I posted this video on YouTube this morning:
The transcript is as follows:
Freedom from fear is one of the things that every politician should seek to provide. And I don't think it's a priority for any politician, from the major parties at least, in the UK at present. And that, to me, is incredibly worrying.
Freedom from fear was one of the four fundamental freedoms that US President Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Second World War leader of the USA, outlined in a speech in 1941, not that long before the US joined the Second World War. He said there were four fundamental freedoms. The freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Fear, to me, is, however, the most important of all of those because if you don't have freedom from fear, well, that's probably because you don't have one of the others. So, it's the overarching need that we as humans have, to live free from fear.
And yet we have governments that tell us unless we comply, we will be punished. How? Look, right now, our current Conservative government is saying to people who have mental health issues, unless you stop your anxiety, unless you deal with your fears, unless you go back to work, even though you are incapacitated, we will punish you financially.
We've had the bedroom tax.
We have the idea that benefits are a scourge on society, even though that's clearly untrue. There are people who need them, and it's darn hard to get them.
What we need is a society where we let people prosper, where we provide them with the hope that they can fulfill, not the fear that they will fail.
And those two approaches are fundamentally different. One is about the politics of aspiration. The other is about the politics of oppression.
I'm all for aspiration. I'm all for hope. I'm all for people fulfilling their potential. I loathe those politicians who want to crack big whips and hard sticks over us.
For me, carrots work and what's more, carrots should be provided to everyone because everybody has something to offer in a society.
We need to live free of fear and that means our major political parties have to change their entire attitude towards the way in which they govern because right now they don't believe in it.
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:
Freedom from fear is one of the four freedoms mentioned by FDR in a speech in 1941. Others incluced were freedom from want and freedom of speech. It is a tragedy that we seem to have strayed so far from FDR’s vision. Especially under this government. They seem to want to rid the system of all of his freedoms. Could they be said to harbour fascist inclinations?
at the risk of being boring, I refreshed memory and found out that
later in the same speech the president went on to specify six basic goals:
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
Jobs for those who can work.
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privilege for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
Over 80 years on for both the US and ourselves it is still a work in progress.
Indeed
Erich Fromm’s discussion of freedom in ‘Fear of Freedom’ distinguished between:
Freedom from xxxx
and
Freedom to xxx
I think this a very useful distinction.
It feeds into Plato/Popper’s paradox of freedom quite neatly too.
Conservative philosophy.
Big whips and hard sticks are for poorer people.
Carrots and incentives are for richer people.
Government appears to focus on freedom to exploit, freedom to profit, freedom to dump sewage in our rivers, and freedom to lie if it bolsters the other “freedoms”. It’s all rather sad when all of us, given the freedom of opportunity, could do so much more.
“We have the idea that benefits are a scourge on society, even though that’s clearly untrue. There are people who need them, and it’s darn hard to get them.”
Let’s recall (again!) why we have social security; When, back in the 1880s, then German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck proposed what his critics called state socialism and we’ve come to know as social security, we understand he did so because, by giving small but regular amounts of money to the unemployed, the sick and disabled, and those too old and infirm to work, those people were turned into economic assets. Necessity dictated they spend the money they were given, increasing the velocity of money in the economy and creating an environment which encouraged corporate investment. Normal taxation, then as now, took care of any potential problems with inflation. This created what’s now known as a virtuous circle, one we should, if we had any education and sense, be emulating. Instead, we’re cutting benefits. This has the effect of reducing the velocity and amount of money in circulation, damaging the economy. Remember, the claimant spends it with the butcher who spends it with the baker who spends it with the candlestick maker. Social security is security for the whole neighbourhood as, when govt’s doing its job, despite the onset of hard times they know there’ll still be money circulating in the economy overall.
Once again , it’s the economy which needs benefits. The needs of claimants themselves are incidental to the process.
I was earlier listening to a podcast on the subject from the NEF featuring two very informed authorities https://neweconomics.org/2024/04/new-economics-podcast-why-is-the-benefits-system-failing-disabled-people They spoke well on social security’s effect on claimants and how useful it can be in preventing further difficulties from impacting on already difficult lives. Bear in mind this was an economics podcast… the actual economics of social security, what it’s there for (which is to help sustain the economy itself) never got a mention. The negative effects of reducing benefits on local economies, a consideration which brings the discussion out of the limited area specific to disabled folks into the broader economic area, showing how it affects not just disabled folk but everybody except the very wealthy, simply wasn’t discussed. This is how far we now are into this looking-glass world. Even on an economics podcast, it seems, the economics don’t get considered,
Bill – whilst I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment you make in highlighting the clarity of Bismarck’s argument for social security, this is not the 1880s. We have been sold on aspiration since then. This idea in the head of workers was highly profitable but unsustainable long term. The issue that leaves in terms of social security is obvious. It is the elephant in the room.
I thank you for your response but I have to admit I don’t get your point.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
From my engagements over the past twenty years, I get the impression that many neoliberal politicians are sociopaths and very happy to keep people in fear and unable to think beyond daily survival.
There’s a class element to it. Upper class types like Cameron and Osborne want people to know their place and not threaten theirs. Middle class types like Blair and Mandelson want to be like the upper class (who they often encountered at university and became jealous of), think they are doing well due to their merits and see people struggling as deserving of their fate. Working class ones like Lee Anderson and provincial petit bourgeois like Thatcher despise where they came from, think they are doing well due to their merits and need kick down the ladder to protect their positions (and mask their insecurity).
Meanwhile, on the Post Office Inquiry front, I confess I have not had time to follow events this week. Based on news feeds alone, I gather nobody involved so far appears to have heard anything, or saw anything, or said anything, or did anything. Well, now we know; but I’m not sure what …..
Agreed
Obfuscation rules
This post has really touched a nerve for me. The person I care for is perpetually terrified, living with horrible anxiety thanks to the constant vilification of the disabled, wondering if they will remain safe and secure once I die and there’s no one to look after them. I also fear what will happen at that point.
So there are two of us, living in uneasy apprehension and the undoubted consequent impact on our health and wellbeing. I have worked since I was 13 (initially after school and at weekends) and have been a carer for over 20 years, so I feel I have made my contribution. Not that I should feel the need to justify our existence, but this is the atmosphere that has been purposefully generated.
Canada has gone down a route where people are allowed to choose euthanasia rather than live in poverty. I wonder how far away the UK is from this ‘solution’? I’m sure Johnson isn’t the only one who would approve of this ‘remedy’.
I wholly understand your fear
I can only offer sympathy, good wishes and an offer to keep talking about what I think is fair if we are to have freedom from fear.