A comment has been made on my extract from the Introduction to the Courageous State that says:
Can I comment on two quotes:
Quote number 1:
“A Courageous State is populated by politicians who believe in government. They believe in the power of the office they hold. They believe that office exists for the sake of the public good. They know what that public good is.”
Quote no. 2, six paragraphs later:
“A Courageous politician knows that there is a great deal that he or she does not know, and knows that despite that they will have to act.”
Conceivably that might mean they don't actually know what the public good is, but they will act for the sake of it anyway. Or is the idea that politicians MUST know what the public good is, even if they know nothing at all about anything else?
I can't help feeling that logical inconsistencies like this should have been ironed out in the proof-reading process.
I am also a little concerned by the quasi-religious language. Beliefs abound, but on what are they based? Not much, it seems, except your definitions. What exactly qualifies you to define what politicians should believe?
I admit I find such a comment hard to respond to, because it is based precisely on the logic that The Courageous State sets out to challenge.
Neoliberal economics assumes a) we're rational b) consistent c) all knowing of the future (despite Tom Worstall's denials that this is so - and I explain why in the book) and are therefore, in effect d) automatons. The whole basis on which neoliberalism is constructed cannot work without these quite absurd ideas - as Steve Keen and others have shown. This commentator's observation is based upon that neoliberal thinking that presumes us automatons without, for example, belief systems (even though, of course, belief in neoliberalism is itself a belief - and a wholly irrational one at that since there is no evidence to support it). That is why I find it very hard to respond to it, but let me try.
Firstly, the fact that a person knows what they think the public good is and persuades sufficient in a population that they share that view so that they are elected to office does not then mean they become omniscient. It means they know what they think. That's all. And I believe that possible. If I did not I could not have written a book about what I think. That's what the first quote is saying. They have a belief and want to deliver policy through holding political office in furtherance of that belief. Respectfully, I'd call that an observation of reality. More than that, knowing this and behaving in this way is the very least I expect of politicians - even though it is abundantly obvious that Cameron and Osborne (and others) fail the test.
And, secondly, I contend there is nothing whatsoever inconsistent with that politician knowing what they seek to do and the fact that they also know that the decisions they will have to make to implement policy to achieve that goal will be based on incomplete and inaccurate information meaning that at the end of the day the politician will have to use their judgement. Anyone but a fool, a neoliberal economist, and bank regulators before Adair Turner saw the light, appreciates the fact that we do not know the future and that the past is a very incomplete guide as to what it might be. In other words, what I have said in the second quote about decision making is actually a truism for all but these three groups. People do act despite simply not knowing what might happen. This is the state of uncertainty that neoliberals deny exists and which Keynes embraced.
So is there an inconsistency that should have been edited out? No: far from it! It is the belief of the politcian that informs the decision when there is no clear knowledge on which it is to be based. That is the exercise of judgement that I want elected politicians to undertake in fulfilment of their mandate. It is, indeed, for that judgement that we elect them. What, I wonder, is so baffling about that?
Well, I suggest that to most people there will be nothing baffling at all, but, as this commentator shows, for those schooled in neoliberalism that whole exercise of normal human thinking and decision making has been utterly undermined by the false philosophy they follow which has, as I have argued in the book, left us with politcians who think it is their job to stand back and do nothing - as Cameon, Osborne, Clegg and Alexander prove daily.
There was, therefore no inconsistency to rule out. I very definitely meant what I said.
More than that, I believe in belief. I am also little short of amazed that anyone can question my right to believe in belief, not least because not believing in belief requires a person to make a statement of belief, which makes the statement that the person does not believe in belief tautologically wrong as a result (like all logical positivist, and much neoliberal economic thinking).
What qualifies me therefore to make my statement of belief? The fact that I am human does! That's it. I believe in humanity in all its glorious and messy diversity, and its inconsistencies, irrationalities and simple lack of knowledge that go to make us the most amazing people whose potential to achieve is the focus of the book, which embraces all that messiness and more. No wonder neoliberals will hate it. And no wonder it offers what I think (there I go one, making a statement of belief) a better explanation of our economy than neoliberalism does.
I'll go further than that - for anyone who thinks we're human and not automatons this book offers an explanation of economics almost unknown in mainstream literature, which was written for automatons, for which we're now all paying the price.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Hear, hear, Richard. The fact is that you are asking for a rehabilitation of that old, and much derided, concept – ideology. Under Blair ideology was actively shunned “What works is what matters, and what we will pursue”, ignoring the fact that uncertainty on the one hand, and the constraints of properly Beta-testing every idea on the other (though a bit more Beta-testing of Blairite poolicy would have saved us from the NHS and Prison Service/National Offender Monitoring System IT cock-ups) mean that you can never apply such ‘technocratic solutions’ tout simple. Instead, you deploy ideology, which is nothing more than an interpretive prism for exploring reality. The psychology of perception makes it abundantly clear that we are doing this every moment of our waking lives – using a “model” of the reality around us, to make sense of it, and even adjusting what we perceive to fit in with the model to some extent. Until, that is, reality forces us to adjust our model. An ideology -a belief in belief – provides just such a mechanism, but it ONLY works if, as with our perception of the real world of the senses, we adjust our beliefs to encompass new information, which is exaclty the situation described in Richard’s two quotes: belief in the common good – ideology; acting as seems best to achieve that, on the basis of that general belief, trusting that one is acting in the general directions of the common good. When, however, as with the neo-liberals, ideology totally defines perception, then we reach the old joke situation of the neo-liberal economist who tells you (despite your experience) that if your head is in the blazing over, and your feet encased in a block of ice in a deep freeze, then you are, “on balance, comfortable”. That is the quality of discourse we are hearing from our “Lords and masters” in waht is, alas, Her Majesty’s Government – more like Fred Karno’s Army! Believing in belief is not quasi-religious, merely the way we all live our everyday llives, from the simplest level (we believe the train may/should arrive at its destination on time), to the higher level of believing that those who love us do in fact do so; we wouldn’t be able to function if we didn’t take a great deal of our lives “on trust”.
Thanks – agreed!
As Zizek said recently on consumerism as an invisible but dominant ideology:
We live in a very strange era where at least in the West people say they live outside ideology. Take average people today. What is the implicit injunction that you get in society, in education, whatever. It’s not sacrifice yourself for a big cause. It’s something like be true to yourself, have a full life, realize your potential. It’s kind of what I call a “spiritualized capitalism.” People don’t experience it as ideology but we are in an ideology.
Can I add something to this argument Richard? I think that it’s worth pointing out that those value beliefs ultimately reflect our worldview, and help us shape our future. We don’t know what that future will look like exactly, but the beliefs held by neo-liberalism and those you talk about in The Courageous State clearly take it in two very different directions.
If we follow a neoliberal view that says we are inherently selfish animals, who will only ever behave in our own interests, and should be left to fend for ourselves in a survival-of-the-fittest, dog-eat-dog world, then what on earth is our future going to look like? Would we want to leave that future to our children?
Alternately, if we believe that we are human, with all the freedom of choice that that entails, including the choice to be selfless, to cooperate, to build community, and look after one another, and value these above our own material gain, then the future will look very different to the neoliberal one.
Which one of these futures would you rather live in? Which one of these better describes the path of human evolution? Which one takes us forwards and which takes us back? This is why it’s crucial to have belief and hope. You can never know what the future will look like, whether you’ll even live to see it, or even whether you have a clue or not how to get to the future you hope for. But whether you notice it or not, those beliefs and values you hold are actively shaping the direction of travel.
Thanks – appreciated – great insights
Belief always helps when you’ve a fiat currency 🙂
BB
Something on the theme of the importance of belief in informing how we organise society from
Rt. Rev. Mark S. Sisk, Bishop of New York today in response to OWS – relevant to anyone who believes in morality whether religious or not.
We Must Not Serve Capitalism — We Must Make It Serve UsÂ
 ….
There can be little doubt that capitalism is a productive way to order economic life. But we need to remember, as the protestors have reminded us, that that is all that it is — an economic system based on the entirely reasonable propositions that capital has value, and that supply and demand are the most efficient way to set prices. Capitalism is of no help at all in determining what is morally good — that is something that must instead be determined by the community’s wider values.
And there should be no question that when an economic system fails to reflect those communal values, it should be modified and governed until it does. To say, as some do, that any attempt to control or guide our economic system is neither wise nor possible is to admit that an economic system has decisive control of our lives. For a Christian, such an admission would be nothing less than to yield to idolatry. …For the non-theist to make the argument that the laws of economics are immutable is to concede that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves. That is the same argument that those in the grip of various kinds of addiction make: “I am not in control, my addiction made me do it….””
http://stanneswashingtonville.dioceseny.org/2011/11/bishop-mark-sisk-writes-in-response-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protests/
How many beliefs that you hold will come true in the future? the track record for beliefs in not good!
What a sad view
I’d entirely disagree
The big picture has seen real progress on many issues in my lifetime
This is a great illustration of the core of the worldview narrative I mentioned above. People either tend to believe the world is ultimately a bad, malevolent, scary place, where they expect to have bad experiences, and where things are likely to get worse; or the believe the world is ultimately a good, benevolent place, where they look forward to good experiences and where things are going to get better.
If you believe in a malevolent world, then you’ll also be fearful of the future, and so believe you need to fight to survive, believe in dog-eat-dog, and have to be selfish as a result, because let’s face it, everyone is out to hurt you.
If you believe in the benevolent world, then you’ll be less fearful of the future and of others, and so you can be more selfless, less concerned with competition, and more with cooperation and community.
It’s a great simplification obviously, and the two extremes of a very wide sliding scale, but it’s a useful illustration. There’s considerable evidence in psychology to suggest that in our individual lives, we are more likely to end up with the future that we expect or imagine. I do wonder if this is a case on a national level as well. If it is, then being aware of what your values and beliefs are (everyone has them, even if one is the paradoxical “I have no belief”) are incredibly important for this reason.
The rich live in perpetual fear, I suggest They must be petrified that people of genuine ability will take over from them. Look at Osborne/Cameron/Clegg – other than rich parents, what do any of them have going for them? Yet there they are, running the country. Maintaining and reinforcing the status quo has to be their mission otherwise they’ll quickly be overtaken and left behind by the genuinely capable -and what would they do then? Take away their rich parents and how might this bunch survive? This concern must fashion much of their ideology. Their every waking effort must be then to disable everyone who isn’t already hugely rich by reducing the money supply so denying them the ability to trade and better themselves. This they’re doing with great success. It’s not capitalism, by the way, it’s feudalism, if anything.
BB
All morality has a social basis, that is to say, it is ultimately tied to a vision of how our society progresses or doesn’t. To be ‘good’ is to want to take Society in a direction that leads to better lives for all, to be ‘bad’ the opposite. Belief/hope/passion the ability to imagine a future before it happens, these are all essential human qualities without which we’d just be animals.
Neo-Liberals and the general belief in Capitalism as the only way to organise Society betrays a huge lack of imagination on the part of the Establishment and as this is now being defended with only offering misery as a future for most people, it seems inevitable serious and radical change will be necessary to have anything like a good life for all this century.
Bring it on! Here’s Chris Hedges on ‘hope’ it’s relevant because it expresses precisely what makes ‘us’ different from ‘them’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KP8YcfdHIN4#!
Very interesting discussion that took me back to Kelly’s Construct Theory, “we are all scientists attempting to make sense of the world”, which of course is why education and being well informed are critical to good citizenship. Belief derives from making sense of the world in the individuals experience and context, which is why an individual needs a broad social and cultural experience to understand the views/beliefs of others. Once you start down this road some of the extreme views individuals hold begin to make sense. To give one example, if your experience is limited to an advantaged economic and social context – say comfortably off economically and separated from a broad range of other individuals who are less well-off socially and economically, you are very unlikely to be able to EMPATHISE with their plight.
Well said Littlejohn,
There are too many people, governments, etc. etc. in high power that seem to use beliefs as the basis for their decisions. An educated guess is even better. But even scientific theory is subject to rapid change these days. At least Scientists in the end admit when they are wrong. At least I know I know very little and would like to continue to learn, but it seems that most believe that their beliefs are right and cannot be proved otherwise, when in fact they ought to prove their beliefs before asking someone to prove they are wrong. Like there is a God for instance.
You delude yourself if you think anyone acts on the basis of anything but belief.
It is all we have to go on when dealing with anything but the most basic of questions because we’re simply not capable of doing anything but form a view on the data after that – and that view will always be filtered by our beliefs.
So the only people who you can’t trust are those who deny they use their beliefs, or deny that they even have any.
One could suggest that believing you don’t act on belief is itself belief. But apart from that, at the end of the day all you have to guide you is instinct, gut feeling. It’s really all there is.
When you cross the road, do you believe the car coming towards you will stop or do you wait until it actually stops before crossing? By the way I am in good company Richard as one who does not deny people go on belief, including myself, but wherever possible I try and know what is the truth before i do it. Does not mean I don’t act on belief, I do and have very often found myself to be wrong. Example I was run down on a pedestrian crossing by a car! I didn’t know he had cataracts and couldn’t see me. I believed he could stop in 30 feet at the speed he was going but he didn’t That is true!
I agree entirely
Blind faith is not the same as belief (literally in your case – sorry – realised the pun after I’d written it).
Of course evidence based decision making is vital, but we always filter that evidence through our beliefs and those who deny that are either a ) foolish b) of the ilk that claims ‘apolitical’ and / or objective = neoliberal, which comes to much the same thing when claimed