Politics is being recast as dominance: strength, winning, threats, hierarchy. Donald Trump may be the loudest advocate of this worldview, but he is not alone.
In this video, I explain what I call the politics of might — rule by threat, the rejection of restraint, and the treatment of institutions, law and truth as optional. It shapes taxation, welfare, international relations and democracy itself. It legitimises inequality and makes insecurity a tool of control.
I contrast that with the politics of care — not as sentiment, but as the practical recognition of vulnerability and interdependence. Care builds productivity, stability, trust and long-term resilience. It requires accountable democratic government acting to reduce fear, not amplify it.
Ultimately, this is the choice: fear or care, dominance or cooperation, exclusion or inclusion.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Might or care? That is the choice that will define our future.
We're being told now by politicians that everything is about strength, dominance, and winning. Donald Trump is, of course, making these ideas explicit, but he is far from alone, but this is not about strength. What he is describing is what I might call "the politics of might," and it is the direct opposite of the "politics of care."
So what do I mean by the politics of might? The politics of might says power justifies itself. It assumes those who can dominate are entitled to rule. It rejects restraint, cooperation, and mutual obligation, and it treats institutions, law and truth as optional extras within society, which are of little consequence, and this matters now.
We are not just talking about rhetoric here. This approach, the politics of might, reshapes how government behaves. It affects taxation and welfare, international relations and democracy itself. It encourages rule by threat rather than by consent, and it legitimises inequality as a natural outcome of what it calls strength.
This can be contrasted directly with the "politics of care." Care is not weakness. The politics of care starts from the recognition of human vulnerability, and we all suffer from that in some way or other. It recognises interdependence and not self-sufficiency, and it accepts that markets do not meet all needs. As a result, it insists that the state has responsibility for collective well-being.
There's a contrast, therefore, to be made between care and might: they are two opposing worldviews.
Might says hierarchy is inevitable.
Care says dignity is universal.
Might rewards accumulation and dominance.
Care prioritises sufficiency, security, and shared provision.
What are the economic consequences of the politics of might? Tax cuts for the powerful would, of course, be justified as an indication of strength. Public services would be framed as a sign of weakness or dependency and would therefore be subject to scrutiny and cuts. Inequality would be tolerated or encouraged, and economic insecurity would become a tool of control, and that point is particularly important. People would be coerced because, of course, that is exactly what might is all about. This is what those who think they have strength believe they should do to enforce their will upon others.
What are the social consequences of the politics of might? Trust would collapse. Fear would become normalised. Groups would be pitted one against another, and we are already seeing that. We are seeing leading members of the Tory party arguing that the greatest threat to the UK is Islam. Well, that's just nonsense; it's absolutely untrue, and yet they're claiming it, and that is deliberate. It is a consequence of "othering" people, and the result is to replace solidarity with suspicion, and that is deeply dangerous.
There are also democratic consequences of the politics of might. Independent institutions are attacked as a consequence of this philosophy, and we can see that in the USA right now. Jerome Powell, who is in charge of the US Federal Reserve, is being attacked at a personal level because Trump doesn't like him. There's nothing more or less to that, and of course, he's not the first to suffer this sort of victimisation by his administration. Courts, regulators and the media are delegitimised, and we see that every day in the States, but we're also seeing that in the UK as well. And accountability is portrayed as obstruction, as if it is not our right to ask questions of those who are in power. As a consequence, democracy becomes performative rather than real.
Care, on the other hand, is economically rational. Let's just stand back for a moment and really consider this key point. Care is not sentimental. If people are cared for, they are more productive because they feel more secure. They're more willing to go to work. They do not live in fear. They can therefore take the risk of actually undertaking activity, and healthy populations cost much less in the long term than do those who live in fear. We know that; the evidence is unambiguous. And what is more, education, which is a clear indication of care, is an investment and not a drain because it improves our long-term productivity, but also the chance of people to simply live good and happy lives. Stability supports sustainable economic activity in that case, and that is what the politics of care delivers.
With care, the role of the state changes as well. It is quite literally a carer, and not an enforcer, and the state exists to reduce fear and not to amplify it. This is, of course, in direct contrast to everything that we are seeing Trump doing and which others want to copy from his playbook and use across Europe. The role of the state in the politics of care is to provide security where markets cannot, and that includes healthcare, housing, income, security, and basic infrastructure to ensure that we can thrive. This is not about ideology. It is about practical governance, but it's also about delivering what people really need.
The false promise of strength is that it concentrates power, but erodes legitimacy. It delivers short-term gains, and I think that is obvious. Right now, it looks as if Trump is winning, but the cost in the long term of that happening is enormous. It creates brittle systems that collapse under stress, and that will be the inevitable outcome of what is going on in the US at present. Ultimately, all of this depends on coercion, and people don't like being coerced.
We do therefore face a choice, a very real choice. Do we organise society around fear, or care? Around dominance, or cooperation? Around exclusion, or inclusion? And this is not abstract; it is a genuine political choice. We have those options available to us, and we have to decide the one which delivers sustainability and community and well-being for everyone if we are all to survive on an equal footing and just survive at all, to be blunt.
My conclusion: the politics of might is economically destructive. It undermines democracy and social cohesion. It destroys the willingness to work. If growth is your criteria for success, and it's not mine, it is still a bad choice. In contrast, the politics of care is not optional; it is necessary, and it requires active, accountable, democratic government; the very thing which every government around the world now seems to be walking away from, including here in the UK.
What follows from this? What can we do? Well, we must reject the narratives that glorify dominance. We must defend the role of the state. We must argue openly for care as an organising principle, and we must show it in our actions, and we must rebuild political economy around human need. That is what we need to do. That is why I talk about the politics of care, because I believe in it.
I believe that this is what we must evidence if we are to eventually rid ourselves of the threat that we can now see all around us, which comes from this politics of might, which we might as well call fascism by any other name, and which is threatening to bring us all down.
We don't need that.
We need to care.
We need to look out for each other.
We need to literally build the systems that will protect us all from the threat that is being put in our way.
This is the choice we have to make, and if ever there was a call for action, it is just this: Please, care. Care for each other. Care for each other, whoever the other person is, because one day you might need them to care for you, and that's really important.
What do you think? This is an important issue, one that matters heavily to me. Does it to you?
There's a poll down below. Let us know.
Poll
Loading ...Cambridge Live Event
Tickets are now on sale for the Funding the Future live event in Cambridge on 28 February. Tickets and details are available here.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
Simple is often not easy but it is necessary. I am anxious, I don’t like too much change, I can’t altogether imagine how we get to the future I want, but we must try. I think a lot of politicians are lacking in courage and imagination.
The politics of care are the politics of peace, particularity for domestic politics which for countries the world over that face the challenge of the info wars from the tech-bros, is very important. Happy people who think they are treated fairly are not drawn to fascism. By looking after ‘our own’, we then begin to create a form of ‘might’ in that your people will want to support and fight for a system that looks after them.
This principle is as old human beings themselves and is discussed (for example) in Michael Hudsons ‘And Forgive Them Their Debts’ (2019).
I couldn’t agree more Richard. As I look at what is happening in the world and as I watched your video I kept on thinking that the politics of care is patently better than might. It’s a no brainer. And I was prompted to think that the politics of care is clearly the politics of intelligence whereas the politics of might is really the politics of stupidity.
YouTube is definitely not pushing this video.
The YouTube poll has more votes than the video has views.
Psychology’s “Attachment Theory” has much to say about why some individuals seek disproportionate dominance over others and to my mind much of it resides in abandonment as a child often but not always accompanied by physical harm although ultimately even this type of harm is psychological.
Psychology’s “Attachment Theory” has much to say about why some individuals seek disproportionate dominance over others and to my mind much of it resides in abandonment as a child often but not always accompanied by physical harm although ultimately even this type of harm is psychological. Abandoment can result in prioritising caring for self over also caring for others. Abandonment plus physical harm can build resentment which a small child can do nothing about but repress but this can manifest as an adult by mistreating others.
Odd that.
But you are very much challenging the Establishment narrative aren’t you? They really don’t like that.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks
It will take a long time to change the mindset of those in government and others in the electorate, that ‘wealth’ doesn’t necessarily have to be focussed solely on financial growth, because there is only so much expansion systems and structures can withstand before they start to fail and eventually collapse. What is also needed are supportive structures to be put in place, to manage health and wellbeing, education, social care, the environment and so forth to adapt to the changing needs of the population.
Sadly, the human vices of ego, deception, fear/anger, acquisition/greed has shifted the focus to “me” instead of “we” in working towards shared values and goals for whether it be the local, national or global community.
Much to agree with
Coincidentally, my son who is studying Politics and Sociology is currently writing an essay for an International Relations module. It concerns the application of Classical Realism to the analysis of the Second Gulf War (Bush/Blair versus Saddam Hussein). In an effort to get my head around his studies I watched a short YouTube video which explains the theory. Wow. It’s all about what you write about in this piece, in particular the politics of might.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3u7RQxEeY4
But while watching it, it became clear that the Thomas Hobbes’ and others’ view of human nature is that everyone is selfish and brutal and motivated to use aggression to serve their individual interests.
This couldn’t be further from the reality I experience – that which your politics of care describes. In my lowly sphere of ‘the place where I live’, I have rarely met an individual who was not – at heart – a caring, kind and giving person. Maybe it’s a West Yorkshire thing, maybe a Leeds thing, I don’t know. Actually I assume it’s universal. It is how I experience most of my fellow human beings (my former MP Rachel Reeves may be the stand out exception to this), and it gives me hope and comfort that together we are very able to construct a caring future as a society. Even if one conversation at a time.
It’s almst universal.
Only the deviants are brutish, woth a wish to shortern lives.
If only people would talk and have conversations to understand each other.
Yes, we all have differences, but there is a lot that we have in common to that unites us.
However, in this fast, instant gratification ‘I have to be busy’ age, shouldn’t the messaging be ‘stop, slow down’?
By giving people time, wouldn’t that actually make things in some areas more efficient, so a call may be handled more effectively, a complaint resolved to completion, a doctor being able to take a full history/examination/BP and see their patient again to review at an interval based on clinical assessment; rather than being restricted to strict time-managed pathways and protocols, where there is punishment if targets are not meant if the goals for the ‘God of Growth’ are not met? How about thinking holistically for happiness instead, for the benefit of not only humanity but also the ecosystem in which we inhabit?
To endorse that most people are caring: I live in a small town. Yesterday I bought a parsnip for a veggie stew. I got involved in a conversation then went home. Two hours later I found the parsnip (which I had forgotten) sticking out of my letter box.
🙂
I am sure that stew tasted that extra bit more hearty knowing that the parsnip had come by ‘special delivery’ through the letter box!!!
Your distinction between might and care really resonates, but I think it’s important to say that care isn’t passive. In my years as a union rep I did plenty of metaphorical stomping — and never lost a case — but the purpose was always protection, not domination. It was care backed by strength.
That’s the difference that gets lost. The politics of might uses power to control. The politics of care uses power to defend. One is about hierarchy; the other is about dignity. Care sometimes requires firmness, but the goal is always safety, fairness and stability, not fear.
If anything, the lesson from frontline experience is that care without strength is ignored, and strength without care is dangerous. But strength in the service of care is what makes institutions work. It’s what builds trust. It’s what gives people the confidence to move forward.
That’s the kind of politics we need — not weakness, not coercion, but principled strength used to protect the vulnerable and hold the powerful to account.
Care is a verb, not a noun.
That means it can be decidedly robust when required.
I used to work in the NHS, but unfortunately was subjected to a prolonged sickness management process, eventually having to go to Tribunal. Unfortunately, my union after initially saying that they would support me, then did a U-turn because of whatever power play was going on, as my manager had his ‘connections’ and very much a boys club.
I belive in doing my duty, and service; however not in servitude. I would also clash with management when I said that I didn’t believe in hierarchy, and that to lead, you led by example, being alongside and from understanding the challenges faced by colleagues; not being top heavy and silencing you from above.
When it came to running clinics, for example, the clinic could only function if all cogs were running – the caretakers to open the building, cleaners, reception staff, nursing staff, admin staff, let alone clinicians to see the patients. Everyone in my eyes had a responsibility to ensure that the session should run efficiently, and our duty was to provide safe, effective care to the patients that we were responsible for. That should be the priority and focus, not the ballot box, not their own personal political/managerial careers.