Pages

Sunday 20 December 2020

Creative v Destructive



A bad man, no, for she was wise enough in her own generation to know that bad men and women do not exist. Only we are destructive or creative; in greater or lesser degree there is always that distinction. Creative or destructive of course only, for certain, at the moment of contact; but that which we are frequently we become finally.

Hugh Walpole - The Joyful Delaneys (1938)

A quote worth filing away in my view - it can take us away from good and bad into more interesting territory. 

Creative or destructive may not be an exclusive dichotomy but it is a useful way to assess political actors, governments and political or social life generally. It requires a degree of cynicism and does perhaps oversimplify matters, but it often clarifies them too.

For example, in the last UK general election, millions of people voted for a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn, a man whose political career has been notably destructive. A man whose political ethos has a history of being unforgivably destructive in terms of human life, freedom and tolerance. It is still worth dwelling on this and what it implies for our chances of staving off further national decline.

Woke culture and woke political agendas are essentially destructive too. Destructive trends aimed at language, free speech, education, personal responsibility, meaningful democracy, human relationships, the arts, science and the developed world generally. There is nothing creative here. 

Following this approach we could assess the creativity or destructiveness of Boris Johnson and his government via three major criteria.
  • Green politics and energy policy – destructive.
  • The coronavirus debacle – destructive. 
  • Brexit – potentially creative. 
Unfortunately the first two appear to establish Boris Johnson and his government as politically destructive. A creative Brexit would not be in keeping with them. Perhaps we’ll soon know the answer, but the two leading indicators are not good. So far Boris has shown himself to be a politically destructive individual running a politically destructive government.

3 comments:

Sam Vega said...

There might be a third category - maintenance. Those people who are not particularly creative, dull even, but who help to make life tolerable by keeping going those little voluntary projects and traditions that make life worthwhile. There seem to be a lot of them among the active elderly in our little village. Personally, I'd find managing the accounts of the local bell-ringers to be a tedious job, but I'm glad someone does it.

With regard to the destructive aspects of the current Tories, it seems to me that Dominic Cummings was almost completely destructive. Great at saying what was wrong, but not a single idea about putting it right. So he had to go. Something tells me that Boris might be from a similar mould.

wiggiatlarge said...

As Sam says Dominic Cummings appeared as the 'white hope' if that phrase is allowable these days, and if it isn't tough, but he totally failed to follow anything through, now of course we don't know if other forces were responsible for that anymore than we can be sure that Boris and his failures are due to the withholding of sexual favours until Nut Nuts gets her way.

So much is destructive these days one wonders will it ever end or will the nation just sink slowly into the abyss, or Tier 46 as it is now known.

A K Haart said...

Sam - yes, maintenance is essential and those little voluntary projects and traditions that make life worthwhile. I like to see the Salvation Army doing their thing. I couldn't possibly join them but I like to see them.

As for Dominic Cummings, his reputation seems to have been promoted beyond his abilities by the media. Unfortunately it is easier to be destructive rather than constructive.

Wiggia - yes, Nut Nut may be a bigger problem than we know, although my impression is that they all rely on cliques and social connections rather than ability.