Thursday 21 July 2022
Momentary Perspectives
One of the problems we have is how vigorously to express points of view, especially to ourselves. Sceptics are sceptical listeners and may even be sceptical about their own language, the ways they describe their own points of view to themselves.
For sceptics, caveats and uncertainties get in the way of strongly overarching political viewpoints. Yet in some circumstances, caveats and uncertainties may dilute a level of overarching vehemence which is not always inappropriate.
For example, to accuse MPs of being stupid is always likely to be an oversimplification, but not necessarily inappropriate as the response of the moment. It’s not the whole story, but much of what they do is unambiguously stupid.
Another example. Mainstream media are only interested in stories suited to their media business, not the veracity of the stories. Veracity counts for nothing if the story is otherwise publishable. The climate narrative generates an endless supply of untrue but publishable stories - so they are published. Misleading, unscientific or downright false – doesn’t particularly matter. Not the whole story when it comes to mainstream media but sometimes worth saying.
Here in the UK we have a topical search for a political leader which could be described in many ways. At this time we could say that the role is essentially the role of a stooge. It is the public face of a clearing house for lobbyists and pressure groups. Nothing to do with voters and not a leader in any meaningful sense. Not the whole story but…
State schools are creches, the NHS is a political booby prize for the little people, the BBC is a lobbyist for the interests of the upper middle classes and a failed experiment in responsible public broadcasting. Just miss out the caveats, it isn’t wholly inappropriate all the time.
Or we could say that part of the recent coronavirus debacle was an experiment to judge the widespread acceptance of severe travel restrictions required by Net Zero. Another part was a test of imposed mass medication as a cheaper approach to basic healthcare for the little people.
All oversimplified perspectives perhaps, but sometimes points of view have to be pitched more vigorously than sceptics tend to prefer. Yet that is a weakness too. We can’t escape some weakness all the time. Language isn’t like that. And MPs are sometimes stupid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
With regard to MPs being stupid, one of the problems seems to be the representative aspect of representative democracy. I've watched a lot of MPs giving interviews recently, and a surprising number seem like decent, intelligent, hard-working people who one would expect to find running businesses and large organisations. The idea that they are all complete idiots is clearly a bit of performative parody and venting of frustration about them.
One big problem, though, is their need to constantly demonstrate who they are and what they stand for. It's a narcissistic trait, and one that makes them inauthentic and often robotic. But the system seems to require it. Unless they are relentlessly "on message" all the time, consistent, committed, and saying what they want people to hear them saying, then they risk humiliation and failure.
They cease to be who they really are, and this is how we all sell our souls these days. It isn't as dramatic as Faust, but it's far more widespread.
Sam - yes, the system does seem to require them to be relentlessly "on message" all the time, as if the intelligence and ability to work hard is wasted by the system. Presumably it selects people who are comfortable with that.
During the 2019 general election campaign, our local MP came to the door with Sajid Javid and both came across in that way - intelligent, hard-working people. Javid tried to tell me how wonderful the Hinkley Point project was but when I cast doubts on the ability of EDF to deliver anything worthwhile, he seemed flummoxed. That's the robotic element.
Post a Comment