symptom of failing to or refusing to, see our own faults. It is the fantasy that replaces responsibility. The ballooning of 'conspiracy theory' about more or less anything, is the last pitiful refuge of the fantasist in us who refuses to face the truth, because the truth is too unyielding to sense and feeling and reason; it represents the flight of those cannot fight. It offers us a world where there is an unlimited supply of other people to blame, a scapegoat for all the wrongs or circumstances that afflict us, for every unanswered question that confounds us; it creates a moral shape of instant satisfaction where there is no doubt only secrecy; it is where certainty meets the unknown; in it is superstition and suspicion that defeats enquiry, that undermines and defeats virtue and honesty and all the necessary weapons against unjustly wielded power, the very enemy it seeks to attack. It is a symptom of the general habit of blaming others rather than facing our own responsibility, of seeing the enemy in The Other. It is this habit of mind that is at the centre of some of our failings politically, as a nation. Despite all the vigorous discussion, and strongly held opinions, and the healthy innate scepticism, many people feel as if they are not being heard. We chose to blame other people rather than expect ourselves to make useful suggestions, or even to form reasonable coherent opinions. Are we failing to make political progress, and to deal with our political and economic problems because we are not listening to one another? What Constitutes “ Serious Debate”? All too often, as anyone knows, political debate on television or elsewhere, involves the parties knocking bits off each other, and trivial attempts to discredit each other. One could be forgiven for thinking that the purpose of this kind of political debate was to do precisely that, discredit your opponents. Whole elections are sometimes fought on little more than that. Such a method of argument, at the very least, distracts from the necessary and important aspect, to present and explain ideas and policies. This sort of article might here give up a plea for a better, more serious political debate, based on arguing the substantive matters. But I would like to go one step further. I would like to suggest that even “serious debate”, as it is usually understood anyway, is not always the best way to find answers to difficult questions. Because “serious debate” is often trial by combat, rather than by examination. In combat, factors other than the most germane can determine the outcome. Justice does not determine the outcome of combat whether it is physical or argumentative. Trial by intellectual or argumentative combat is not much more logical a test of ideas than trial by combat was ever a test of right or wrong. It is easy for a bad idea to defeat a good one in combat. Even in courtrooms, governed by the judicial process, which in Britain is based on combat, cross examination and legal trickery can sometimes make a liar out of truth despite the pains that are taken to ensure that all the available evidence is heard, and that anyone who has something to say is able to say it. Such safeguards are not made in political debate outside the House of Commons. In televised debates and discussion programmes, for example, very strict constraints of time are among the main determiners; speakers can say whatever they can in the very short space allowed for each subject and then the debate moves on; a victorious point is made if it trumps the opposing speaker in some way, and it rarely matters how. A victory in a television“debate” or discussion, (especially those where the audience take an active part) is determined and judged by all sorts of factors extraneous to the substance of the points discussed; it is often to do with how the speakers “come across”, with presentation, with seeming, with their ability to satisfy an audience, outwit and out-shine their opponent, to seem on a personal level trust-worthy and confident, fluent. Aside from their superficiality, those elements rely also on the sympathies and prejudices of the audience, or of the national mood. A popular fool can easily defeat an unpopular wise man in these sorts of 'debates' and 'discussions'. Of course people can sometimes see through these obscuring clouds, and can make good judgements, but it is hard to see how any of these factors actually help. When the defeat of your opponent's idea, and the triumph of your own is the main intention, Truth itself is likely to be the loser of the debate. For indeed no idea is perfect, and many neglected ideas have something of use about them. Argumentative combats don't necessarily discover the good or the bad in ideas. After hearing a combative debate one is left with a feeling of frustration and injustice, as well as a sense of futility and hopelessness, as if the truth will never prevail; greater tolerance usually seems further away than it did before the debate, and deeper understanding can seem an impossible dream, to be achieved in some rarefied environment rather than something that can be found by Everyman. There are usually, in politics, at least two ideas in a debate at one time, debate per se cannot fully accommodate either of them, the form of debate sets the one against the other, and each idea survives or falls according to how they withstand hostile attacks in the time and in the manner allowed. Better circumstances for explaining and developing an idea are when there is a willingness on the part of the interlocutors to listen to, and if necessary assist in, the exposition of the idea. Imagine that, imagine a politician on TV trying to explain his ideas or policies, and the other politicians asking him questions about them, and helping him to develop them, to test an idea and see if it works. They might ask difficult and testing questions, but most importantly, they would allow him to answer them, and try to make the idea work as far as it can work. In such circumstances, it might be possible to find and develop ideas that might be useful, no matter whence or from whom they originate. If the purpose of debate was to find the solutions we need, surely this would be the best way to do it, for each idea to be given a chance to be explained in full, without the need to be fending off attacks while doing so. On TV especially, it is commonplace to see two , (or more) ideas getting a bad hearing at once, because they are in conflict with one another, instead of seeing one idea at a time explained properly. Indeed, on the Newsnight format of programme, the typical way of presenting someone’s views is to confront them with someone else with diametrically opposed views in the hope of a particularly bad-tempered exchange. Typically nothing is learned or gained; passions are inflamed and mutual understanding and tolerance seem further off than before. The trial by combat has has gone so far that even when a politician does have a chance to speak on his own without detractors present, he spends much of his energy on a defensive and sometimes deceitful response to anticipated criticisms. The fear of unfair criticism and ridicule has made politicians seemingly unable to concentrate on the requirement upon them to come up with ideas. The long habit of being tested by the often misleading and trivial practise of the media, has made them what we could term defensive, afraid of exposure, preoccupied with protecting themselves from attack. This has gone so far that we can now see in political parties an inability to frame their policy proposals for an election with anything else in mind than propaganda for their election bid. Convincing the electorate out-weighs the need to find solutions to problems facing the country, which come a poor second place. It might be argued that this problem is inherent in democracy, however it would be more accurate to say that democracy can be undermined by parties who allow the short term interests of their party to lead them to forget their purpose to serve the country. When the political process is reduced is this way, anyone involved in it is afraid to abandon the tricks for fear of losing. It is like estate agents using falsifying lenses for their photos to make the rooms seem bigger; once the practise takes hold each is afraid to abandon it in case their houses seem small. Intervention is necessary, we need to renew our grip over what we are doing rather than let ourselves drift into unreason and a degraded political system. Is It Reasonable To Suppose That Political Ideas Can Be Discussed In This Way? Does a non-combative way of discussing political ideas mean anything more than either politeness or fudge? Well, to start with, if politeness means listening to and giving a fair hearing to people with ideas different to your own, then additional politeness in politics might be constructive, and the benefits of that have been mentioned above. Would it merely mean that distinctions between one thing and another were fudged? No, I don't think so. On the contrary, more accurate and careful and unbiased consideration of ideas (which of course this is about) would make for clearer and more accurate distinctions to be made; it is pre-judging that blurs distinctions, it is a failure to listen and understand that makes false distinctions, and misses real ones. The suggestion here is for better more accurate discussion of ideas, instead of making decisions based on prejudice and misplaced anger or resentment, or on simple misunderstanding. Making clearer distinctions certainly doesn't result in making everything, making ideas, seem the same. It has the opposite effect, we see differences clearly when we know better what things are. Take for example the main difference between the Labour and Conservative positions at the upcoming election (2015); the question of whether or not to borrow to increase government expenditure, in order to create growth in the economy. The two sides are pretty diametrically opposed on that question, and the people too seem to completely trust one idea or the other. The first thing to say about it is that neither side knows for sure if their own idea is going to work. They believe it is, they hope it is, but they don't know. They don't know because in economics you cannot with confidence predict all the outcomes. If we could we should surely be better off than we are, and free of unexpected events that plunge us into difficulties. By extension of course, they don’t know that the other side's idea isn't going to work. They ought to hope it could. They ought to be in eager discussion with the proponents of it, to find out if it would be more likely to work than their own idea. Perhaps they have done, but we can doubt it. Secondly we could say that each idea has certain attendant difficulties and side-effects. These ought to be known by their proponents. But does the knowledge of these effects enter into their own way of discussing them and presenting them to the public? No, they don’t. That is left to the opponents, whose cries are derided and dismissed. Both sides say that the other side are fools or worse, Labour are painted as profligate and the Conservatives are called cruel. Neither side are willing to credit the other side with good intentions, (the same as their own, to solve the economic problems). It took Labour some time to even admit that their intention, to increase government spending and end the cuts made by the government, meant they would make further borrowing, to in fact increase the current rate of borrowing. This is now out in the open and insofar as the electorate understand the simple limitations to increased borrowing , the “debate” is able to take place. When they are asked about this, Labour reply that the government too is borrowing, and imply that this means that it is insincere in its determination to reduce the budget deficit. And so it goes on. The Conservatives say that Labour created the debt and that if elected they would do the same again, borrow money and create debt. On the face of it that is true, although it needs some additional facts; the spending was made suddenly by Gordon Brown in 2004 after years of restraint and balanced budgets, because he was frustrated at having done nothing yet to alleviate poverty; for a Labour government that is and should be regarded as a serious failure. For the country, for the poor, it meant the difference between hardship and alleviated hardship. And despite what people like to think, many Conservatives do care about the plight of the poor; they could easily acknowledge the partial desirability of Labour's borrowing despite its unhappy effect on the national debt. The spending proposed by the Labour party is for an entirely different purpose; it is intended to create growth in the economy. It wouldn't cost the government much to acknowledge both these relevant facts. That wouldn't prevent them from pointing out that it is debatable whether spending based on borrowing would work, or if it would merely add to our problems by further adding to the debt; Also, that it is not to be taken for granted that considering our debt to income ratio, further loans would long be available to a British government on reasonable enough terms. Labour too, when they criticise government cuts as if they were devised merely as a way of making life hard for the population, could acknowledge that the government's purpose in making spending cuts is to reduce debt which is, at least in many people's view, dangerously high, and that the long term aim is that it will reduce debt, and enable recovery. They might also acknowledge that in fact the cuts are not aimed at the poor, and that the government has in many ways tried to avoid their impact upon the poorest. (When any government makes spending cuts, as even Labour governments have done, they will always affect the poor to some degree as much of government spending is to alleviate poverty) That wouldn't stop them from arguing that recovery might be helped by government spending and in their view growth is impeded by a shortage of money, that they believe can be eased by using borrowed money. The government could reply that growth would not be helped by the growth in the public sector, as would be generated by government spending, but by the private sector. And so on. All these propositions and answers can be questioned and further explored. It might be fruitful, in terms of the debate, to examine thoroughly each proposal. Of course there is nothing to stop newspapers and broadcasters doing that, but I would suggest that it is important for politics, for democracy and people's faith in it, that politicians are seen to participate in the attempts to examine each of the two proposals, and indeed any others. If they don't participate then they are likely to look as if they are beneath, not above, the real debate such as it is, taking place in the media. It is an examination they should be leading, whereas they are leading the debate, by each one being as partisan and polarised and unyielding in their position as it is possible to be, neither side engaging with the other while the debate goes on elsewhere. Rightly or wrongly, this gives an impression to many of the electorate, of untrustworthiness. This is because as each side is un-nuanced and exaggerated in its criticism of the other and speaks untruths from that position. People are left with the feeling of “not knowing who to believe”, as if they are faced only with lies, and indeed that is partly the case. Therefore, in this very important question, it is the polarisation of the politicians' positions, that seems to obstruct rather than lead or help, the examination of the problems in the economy. Their conduct of the “debate” leaves much of the electorate bewildered and angry. Nothing is explained to them, and the atmosphere of bad faith created by the un-nuanced bickering between politicians prevents any such explanations being given. The result is that on a personal level, person to person, as might for example be noticed on the internet, there is a crudeness and descent into blame and rebuttal that is the enemy to understanding or enquiry. The danger of this is that the political process fails to deliver the best results. And that means if fails to deliver the best possible policies. It means that as a country we follow a path based on our collective inability to engage with each other in a reasonable way and together find the solutions we need. Collective stupidity you might call it. It should be added that this is not solely or even chiefly that fault of the politicians themselves as we, by our own conduct and habits, ensure that we get the politicians we make necessary or likely. |