Sunday, 28 April 2024
No argument taken to a finish
The affair was at an end. Nothing interesting had been said in the general talk, and little that was sincere. No topic had been explored, no argument taken to a finish. No wit worth mentioning had glinted. But everybody had behaved very well, and had demonstrated that he or she was familiar with the usages of society and with aspects of existence with which it was proper to be familiar.
Arnold Bennett - The Roll-Call (1918)
A tediously familiar issue this one, but why do so many political actors make such extensive use of dishonest language? An obvious answer is there can be favourable political consequences from dishonest speeches and dishonest arguments. They appeal to tribal voters and allow vested interests to flourish.
The point to be made is that political policies rooted in dishonesty cannot be resolved by honest argument taken to a finish. For many educated people, a dishonest or even absurd standpoint with major practical defects may still have politically favourable consequences. It’s a no-brainer we might say.
It’s a problem which cannot be resolved by argument until unfavourable consequences arrive in force. Possibly not even then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is probably an application of (?) Swift's idea that one cannot reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into. And, alarmingly, it is yet more evidence of our subjugation and lack of public voice. The Blob of vested interests and biased specialists that rule us have largely made democratic institutions like Parliament completely redundant. They are allowed to remain, but with a merely ceremonial role. The same applies to political argument and language. It has no connection with what the Blob intends to do, but is trotted out in order to sanctify proceedings. If they use terms like "hard-working families", "real choice", "help when you need it", "scientific consensus" and "Britain first", they can do pretty much what they want.
Sam - I agree, it's a huge pity that so many voters see their choice as Blue Blob or Red Blob with Yellow Blob and Green Blob as radical alternatives. Media comments seem to suggest that there is a significant number of people who see this, but it doesn't seem to be reflected strongly enough in polling numbers.
Perhaps we now have a Constitutional Parliament to match or Constitutional Monarchy?
From Wikipedia:
"Constitutional monarchy, also known as limited monarchy, parliamentary monarchy or democratic monarchy, is a form of monarchy in which the monarch exercises their authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in making decisions. Constitutional monarchies differ from absolute monarchies in that they are bound to exercise powers and authorities within limits prescribed by an established legal framework."
It sounds to me that our politicians are also now bound to exercise powers and authorities within limits prescribed by an established legal framework. Which would explain a great deal.
DJ - I agree. Once the legal framework becomes sufficiently complex and tangled it evolves into a political arena where no party can enact worthwhile reforms. They may only deliver a manifesto within the framework.
Post a Comment