I am tired. Specifically, I am tired of Trump. I am tired of the confusion that he is creating. I am tired of the chaos that he is leaving in his wake. I am tired of the uncertainty that is harming people's lives. I am tired of the threats. I am tired of the obsequiousness of UK political leaders in response to Trump. I am tired of the incoherence of leaders whose only success at Davos was in exposing their own lack of courage.
I guess, to a certain degree, I am also just tired of talking about this. It has been a physically and mentally draining week. I cannot be the only one thinking that. Unless you've stuck your head in the sand, the events of this year, so far, have been like the worst kind of rollercoaster: the sort that cannot guarantee it will return you to the start point in safety, having terrified you on the way, nonetheless.
That said, what has really got me is not Trump. I called him out long before he was returned to the White House for a second term. I knew he was a fascist. I described him as such. I took his threats to Greenland and Canada seriously, long before it seemed the world was prepared to do so.
You only had to read Project 2025, well before the year arrived, to realise the intention of those around him. It was to deliver mayhem and chaos in pursuit of their ultimate goal. That goal is to turn the USA, and those regions of the world that it might be able to control, which they now term the Western Hemisphere, into a white male Christian theocracy. They made it clear it would be governed as an empire, by a president who wants to be king. All of that was evident in advance.
Seeing them seek to turn this into practice is not, then, as surprising to me as it might be to some. But what is staggering is this: despite the vast sums we, and our supposed European allies, spend on defence intelligence, our leaders appear to have been wholly unaware that they should prepare for this eventuality. That Trump was intent on pursuing policy totally alien to every one of our supposed allies should have been abundantly clear. Except that it appears it was not. Not to any of our NATO allies, or to us, all of whom now appear to have been caught off guard by what has happened, despite all the warnings that were issued.
So certain have they been in what they like to think was the rules-based order, which has now very clearly been consigned to history, that they never imagined the possibility that Trump would really break the rules. And that he would deliberately spread disorder. This possibility was, apparently, beyond their imagination. That is why we are all left in such a dangerous situation now.
My point is this. Defence is not a matter of just having the right armaments, in the right place, at the right time, to challenge the physical threat that another state poses. That is the last resort, when all else has failed.
Defence is, instead, about making a commitment to something worth defending, and then evidencing why it is worthwhile, so that support can be secured from the people of a country. Defence relies, then, upon support for a system of government that people can believe in, to the extent that they are willing to sacrifice a part of their material wellbeing and, in some situations, their lives, to defend this thing that they believe to be of value.
Unless such a system exists, which necessarily means that it integrates ethics, political vision, ability to deliver, good government, good governance, accountability, sound economics, and a commitment to everyone, and not just a few, so that all can prosper, then defence through armaments is almost meaningless. Unless such a system exists, people will not be willing to sacrifice whatever is demanded of them when the time comes to man the barricades, trenches, or whatever else is physically expected of them.
And it is this vision, and even that understanding, that is missing in NATO. That has been cruelly exposed.
Rules and order were never enough.
Nor was the neoliberal system of government, which was never intended to benefit most in society and was always about delivering rewards for a few, ever going to be enough to inspire people to believe it was worth defending, because it clearly is not.
If we are to have a new defence system now, and it is clear that we need one, then we must start with the definition of what it is that we want to create that is worthy of defence. That definition must be focused around a politics of care, where everyone is treated as being of value, and society is organised so that everyone can take part to the fullest extent possible. Only such a society will ever foster the sentiment that it is worth defending.
Can we do that? That is the question that needs to be asked. But I admit it is leaving me feeling worried about the possibility of success. And that is because I can already see too many people resorting to thinking about rules and order.
I've been told in the last few days that my willingness to think flexibly about MMT, and how it might be used as a tool rather than an ideology to be defended, is wrong.
It isn't.
MMT is like a spade. Its only usefulness is what it can be used for. Attempts to define it precisely are meaningless. What matters is experimenting with the opportunities it creates. Those who should understand that and be pragmatic are, instead, becoming the enemy of the good.
I feel the same about being told that I have a hang-up about the term socialism. That statement is not untrue. I do have a hang-up about the term socialism. But that is precisely because so much of the socialist ethos is about creating division.
It says that society can be divided into workers and the rest. And that simply is untrue. The rest are not capitalists. They're not exploiters. They're children. They're students. They're the elderly. They're people who can't work. They're people who work for themselves and who therefore create and provide their own capital. And so many others besides.
The world simply does not exist around neat definitions like "workers" and "the rest", or "the bourgeoisie", if you like. That is not true. Not in MMT. Not in political thought. Not in anything else. And that is why the term socialist does not work, precisely because it does, and is intended to, alienate.
I have also been told that I should not have welcomed Mark Carney's speech at Davos, which was genuinely courageous. Let me be clear: I am entirely sure that my political differences with Mark Carney are real and remain in place. But if he can see that neoliberalism is over, and has been ruptured, and that a replacement is required, then he is on the same journey that I am on. That makes him a fellow traveller, whether those who wish to divide us like it or not.
My point is this. Creating the new world we need is going to be messy. It is going to require compromises. It is going to mean that we have to work with people with whom we don't always agree entirely. And it is not going to produce perfection, because that is a goal that only guarantees we go nowhere.
I've lived in this world for long enough now to know that what I've just described is fact. It is how progress is made. It is how change happens. And it is in our ability to create common ground instead of differences that strength is created.
I am fatigued by this pointless opposition, and that is fuelling my tiredness, because I fear that this need for compromise is not understood, just as the threat from Trump was not. I fear this incomprehension is just as dangerous as that of our leaders.
If you're expecting purity of outcomes from what I'm writing, you are seriously mistaken. In this messy world we live in, where accommodation of the other is vital for any form of success, that is not what I am looking for. And it is not what I ever hope to achieve.
The world we need to build now will be built upon recognition that there is sufficient of ourselves in others, with whom we may have some disagreement, that we can work in common for the greater good, and to defend what is valuable to be found amongst our fellow travellers here on Earth, whoever they might be, and however we might find them.
What we have in common is much greater than what divides us. And if the result is a little messy, so be it. The greatest political successes come from letting all people believe they have most of what they desire, even if perfection is just out of reach.
Please understand that. If you want rules and order, go somewhere else. If you want progress towards what is good, I am interested in finding how to achieve that. That is my goal. It should be our goal now, I think.
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!
Dear Richard,
I am happy with the mess.
I believe in history over algebra and ‘isms’.
Within the patterns, everything is particular and that is part of it’s beauty.
I fear my questions may have sometimes come across as tiresome challenges.
That was not meant.
Mostly I think everyone here is the same.
I am so grateful for your patience in explaining things and can only hope you have enough people around you to help.
What is abundantly clear is the huge hunger for this knowledge and this understanding.
I cannot thank you enough.
Thanks
And, you’re welcome
“You only had to read Project 2025, well before the year arrived, to realise the intention of those around him. It was to deliver mayhem and chaos in pursuit of their ultimate goal.” Or as Steve Bannon more crudely puts it, “flood the zone with shit”. They invert reality so that lies are made out as truth and boundaries get constantly blurred so that there is increasing noise and divisions are stoked by algorithms. Truth Social is in reality Antisocial Lying.
Dealing with Trump is like trying to play chess with an incontinent pigeon. He flies in, knocks all the pieces over, craps all over the board and flies (or something) off. Everybody then talks about the pigeon.
We rightly never credit Trump with intelligence, sthg of an oxymoron, mind you, he fits the ‘moron’ part.
However, may Trump have been hitting the fan to distract big time from the Epstein files??
No-one seems to be talking about that atm.
I hope someone is still digging
The American press is…
All of what is being presently witnessed stems from the fact that the US has lost another war. But this time it has directly lost it to Russia, which the US has deliberately demonised ever since Russia destroyed the German Nazi regime.
It is fair enough to say that Europe never saw the US betrayal coming but the US never thought that the end of their own hegemony would happen so suddenly. Major US political commentators simply cannot believe that it’s all over.
For the US, might is right. But they don’t even possess this. Russian military technology is now decades in advance of the US.
‘Chaos’ is only visible through the US lens.
Instead there is an extraordinary opportunity to build an alternative international movement that focuses on solving the real issue : how can so many humans can live sustainably on this beautiful planet? That requires the participation of every single individual. That is worthwhile fighting for. Metaphorically speaking.
If Russia is so good, how come it is so stuck in Ukraine?
But, I agree with you last para.
I fear that decades of neoliberalism, when it has looked increasingly futile to turn the ship around, has done damage among some on the left. A principled, pragmatic slog towards practical goals is work, and could work. I have long been perplexed by some who can speak far more eloquently than I, who rapidly criticise suggestions, people and actions that don’t meet their ideal, and I wonder, how do they expect to get there if not step by step, working with people to find common ground? Do they really want the chaos, cruelty and destruction of revolution? I doubt it, but that leaves them in limbo, hands tied.
Your piece covers several topics, but this is the one that resonated with me the most, that compromise, finding common ground, principled pragmatism, is the only way forward. Yes it is messy. But retreat, hesitation and rigid stances are all destructive particularly when the postwar set up is rapidly turning to dust. You state your position clearly, I very much agree, and am trying to rise to the occasion. I did have a conversation in the queue at Lidl the other day, it felt more rewarding than writing to my MP but I know I must do both.
Rest and recuperate in the marshes and coffee shops as much as you need to, it is indeed exhausting just reading the news. Your analysis, observations and thinking on the politics of care are all of huge benefit.
Thanks, Anne. Appreciated.
Wholly agree Richard that perfection (or purity) is the enemy of good. I think the clue in the word socialism is social, i.e., in the interests of society, community, in respecting difference. We do ourselves (as individuals and a society) a disservice when we adopt these ‘pure’ interpretations or set strict guidelines as to what is / is not acceptable to meet these pure requirements. They are features of communism, fascism, tribal behaviours, etc. Even within close families there are differences of opinion, different interests, etc. Why can’t we recognise that a well-thought out approach that – albeit not perfect – is clearly in the interests of the vast majority is preferable to failure to act due to semantics. Actually, it is normally down to lack of courage, hence, why we have a creaking government bureaucracy that is more focused on covering backsides rather than getting anything done.
In the professional world I occupy, as you get more and more senior, you are faced with the realisation that you need to make bigger and bigger decisions, in less time and with relatively little detail. Therefore, I focus on having a great team that I can empower and trust and expect whatever decisions we make include a form of compromise…they will not necessarily be perfect.
MMT is in the exact same position. We know neoliberal economics just works as an extractive mechanism for the already wealthy. Whatever else it is, it is far from perfect and doesn’t work for the many (just for the few). Humans are fallible and, thus the systems we design, etc., are fallible. MMT may not be perfect and we can argue over minutiae. However, it does offer a solution to address a system that is clearly not working. As my grandpa used to say “the man who never made a mistake, never made anything”. Embrace MMT and, to quote my grandpa again “if you’ve nothing good to say, say nothing at all”. In other words, positively engage and do, or simply stand aside. This is not to say that different opinions, etc., are not valued or welcome but rather we need the courage to do, to try and always recognising that this needs to start from a position of acting in the best interests of the many rather than vested interests.
Thanks, and much to agree with.
We are all so tired of Trump, I’ve now made a game of how much my pension goes up or down in response to his idiotic proclamations and subsequent retractions and there is a direct correlation… As for the Greenland distraction Peter Zeihan makes some good points on the cost (trillion dollars) to develop this area and time scales to get a return probably in excess of 20 years, Trump is upsetting the world order and seems to enjoy doing so, i’d be more interested to understand what’s going on behind these distractions.
Part 1
The portion of this post pertaining to defence being much bigger than the kit needed to help do the defending is in good company. Michael Hudson’s ‘And Forgive Them Their Debts’ (2018) explores human antiquity and how just and fair rule (such as the use of debt jubilees to release resources held back under debt obligation) helped to create a reciprocity between ruler and the ruled to provide corvee labour for public works and armies to defend lands – something as Richard points out, worth working together on and defending for all.
As for the rest of the post all I can do is note your frustration and your right to be frustrated.
Your are right – MMT is not an ideology. All I want is to see it used in the way described here and by other advocates and not negated as it is. And then we should reflect on it and learn unlike the unthinking advocates of Neo-liberalism do about their ideas.
You are also right about the language of the Left – it is not much different from the language of the Right, seeking to divide and de-humanise – in a word – ‘fascist’. But we let fascism creep back in when we were all made to fear communism instead. We all need to take heed of our ‘inner fascist’ – it is society’s mistake, not just ours.
And we have to forgive those who are misled, and even act on being tragically misled as Jesus said on the cross. The real source of evil is at the top, in the unseen meetings and interactions of bad actors, of those entrusted to run things. The real evils lie in money, lots of it. Is this true?
If I am, it brings us to those who suffer from pleonexia. How do we cure them and their domination then? How does one deal with extremists? Human history is full of clues. And we here now are part of that history every day of our living. So much mess but the options from history range from peaceful to deathly.
The post reminds me that there is a line to be walked in all of this. But the messiness will mean that we may veer off the path intermittently as our passions are aroused. And there’s plenty to arouse us for sure.
Thanks
Part 2
So, in Part 1, we have a problem. To paraphrase………….
The problem is that the forces controlling us are very powerful, well connected and essentially cut off from humanity by their immense wealth and think that they can come up with solutions that are sold to us as solving our problems but actually just enrich themselves at our loss. This is not a conspiracy theory anymore. This is a fact.
The gift that is President Bunt (Trump) has reified (made clearer) – because of his lack of modesty, inherent in all authoritarians – is how power actually works in our age. As the Zen masters tells us though, he who moves first, is also in that instant of aggression also vulnerable and is revealed. And what we see now is raw unthinking covetousness.
Now, ‘walking the line’ in Part 1 – what is that exactly? We don’t want to dehumanise those who effectively dehumanise us. We don’t want to stoop so low do we (or do we?). We believe in life. We believe in a decent one for everyone.
What can guide us then as we walk this line in opposition to these non-citizens?
All we have is to go back to the old Liberal notion – even religious notion – of the awareness of human weakness. To know that we can be very tempted towards the bad. And then to build our future checks and balances around accepting that about human beings. No more benefit of the doubt. More rigor.
This also empowers us to see the powerful we have to contend with now as fundamentally morally and spiritually weak. We are governed by weak humans whose strengths are in resources only. Their empathy, their emotions, their ability to perceive reality is essentially stunted. We have an option to negate these beings. But because we believe in life for all, we won’t take that option.
So, what to do? Well, we have to always speak of them as if they are weak – for they are. We have to help them understand that they are weak and understand their fears and help them to conquer them.
Now, I have real work to do and have gone as far as my limited powers can take me on this subject. Is this useful?
Yes, definitely ueful, even if I am pleased it is Friday afternoon.
Noted.
I hope that the prep for February is going well and not too painful for you and ‘the team’.
I am not on that yet!
Richard probably reflects what many of us feel – exhaustion and despair – but trying to keep sane and sufficiently analytical to see a way through.
As Richard says – Project 2025 was there in plain sight before Trump took office in Jan. 2025 . Thiel and the tech bros behind it have proclaimed not just a white Christian empire – but also a sovereign corporate post-democratic world governed by global corporations.
The ‘Board of Peace’ which Trump launched in Davos with himself as chairman for life – “one of the most consequential bodies ever created in the history of the world” – is now looking like his replacement for the United Nations instead of having the sole purpose of implementing Gaza peace and reconstruction as originally intended when the UN backed it. It looks frighteningly like the global ruling corporation the Project 2025 backers envisaged
Trump’s has appointed son-in-law Jared Kushner, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, ‘special envoy’ Steve Witkoff and Tony ‘Iraq’ Blair as the Board’s ‘executive committee’. As Israel continues to destroy the West Bank and what is left of Gaza with total impunity and with Netanyahu on the Board if Peace its clear the aim is to continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
Its difficult not to agree with Andy Beckett in the Guardian, that despite some glimmers of light from Chatham House and RUSI , that the British Establishment won’t be able to bring themselves to begin disentangling the UK from the choking embrace of the CIA-Mossad intelligence network, or the nuclear entanglement, or the US armaments market etc etc. They can’t accept the ‘special relationship’ is mere subordination to a rogue state
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/23/britain-us-establishment-russia-donald-trump
When Trump ceases to be the President, I think the leverage of this ‘Board of P- – -‘ will wither on the vine. Once ex-President, will he become Mr Billy-no-mates?
I do hope that Starmer tells Trump he needs to be grateful for European Allies losses in Afghanistan. He needs to show him some pictures, get on Fox News and display his anger(can he do that emotion) that Trump is out of line.
Well, we can fantasise!
Whilst I share Richard’s despair, there is, I thnnk, reasoning behind the confusing “slopaganda’ facade that the Trump project continually emits. As Brian Merchant suggests in his recent Substack article “What Trump really wants with AI”. See: https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/what-trump-really-wants-with-ai
One point that resonates from reading the article is that his policy can in fact be seen as Trump overseeing an enormous state project, directly and indirectly shepherding national resources towards an industry that’s in turn led by a handful of tech giants, with the corollary that the AI boom will not be allowed to go bust as it is a critical component of the authoritarian future now being developed worldwide as the next stage of advanced capital through the agency of those such as Trump.
I couldn’t agree more. I also feel the same exhaustion.
It has been obvious – at least for me – that substantial changes in our political and economic system have been ineviteble for a while. However, in the absence of an imminent pressing challenge, nothing has happened. Now, we have this life threatening challenge… a rupture as Carney said.
Let’s not be naive, the transition that I think is necessary will bring chaos and suffering. However, this is different to the chaos and suffering that El Presidente represents. That’s a chaos for itself, destruction without purpose and lies, lies and even more lies.
I am afraid, much to agree with
Carney accepts the world has changed. Very quickly Canada has pivoted towards Mexico, the EU and China. Plus created an all federal customs union which should boast their economy.
Canadians are not visiting the US, not buying US booze, not buying US cars direct from the US( via Mexico now). The economic hit to the US is big.
UK politicians are utterly deluded, believing that the UK still has influence with Trump.
What do we have in the UK? Calls to spend big on defence and tighten austerity on everything else.
UK austerity must end. The UK can afford to spend on the “care” needed to educate, house, provide jobs etc to give the 90% a proper stake in a caring society and a reason to emulate the 1930’s generation that went to war against the German fascist state because it “was the right thing to do”.
The exhaustion is part of the strategy. Flood the zone, grab all the attention for his idiotic statements, so more of the nasty actions can slide past without much notice.
While we are paying attention to Trump’s gyrations: the Epstein papers have not been released, the ICE situation in Minnesota goes from bad to worse, the war in Ukraine rumbles on. The dismantling of accepted systems – of trade, diplomacy, defence, international aid – and ratcheting up of uncertainty create new risks in a non-linear manner.
I heard a nice quote on an economics podcast yesterday, which was comparing industrial policy that works in practice against the sorts of optimal policies that economists recommend based on theory. In the real world, things are rarely even second best, at best.
And I read an interesting quote from a book published by Kissinger in 1957, quoted in a comment at David Allen Green’s blog.
https://davidallengreen.com/2026/01/neither-rhyme-nor-reason-how-are-currently-in-a-situation-where-precedents-and-norms-and-and-laws-and-rules-and-theories-offer-no-assistance/#comment-540991
Kissinger was drawing parallels between previous individuals who challenged the world order. Here is a small piece:
“powers long accustomed to tranquility and without experience with disaster … Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. The defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy but overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered balanced and sane, for they have all the good “reasons” on their side: the arguments accepted as valid in the existing frame-work. “Appeasement”, where it is not a device to gain time, is the result of an inability to come to grips with a policy of unlimited objectives.
But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion. Whatever else a revolutionary power may achieve therefore, it tends to erode, if not the legitimacy of the international order, at least the restraint with which such an order operates.”
Thanks
Question for all: The US has been passed by China in several critical areas, like clean energy (and overall energy generation and transmission), industrial robotics, rare earth processing, etc. This is the result of central planning, or what we call industrial policy, something conservatives abhor. Joe Biden passed legislation to promote clean energy and high-tech manufacturing, which were starting to show positive effects, but Trump canceled the funds. Is the way forward to provide good paying jobs in the future dependent on developing sound industrial policy? I don’t see the US “free market” adequately addressing our pressing issues (particularly in health care delivery).
Trump’s industrial policy, such as it is, amounts to “drill baby drill” and letting tech oligarchs run rampant. We need a vision of the future, but I don’t see any on our side of the pond.
Yes. It is called the Green New Deal. I co-created and wrote it.
Couple of things.
Forming a broad alliance against fascism is a wise thing to do. And Carney’s speech was a big step in the right direction, and yes we should applaud that, and certainly support efforts to build a fairer rule-based order out of the still broadly democratic mid-range powers. However, it did read like Dr Frankenstein (OK, to be fair, “a”, Dr Frankenstein!) repudiating his monster, and even trying to organise people to defend themselves against his monster, but then implying (cuts to wealth taxes etc: policies that made me reach for the lettuce) that he would continue experiments likely to create further monsters. I don’t even think that puts Carney beyond the pale though: I just think he needs to continue further on his journey! In the meantime alliance with the Carneys of this world is entirely possible to oppose Trump and his ilk: it’s just that such alliances are best done with honesty and open-eyes: we agree here, we agree to disagree here. That avoids misunderstandings and accusations/feelings of betrayal.
I also think that socialism is a broad church, and I wouldn’t get hung up on notions of the meaning of the word “worker”. Socialism is, of course, a much abused word: like “Christian” or “Peace”. Monsters pretend to be creatures of light all the time for obvious reasons. But I think the type of socialism most socialists, in the West at least, currently subscribe to is a morally driven one, aimed at justice through economic and political equality, by ensuring ownership and control of the means of wealth creation is more fairly distributed, whether that’s through democratically accountable public ownership (We Own It has produced some great reports there) or co-operatives (almost certainly both). I also suspect most Western socialists are now pragmatic about when to use “planning” and when to use “markets”: they just want to ensure that both those mechanisms serve us rather than vice versa. Defeating Trump will also requiring allying with many self-declared US socialists too! The internal US opposition to Trump (not all socialist but the staunchest part may well be) and his backers is our greatest hope.
Why use a word that divides then?
I don’t get it.
It literally makes no sense. I am committed to issues like state ownership of key industries. I do not need to use a word that alienate people from that cause to do so.
Tbh, it’s usually to flush out/draw a clear distinction from the Blairite/Starmerite/ ownership (economic power) is not important brigade, because they have a tendency to pretend to be what they are not and then betray everything!
@Nigel Johnson “I think the type of socialism most socialists, in the West at least, currently subscribe to is a morally driven one, aimed at justice through economic and political equality,”
which has a perfectly good name of its own, Social Democracy
Agreed
Your words make me think of a piece of advice my father gave me quite some time ago (roughly translated from french)
Think of walking life like being on a ridge, always in an unstable balance between 2 abysses
What that means for me is that core values help you keep moving forward and are more important than pure principles that can drive you either way into extremisms.
Somehow that helps me navigate the ebbs and flows of moments when either abyss may seem like the obvious choice.
I don’t call it messy because that word often comes with a negative connotation but it is all about staying on track in the middle of what seems to be a storm: life
We are all captains of our own ships but it is good to have you at the crows nest 🙂
Using the analogy of navigating your own boat…. you wouldn’t call yourself an experienced sailor if it was plain sailing all the time, and the water was always calm, never having to experience storms, put on life jackets, maybe even experience sea-sickness or having to make a mayday call, but hopefully never having to abandon ship.
Using the base/’core’ knowledge from training, past experience, and constantly learning from others to guide you will only assist you in becoming more proficient at being captain of your own boat as these waters will get more choppier, unstable, and courses of travel may need to change to ride the storm in the short term, but then also to plan for longer term more leisurely cruising.
There is no ‘right’ way, nor there is no ‘wrong’ way – there are multiple ways, all dependent on the circumstances faced at the time.
Unfortunately, humankind has to learn to get out of thinking in a binary “either/or” manner, but to look at situations as “neither/nor”, with the realisation that there is no such thing is perfection, there can be flaws, and that adaptation/change/renewal has to occur just as nature shows us.
One of the most important statements about politics that I’ve heard in a long time, appears here on this blog: “If you’re expecting purity of outcomes from what I’m writing, you are seriously mistaken.”
Expecting—and demanding—purity in politics almost ensures that you’ll get the opposite, when it comes to elections, bills, proposals, etc. Government is a complicated step-by-step process, not a “whoosh, hooray, the fairy godmother just landed” event. Good outcomes require sincere compromise between people, parties and nations, and a willingness to work with others who may not totally agree with us on every aspect of every issue.
We like life to be simple, don’t we? So we keep looking for simple solutions with simple slogans to display, things that worked in the past to cling to. People and ideas to worship; people and ideas to hate. This approach doesn’t work, when it comes to solving complicated problems and managing intricate relationships in the real world.
I think this was the whole point of Mark Carney’s address …and he’s right, in my opinion. And so are you, Richard.
Thank you.
Appreciated.
Reflecting on this just a little more……………
We seem to be saying that we are rejecting the rather Neo-liberal static view of the economy and society (which we know does not actually work for most of us and causes cognitive dissonance anyway), and accepting a world that exists with much more chaos, because entropy is that mixture of order and disorder (imperfection).
I agree with that, but this also means another (different) thing: proactive management; intervention; through observation. This means a really big courageous change in politics – I mean its huge. It’s worth noting.
There we go…done!
:)`And agreed.
Richard, this blog you’ve created is a distillery of ideas; clarity, direction and message are becoming ever more vibrant and penetrating.
Good job it’s not an actual distillery as you wld be paying tax on it.
🙂
And thank you.