Pages

Wednesday 26 July 2017

In the midst, there was a darkness

In Lytton Strachey’s book Eminent Victorians, there is an interesting observation about William Gladstone. Interesting because with only slight alterations to the wording, Strachey’s viewpoint could be applied to modern leadership. For example, if we substitute Tony Blair for William Gladstone we end up with a passage which does not fit Blair exactly but is close enough to be interesting.

There is absolutely no intention to imply that Blair is another Gladstone. It is a question of leadership and different types of leader. Here is the passage with the alterations.

In spite of the involutions of his intellect and the contortions of his spirit, it is impossible not to perceive a strain of naiveté in Mr. Gladstone Mr Blair. He adhered to some of his principles that of the value of representative institutions, for instance with a faith which was singularly literal; his views upon religion government were uncritical to crudeness; he had no sense of humour. Compared with Disraeli's Thatcher’s, his attitude towards life strikes one as that of an ingenuous child.

His very egoism was simple-minded; through all the labyrinth of his passions there ran a single thread. But the centre of the labyrinth? Ah! the thread might lead there, through those wandering mazes, at last. Only, with the last corner turned, the last step taken, the explorer might find that he was looking down into the gulf of a crater. The flame shot out on every side, scorching and brilliant; but in the midst, there was a darkness.

Lytton Strachey - Eminent Victorians (1918)

If we choose to expand this, then we might say it is impossible not to perceive a strain of naiveté in the very concept of modern democratic leadership, impossible not to perceive how necessary it is for modern leaders to adopt and project an uncritically crude view of government capabilities.

There is no need to stick with Tony Blair to see this played out in modern leadership. Political ideas must have wide appeal to chime with the millions who do little or no research, being satisfied with crude maxims and naive allegiances.

We evolved, to navigate our way through life by evading surprises. A crude standpoint enables us to do that, especially when it comes to the infinite complexities of political life. If nothing is irretrievably anchored to reality then everything is explainable, especially after the event. This is the political world in which all would-be leaders must cast their nets.

A further point is Strachey’s claim that Gladstone really had a strain of naiveté in his character and his religious views really were uncritical to the point of crudeness. It was no facade and perhaps that was advantageous too.

We have certainly seen this kind of thing in modern leaders and maybe we see now in Jeremy Corbyn. Perhaps this is the source of his appeal just as a lack of a sufficiently crude outlook is the source of Theresa May’s credibility problems. In which case she is unlikely to resolve those problems because other people do it better. Boris Johnson for example, although he made the mistake of adopting a clown persona. An oddly naive thing to do – it displays the facade.

Yet facades work too. Leaders do not have to be like Gladstone. They do not have to be naive themselves to see the value of naiveté, neither need they have a crude notion of government in order to promote crude political maxims. On the other hand, leaders who are genuinely naive with a genuinely crude notion of government may be very effective political leaders, especially in a world of Twitter storms.

Of course this is politics. It is the other lot who always adopt the crudest notions of government and promote the most naive policies don’t they?

8 comments:

Sam Vega said...

Perhaps this is the source of his appeal just as a lack of a sufficiently crude outlook is the source of Theresa May’s credibility problems

Credulity is a valuable source of credibility. The person who has uncritically accepted a belief is to that extent trustworthy. A strong-willed and consistent believer inspires confidence in lots of the hesitant self-doubters and waverers.

Sackerson said...

Long time since I read that book. Is Strachey hinting that there is an ignorance, or a suppressed wickedness, at the core of the great man?

Demetrius said...

Back in the 50's my tutor was excited, she had been granted rare and special access to the Royal Archive at Windsor in relation to her researches as to how Britain got itself into Egypt. As I was covered I was one of the few who could be told. In particular were the Cabinet papers of 1882, under Gladstone. She was astonished to learn what a shambles the meeting must have been and how on earth they could cover all the items on it. She came to the view that for many it was left to Gladstone to sort out. Bottom of the agenda was the decision to sen troops to Egypt.

A K Haart said...

Sam - good points and no doubt JC benefits from it.

Sackers - I think he was suggesting a lack of anything truly personal, no core which was all his own.

Demetrius - what little I know of the decision does sound like a shambles as well as an outcome the British government didn't actually want.

Bill Sticker said...

"Political ideas must have wide appeal to chime with the millions who do little or no research, being satisfied with crude maxims and naive allegiances."

Which has always been the Achilles heel of Democracy. To work really well it needs a sufficiently cynical, educated and informed Demos.

A K Haart said...

Bill - I agree, but what to do about it I've no idea.

Edward Spalton said...

I think it was Churchill who said of Gladstone that he used to read Homer in the original Greek for fun " which served him right"

A K Haart said...

Edward - I remember it as Churchill too. What he would have said about our current leaders I don't know, but it would not be flattering.