The video I published yesterday, in which I suggested that almost all politicians are engaged in that occupation for the dopamine that it provides them with, was not, I think, that widely understood. That, I accept, must be my fault. The video was an exercise in thinking out loud. Whether YouTube is a place to do that is a question I have not answered as yet.
The question that I was musing on when preparing to make that video was not unrelated to the themes in my 2011 book, The Courageous State. In that book, I suggested that neoliberalism had reduced politics to the point where strategy had disappeared, and all that was left was managerialism, with almost every politician believing the mantra that neoliberalism dictated that whatever the issue the politician might be asked to address, the market would have a better solution.
If this is the malaise that has reduced politics to its current state - and I still think it is - then those engaged in politics cannot be doing so for the sake of achieving a strategic goal. They will have persuaded themselves long before reaching office that there is no such goal that they can achieve. As a consequence, they will, instead, at best think that it is their task to manage the state within the constraints imposed upon it by the private sector and those with wealth and that there will be a wide range of issues that they must not question when undertaking this management role for fear of contradicting the power structures that they believe exist. They are reduced to playing a game of politics which lacks any substance, with their only reward (apart from those that might come when they have left office) being the dopamine hits that they get as a consequence of the appearance of their being in power.
The result is that these politicians – and as we have discussed here, often, they effectively form a single transferable party – believe that they can only use wealth created by the private sector because the state is, in their opinion, incapable of adding value by its own actions.
They also believe that money is created by the same private sector, and the state has no role in doing so.
In addition, they seem, without exception, to think that the economic problem of resource allocation relates purely to financial matters and not to the actual meeting of needs, which is what economics should be about. They have distorted not just politics as a result of their beliefs but the modern perception of what economics is all about.
As a result, this question of resource allocation is not allowed to do three things.
Firstly, it may not challenge the right of private enterprise to profit at whatever cost to anyone else.
Secondly, it must not challenge the existing allocation of wealth and rewards within society.
Thirdly, the state must not challenge the role of banks as the sole funder of economic activity, meaning it must not run deficits or create money, this being a task reserved for private sector banks alone. The inevitable consequence is, of course, that the state must also balance its books.
It is fair to ask whether there is some supra-power that imposes these requirements on politicians or whether they have, as a byproduct of the process of their learning of neoliberal thought, constantly spoonfed to them at the universities (or, in the main, the single university) that they attended, voluntarily subjected themselves to them, but it makes relatively little difference. Whichever of those beliefs you hold, and I tend towards the second whilst recognising the power of corporate money to make it look as if the first is in operation, what is apparent is that politicians are so frightened of the alienation, which they think will happen as a consequence of stepping out of line, that they obey the neoliberal line.
It also makes little difference whether they genuinely believe that they have no choice but to live within the constraints I note or feel that they have no choice but to do so. The net effect is identical. And so, feeling powerless to control much, they resort to managing a news agenda and get their dopamine hits from that whilst cosplaying as politicians, which they really are not.
The question is, how do we break this paralysis within our politics where doing nothing is the only option that politicians feel they have available to them when I am quite certain that this is not the case and that politics remains as potentially as much under the control of democratically elected people as once it was if only those people had the conviction to take back control of that system? Of course, breaking the stranglehold of neoliberal thinking is key to that, but that is not enough. This is the problem I am working on and will be working on into 2025. I think that those alternatives can be found. But that will take a lot of work.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] I have already noted this morning, there are big questions needing answers right now. These are among […]
I have been concerned for ages that there is no ‘vision’ in our politicians. And you have nailed the reason: we are stuck in the thrall of ‘the market’.
We need an anti-Thatcher to reverse this coupling of the market and our politics that Thatcher imposed all these decades ago. Unfortunately, our media wouldn’t support such a leader. Instead, we get the lies and misdirections of populism.
When something is everywhere, it is logically nowhere too. I’d say the supposed absence of vision is actually the omnipresence of neoliberalism. It’s everywhere, universal, ubiquitous, global. Every politician has to serve it totally.
When/If a politician opposes or is hostile to this neoliberalsim, they’re immediately ‘othered’ by the press as different and dangerous. Remember, Jeremy C celebrated his 13 Daily Mail pages at GE17 falsely accusing him and lying about him as a Czech spy, anti-Semitic and hating his country.
But yes, when Bernie Sanders and Jeremy C were both high profile in elections, voting figures increased dramatically , involvement in discussion and debate increased considerably- and the likes of ‘dodgy’ PM David Cameron even had to use words like ‘rigged’ when describing the economy.
Richard
There is a piece in The Guardian about wrestling (WWE) and Trump’s campaign, US politics and strategy, how the notion of kayfabe and neokayfabe is playing out in politics and voter engagement.
It very neatly complements your blog and supports the contention that politicians ‘are reduced to playing a game of politics which lacks any substance, with their only reward (apart from those that might come when they have left office) being the dopamine hits that they get as a consequence of the appearance of their being in power.’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/14/donald-trump-us-politics-world-wrestling-entertainment
‘Abraham Josephine Riesman proposes “neokayfabe” as a label for Trump-inspired Republican strategies that deliberately blur truth and fiction so that producers and consumers lose the ability to distinguish between what’s real and what isn’t.
Enjoying pro wrestling involves a deliberate suspension of disbelief, whereby fans acknowledge the theatricality of the performance while investing in it emotionally. Spectators collaborate with the performers by playing along as “believing fans”,
This mirrors people’s engagement with the artifice surrounding contemporary, professionalised politics.
Thanks
“how do we break this paralysis within our politics”
At afternoon tea yesterday – met a recently appointed deacon – we had a interesting conversation and agreed that sooner rather than later we must visit the memorial & museum in Vilvoorde dedicated to one of the greatest Englishmen that ever lived, William Tyndale (burnt at the stake in the same place). This got me thinking about community energy (and the various community actions: food, transport, repair stuff that could spin out from that) and the role of the church/mosque in facilitating community action. As it happens, a collaborator has a quasi direct line to the pope. If politicians are unable to challenge the oligarchs (I used the term to cover the ultra rich wherever they are located) and the economic system that keeps them in the style to which they have grown accustomed then it falls to the church/mosque to do so. Fighting one belief system – with a much older one – fire -with – fire etc.
Perhaps this is unrelaisable, but it is worth trying. Those with a line to the chap in Canterbury feel free to contact me. Apologies for the rather wierd line taken – but I offer this as one alternative (I am sure there are other ones).
I don’t think there is anyone in Canterbury right now
Maybe not in York, either
Thank you, Mike.
I agree with your thinking.
It’s interesting that my diocese, Northampton, has consulted on parishioners becoming a social organisation with a bit of week-end religiosity, as much cultural as religious, on the side. Our current and recent priests, all younger and from overseas, are comfortable with that and were ahead of the official line. I think from that a challenge to neoliberalism can emerge from this activism.
This pope is up for it. He had stacked the ranks of cardinals with like minded souls in anticipation of a European led reaction, including from the lady who has just been suspended from the Lords for three weeks. She has form and opposes any pontifex maximus from outside the old continent even though most Catholics are not in Europe.
There is a Quaker joke that a person comnes into a silent meeting, and in a whisper asks the person by the door “When does the service begin?” They replied “When the Meeting ends”. There ia a lot of truth in that.
Richard , there’s also the not so small matter now of what happens when you do challenge the system and indeed will change it should you come to power .
We now live in a time when we’ve digested what happened to Jeremy Corbyn not only from his political and economic opponents but from within his own party too .
They not only destroyed Jeremy Corbyn they made sure change would never be allowed to see the light of day again .
I’m not one to say Corbyn wasn’t without flaws but the basis of Corbyn was pretty simple in my opinion , the country isn’t run in the interests of the vast majority of people and I’ll ensure that it does if I come to power , it was as simple as that .
The vested interests of course colluded to ensure that wouldn’t happen , even the military had a seat around the table .
My point is Richard who on earth would be prepared to challenge that system again post Corbyn ?
This state of affairs leaves us with only one other option if it can be even called that and that is to simply sit back as difficult as it is and let things play out .
Whatever catastrophes await and I sincerely hope we don’t get to that will possibly have to happen before we get the change we so desperately need .
Why perpetuate a defeatist myth?
How do we know Jeremy Corbyn would have been denied power?
Oh, I’m pretty sure Corbyn woukd have been “dealt with”, Richard.
My reading of his entering No 10 is that he’d’ve lasted a fortnight before being toppled in a CIA-managed “A Very British Coup”, & clapped in the UK’s Guantanamo, HMP Belmarsh, & the country run by a “puppet” appointed by the Crown, under martial law, with no reference to Parliament.
Never forget Mike Pompeo’s vow, as then US Secretary State, that he’d make sure Corbyn didn’t win.
I live in hope that we could do better than the Single Transferable Party.
Hmmm……………….I like good theories (which is why I look down on Neo-liberalism so much) and I think that the answer lies in the theory of ‘path dependency’ – and how over time organisations and even political cultures get used to doing what they do to the point that it is hard to change even though the facts might be screaming you in the face? Path dependency can end with external events – called ‘punctuations’ that knock the stuffing out of things and shake them up. I thought 2008 was such a punctuation and it should have been. My only view of that is that politics did not change things because politics can only be corrupted. It was in on it and it was.
We have to face facts – Neo-liberalism – whether you see it as concerted and organised effort to overthrow popular democracy or just a form of autopoesis (self-organising) – has re-written the rule book – in fact is STILL re-writing human history and human governance as I speak. We are already in the steady groove of Neo-liberal life and all its absurdities, consequences and unfairness.
My view about politicians though is that it is very simple – and by saying so I chastise no one here.
After doing things the Neo-liberal way for so long which I have always argued is truly revolutionary because they do not flinch from what they have committed to, unlike the Left – we have lost the skills to govern for all, we now govern for the few with no pretense at all about thinking about anyone else or anything else like the planet.
The way back is clear. Cut off the money for a start. Get these politicians and their patronage by the rich ended. You cannot have two bosses – the voter and the rich. They should all be the same under law. Nationalise party funding, restrict even end party funding by vested interests – no one should be able to outspend anyone in an election because otherwise politics becomes about money and not issues and vision and talent and problem solving and balance – which is what it should be.
Do this, and we might get the people we need in politics. That would be a proper punctuation in the theory of path dependency. All we have at the moment – and I’ve learnt a lot here from Colonel Smithers – is an exclusive club with a very restricted gene pool of people from whom our governance is selected. Where are the ex-miners, railwaymen proper industrialists, problem solvers – people who have actually got their hands dirty??
All we have are people whose only aim is to join this club and then end up like Tony Blair (who is as mad as a hatter, obsessed with his legacy) and Peter Mandelson, talking with a plum in his mouth as if he had been born into some great family or other. Which you have not Peter, have you? No.
Richard, as much as I agree with you and support you, it all seems rather pointless, politics, doesn’t it? As you note, it doesn’t matter who you vote for in this FPTP system. Inequality will inevitably carry on increasing due to neoliberalism and instead of having a centre left/left wing realistic option we will likely just get Reform, either as reform or a Nigel led Tory party.
So I am left with the depressing option of just not voting anymore. I voted for Corbyn in 2019, Labour in 2024 for pure tactical reasons, but looking how garbage labour are/going to be, I won’t even lend them my vote next time. The greens have no chance in a FPTP system and like you have pointed out many times, they are just as economically illiterate as the rest of them.
This is the challenge of 2025, and after.
I wouldn’t give up on the Greens just yet. Zack Polanski for one understands what MMT is about. Unfortunately their public media time is very limited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96D-0u37vGE&ab_channel=SCOTONOMICS
But that is not how Green Party policy creation works. He can say what he likes. The policy is set by a conference and there is not one until next September.
That Single Transferable Party is a product of FPTP, so the only way I can see us doing “better than the Single Transferable Party” is through a big dollop of electoral reform. As you yourself said, Richard, “PR’s day will come.”
Starmer, Badenoch and Farage (if he becomes mainstream Conservative/transferable party) might try to ensure it doesn’t, so a “new party” of the left, or (more likely?) the Greens becoming the working class’s ‘no-where else to go’ (a la Peter Mandelson) destination and decimating Labour might be our only hope for PR?
Despise him as I do, Farage might yet be the unwitting route out of this. Undeniably, he’s a spectacularly effective single issue campaigner. What chance than, he can be duped into campaigning for PR?
He supports it.
Hi Richard,
I am working with public libraries across England and we are looking for ways to promote higher voter turnout at the next elections. With trust in the media declining we want to help people make informed decisions.
We are going to programme a series of events around important political issues. This will include the NHS, immigration, inflation, foreign wars, housing and it would be great to hear what you think are the biggest concerns of people now.
We will hold mock elections on policy, not parties and we hope this will start engaging conversations. What do you think are the key policy decisions that need to be decided now?
Thanks!
Whi is ‘we’ before I spend much time on this?
We are GLL, a social enterprise who run the libraries in Bromley, Dudley, Greenwich, Lincolnshire and Wandsworth.
Patrick
I will get back to you.
I have been thinking about this.
Can I run a poll on it?
That might help inform the choice.
I was really helped by this paragraph:
“…they seem, without exception, to think that the economic problem of resource allocation relates purely to financial matters and not to the actual meeting of needs, which is what economics should be about. They have distorted not just politics as a result of their beliefs but the modern perception of what economics is all about”
I’d not quite seen it like that before and found that really useful a characterisation. Thank you.
Thanks