Many of my friends are
under the impression that I write these humorous nothings in idle moments when
the wearied brain is unable to perform the serious labours of the economist. My
own experience is exactly the other way.
The writing of solid,
instructive stuff fortified by facts and figures is easy enough. There is no
trouble in writing a scientific treatise on the folk-lore of Central China, or
a statistical enquiry into the declining population of Prince Edward Island. But
to write something out of one’s own mind, worth reading for its own sake, is an
arduous contrivance only to be achieved in fortunate moments, few and far
between.
Personally, I would
sooner have written “Alice in Wonderland” than the whole Encyclopaedia
Britannica.
Stephen Leacock wrote this in his preface to
Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town, his comic novel which became very popular a century ago. Although we still
recognise the labour and intelligence required to write
solid, instructive stuff fortified by facts and figures Leacock’s
quote encapsulates something we recognise less readily.
We recognise the value of creativity and its relative
scarcity, but are less inclined to recognise the wider value of creativity beyond
the arts. The creativity of scientific and technical discovery or analysis, the
creativity of scholarly research which breaks new ground, the creativity of building
new insights into old problems, creativity which applies in almost any field.
Creativity may be nothing more than the creation of a new phrase which is apt
that it immediately spins off into general circulation. Yes, creativity can be
found anywhere –
anywhere but politics.
Political discourse is almost never creative because
political narratives are essentially clichés strung together to make a
narrative which above all things must be familiar. Turgid clichés are the lazy heart
of political discourse. A major consequence is that political narratives are
too easy.
Anyone can talk politics and whip up a political argument
from stale ingredients because we have no use for political creativity. What
would it look like without the clichés? Rational discourse, analysis and
investigation? No, because that wouldn’t be politics although behind the
political facade it just might even if the scheming usually seems banal when exposed.
We know all this because of the people foisted on us as
political leaders. We look at them and we look at them again and we listen to
them and try to find some faint hint of creative political discourse, something
new, some fresh analysis of old problems, something creative, something to
break the mould. But no - we get clichés and we get more clichés and if we
question the clichés we get even more clichés and if we question those...
This seems to be a key driver constantly nudging political
life in a totalitarian direction. The essential aspect of totalitarian ideas is
that they are clichés. They offer the easy direction to steer a lazy mind. The
woodentop direction where creativity is a disadvantage because it exposes the
clichés as empty clichés and nothing more.
This is why the EU lumbers towards ultimate failure. Its
driving ethos is too simple, too beholden to old clichés lacking even the
slightest hint of political creativity. This is why Theresa May struggles
politically, why a Corbyn-led Labour government would fail.
Yet easy often won’t do and we have to tackle difficult. Or
rather we ought to tackle it but don’t. The political approach is to leave
difficult to others and so we are embraced by bureaucracy because bureaucracies are prepared to tackle difficult issues by laboriously folding them into existing processes. Why? Because they
grow fat on them and in growing fat they steadily throttle the life out of
democracy, freedom and creativity.
