Otto von Bismarck once described politics as "the art of the possible.”
Since Bismarck's time, even in supposed democracies, we have seen "the art of the possible " become what is politically possible to say without any intention to do or achieve what is said. Not new of course, but it has become the standard for political parties in government.
To take an extremely well-known UK example, consider the railway project HS2. Within certain wide and uncertain boundaries the total cost was unknown because government incompetence does not allow much certainty.
This leaves us with two situations. Firstly, a realistic estimate of the total HS2 cost was politically impossible, it would have to be high enough to allow for project incompetence. Secondly, an absurdly low estimate of the total cost was politically possible, it could be and was low enough to be acceptable. This is the art of the possible, the art which has become standard - it is politically possible to say what there is no intention to do. Merely say it in the right way to the right people.
Today we have large public sector, government patronage and government dependent classes drawn from many sections of society where saying is often preferred to doing. Voting for what can be said is preferred to voting for what ought to be done. The art of the possible has become what can be said, not what can be made, built, grown, afforded, or physically demonstrated.
Politicians such as Andrew Burnham focus almost entirely on what can be said over what can be made, built, grown, afforded, or physically demonstrated – that’s what his voters vote for.
This leaves us with two situations. Firstly, a realistic estimate of the total HS2 cost was politically impossible, it would have to be high enough to allow for project incompetence. Secondly, an absurdly low estimate of the total cost was politically possible, it could be and was low enough to be acceptable. This is the art of the possible, the art which has become standard - it is politically possible to say what there is no intention to do. Merely say it in the right way to the right people.
Today we have large public sector, government patronage and government dependent classes drawn from many sections of society where saying is often preferred to doing. Voting for what can be said is preferred to voting for what ought to be done. The art of the possible has become what can be said, not what can be made, built, grown, afforded, or physically demonstrated.
Politicians such as Andrew Burnham focus almost entirely on what can be said over what can be made, built, grown, afforded, or physically demonstrated – that’s what his voters vote for.
No comments:
Post a Comment