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.
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.
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
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.