Speak Truth to the People

[Will our political leaders speak truth to the people? They’d be welcome to use this outline I’ve prepared earlier …]

We all want things to get better.

And they can get better, if we face up to what the real challenges are, and focus on tackling them.

But if we allow those who only think about enriching themselves and their wealthy backers to deceive us on every major issue, things will just get worse.

When they tell you that deregulation is good, that’s because their profiteering friends want to get rid of basic standards that protect you and your family. What they don’t tell you is that you’d not only be worse off as workers and consumers, but when the financial markets are so deregulated that banks can take totally irresponsible risks, we get hit by financial crises like the one in 2008, and everyone’s in jeopardy until banks get bailed out.

When they tell you that leaving the EU is good, that’s because they can deregulate even more and lower standards even further. What they don’t tell you is that it would hurt our economy, our trade, our businesses, so much that our country now has billions of pound less for everything you care about.

When they tell you to blame immigrants for everything, that’s because they want you to vent your frustration against people who make easy targets. What they don’t tell you is that these people are hard workers, carers, problem-solvers, who pay taxes, and without them our country would be poorer in countless ways.

& they tell us to dismiss Net Zero and reject policies to cut carbon emissions, that’s because they are on very good terms with fossil fuel producers. What they don’t tell you is that pollutions and climate fluctuations are causing severe damages, and renewable energy offers the only real alternative to get us to a healthy and sustainable future.

Instead of listening to these people who attack everything that is actually valuable to you, and who offer nothing to improve your lives, look at what we are working on.

We are investing in expanding social housing so that people have somewhere decent they can afford to rent, and in building more homes that you don’t have to have above-average income to buy.

We are investing in the training, recruitment and retention of nurses, carers, teachers, doctors and other vital public servants, so that people can always rely on the support of good public services.

We are investing in our green industrial revolution so that there will be more quality jobs, healthier environments, and more dependable sources of renewable energy. 

We are investing in comprehensive security for everyone so that protection is strengthened against military and terrorist threats, criminal violations, the spread of infectious disease, and the impact of poverty.

And we are investing in building relations with countries we can count on so that when those trying to isolate or harm us, we are able to work with genuinely trusted allies to achieve what we alone would not be able to do.

Despite all that, you will no doubt be told to brush aside what we say. You will be urged to keep blaming the scapegoats they daily remind you to blame. But remember this – what they strive to achieve is what hurts you; what you really need for a better life is what they condemn; and what we are doing is what will bring about lasting improvement.

The ‘Inequality’s OK’ Fallacy

A common defence of inequality is that it does not matter so long as people are better off than they might otherwise be, or they have enough to get by. Concerns about inequality are then dismissed as dogmatic or naïve because efforts to reduce inequality might make lives worse for those who are doing ‘well’ even they currently have comparatively less than others.

Many people are taken in by this line of argument, but let us unpack what is being said. The ‘better off’ clause is often brought in by comparing prevailing conditions with what happened in the past. For example, why moan about your share of the company’s earnings going down from X% to Y% when your actual pay has gone up? Well, what if the unequal sharing out reflects the power of those in charge to take a larger share? Furthermore, any increase in pay may not lead to a ‘better off’ position, if prices have more widely risen, the bosses are demanding tougher work targets for gains that would mostly go to them, or job security is declining as the hiring/firing power of those in charge grows with their relative financial strengths.

Whether someone is ‘better off’ depends on many conditions other than the extras their bosses give them. The extra pay may not help one keep pace with getting the better life others can take for granted. For example, as medical care improves, it is no consolation to say to someone denied the latest treatment, “you are better off than you would have been fifty years ago”, when other people today can get far more effective help with reducing the pain and curing the condition one is suffering from. The same goes for the notion of ‘enough to get by’. Are we supposed to peg the standards of ‘getting by’ to survival in primitive times, or attaining the average lifespan of 30 or 40 years in a medieval village? Or do we factor in how society has developed, and what resources and opportunities now exist for people to utilise?

How those resources and opportunities are generated and accessed depends on the socio-political arrangements that are in place. And here is where inequality poses an even deeper problem that no one can ignore.

Inequality in wealth inevitably brings inequality in power. That power gap has meant that the rich can (and some certainly do) load the societal dice in their own favour at every turn. The more obvious tactics include: donations to politicians and parties that would help them and hinder those who might not comply with their agendas (e.g., workers, unions, environmental activists); hiring expensive lawyers and lobbyists to make sure the legal system works as far as possible for their benefit at the expense of those who cannot afford to fight back; and funding media and ‘thinktank’ output that promotes initiatives that would help strengthen their position.

Meanwhile, those with a dwindling share of wealth and power find themselves with less influence over public polices and suffer accordingly. Housing becomes a growing problem for them whatever they earn at the bottom half (two-thirds even) of the income pyramid, as the wealthy buy up properties as investment. The superrich also buy up havens aboard and live in pristine surroundings, while others pay the price for the polluted air and dire water management coming from companies owned by wealthy investors. Educational betterment is increasingly reserved for those from rich families as universities become unaffordable for most.

We now come to the ‘Let Sleeping Inequalities Lie’ line – based on the alleged wisdom that attempts to tackle inequality could just make things worse for everyone. This simply ignores what the New Deal achieved in the US, the impact of Attlee’s post-war reforms, and the enviable quality of life (as measured by every global indicator) attained by the Nordic countries through their inequality-reducing policies. Inequalities in power should and could be reduced to improve our lives. What’s more, left to fester, they might well bite back with a vengeance.

The Real Communitarian Challenge

We’re still hearing commentators say that progressive politicians should be more ‘communitarian’ in backing ‘traditional’ values and outlook – which are taken to mean anti-diversity, anti-immigration, and prioritising local concerns over global issues. But they are mistaken on two counts.

Firstly, as anyone who has studied the works of bona fide communitarian thinkers would know – communitarian ideas are about improving people’s lives by learning from their collective experiences. Throughout history, communities have many different traditions and practices, and which of these should be retained, revised, or rejected, should be based on the impact they have on people, and what they discover from each other as they explore possible changes and what beneficial or harmful consequences may follow. Communitarians criticise the discarding of past arrangements on the basis of any dogmatic assumption, as much as they object to keeping all arrangements regardless of their effects.

Secondly, any serious communitarian analysis of society would tell us that communities would not in fact be better off with less diversity, rejection of immigration, or turning a blind eye to global issues. It is not an ideological declaration, but practical examinations that inform us that enabling people with different backgrounds to mix and cooperate enriches their lives; migrants bring skills and dedication that would not be in demand if there were not significant unmet needs; and local concerns cannot be effectively addressed unless global issues are properly dealt with too.

Communitarian findings do not support insular fossilisation of an imagined past as the way to a good life. They consider the evidence revealed in community life, and point to what works better than other alternatives. Three of these are particularly worthy of note.

[A] Communities that foster Mutual Responsibility: 

Communities where their members mingle freely irrespective of their backgrounds are more inventive, productive, and at ease in collaborating with others from inside or outside their own areas. With their members’ general respect for one another, and their sense of responsibility for how their actions can affect others, such communities are more adaptive to changes, harmonious in resolving differences, and less prone to being divided by irrelevant or trivial differences.

[B] Communities that support Cooperative Enquiry: 

Communities where their members learn by sharing arguments, discoveries, experiments openly are more advanced in obtaining reliable information, developing useful theories and practices, and investigating the veracity of contested claims. Unlike communities that are dominated by arbitrary dogmas or self-proclaimed unquestionable authorities, communities that learn cooperatively are more capable of problem-solving, and exposing harmful prejudices and fallacies.

[C] Communities that empower Citizen Participation:  

Communities where their members share power and can influence decisions that affect their lives are more cohesive, stable, and disposed to take joint ownership of actions undertaken to deal with the challenges they face. Having to take account of others, with none too powerful to dictate terms, such communities have more dependable means to pool their efforts and resources in collective endeavours for their common benefits, and are less vulnerable to chaos or oppression.

People who advocate the retention of damaging features of dysfunctional communities are no more ‘communitarians’ than people who demand the retention of harmful aspects of polluted environments are ‘environmentalists’. The real communitarian challenge is to develop policies and practices that will help communities move forward in becoming more conducive to mutual responsibility, cooperative enquiry, and citizen participation.

--

You can order the book, Communitarianism: politics, society & public policy from Bloomsbury: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/communitarianism-9781350422421/

 

For a free preview of the introductory chapter, visit: 

https://bloomsburycp3.codemantra.com/viewer/67d050e5ee3588000125971e

American Nero

Many US Democrats and political leaders across the world (with the exception of Putin and his acolytes) are going through the five stages of grief.

First up, we have denial. Let’s show deference to ‘Mr. President’. This is not the ruthless, callous authoritarian we have been warned about. Just another politically savvy person who has won the top job. It’ll be OK.

Quickly, the second stage kicks in. Executive orders multiply like aphids, devouring all the good and decent practices that had been in place. Valiant heroes and dedicated public servants removed without cause. Harmful policies at home, vicious threats (against US allies) abroad. Anger erupts.

Next to come is the desire to bargain one’s way out of this madness. Perhaps concessions will help. Vote with him, and not against him, and maybe, just maybe, he would not be as horrible as so many dread. Give in to him, he only wants to strike a deal. 

The fourth stage arrives with the depressive realisation that like Nero, Caligula, Commodus, and all the other vicious dictators that followed in their deranged footsteps, the man has not the heart to feel the pain he causes others, not the brain to understand the havoc he wreaks, and not the slightest sense that he should turn to the counsel of decent minds. 

Finally, the doors of ‘Acceptance’. On the right side the door opens to acceptance of the craven new world. “Cry MAGA, and let slip the dogs of war”. Chaos and pain shall reign. Submit to the emperor. Or take the door on the left, and accept that resistance is the only way forward. Bowing down to power-hungry ‘Leaders’ have never saved any country. Look at the tragic excesses unleashed by ruthless tyrants when their powers went unchecked (and it was J. D. Vance who famously likened Trump to Hitler). Rally every true patriot to voice their opposition, vote out those who support him, back the courts against his law-breaking defiance, and demand the reinstatement of funding for vulnerable people and vital scientific research.

22.7% of the adult population in the US voted in 2024 for what they thought would be their MAGA hero. It’s now clear they have landed their country and the rest of the world with an American Nero.

Roman senators kept giving grounds to the Caesars until they were left powerless and could do little but prostrate for mercy before their supreme ruler. US senators and representatives must act before their republic is also forever lost.

Interview with a Scapegoat-Hunter

Q: You’re a much sought-after advisor in certain political circles. What is it you offer?

A: There are two types of politician. There are the naïve ones who want to help people, even if it means going against the rich and powerful. I don’t have time for them. Then there are those who recognise they need to stand with the rich and powerful, and the way to do that is win public office by attacking vulnerable scapegoats. That’s where I come in.

Q: Tell me if I’ve got this right. Politicians who ally themselves with the rich and powerful look to you for advice on how to get the wider public to support them to go after scapegoats you identify, and deflect people from seeing the actual harm and exploitation caused by the rich and powerful.

A: That’s a rather crude way of putting it. It’s actually a fine art.

Q: What do you mean?

A: Well, look at the real problems. If people realise it’s powerful and irresponsible corporations that’s behind them, you can imagine how they’d be clamouring for actions to deal with them. So you need to change the way they see things. Tell them the increasing weather extremes have nothing to do with fossil fuels, but are caused by nutters pushing crazy green policies. Warn them that more people are killed by guns because ‘liberals’ make it too difficult for people to buy guns to protect themselves. Explain to them that it is not gambling, sugary food, nicotine, or alcohol that bring about harm and addiction, but the deplorable character of addicts who have no one to blame but themselves. Remind them that unemployment is only a problem because the ‘socialists’ encourage people to be lazy and rely on welfare.

Q: Why would anyone believe you despite all the evidence to the contrary?

A: You’ve got to know which button to push.

Q: Care to explain that?

A: When people are angry, they need to channel that anger somewhere. Well-meaning politicians present facts politely – and drearily – and few listen to them. Whereas I put on my best outraged face, and rail at immigrants, refugees, feminists, anyone speaking up for ethnic minorities or human rights, and anything to do with health & safety or has ‘Europe’ in its name.  You see, these are easy targets. We’ve got most of the media, countless troll factories, all the not so well-meaning politicians, lined up to pump out scare stories about them – immigrants are taking all the jobs, refugees are getting fancy accommodation, everyone on benefit is a cheat … And say that often enough, people repeat it to their mates as though it’s the gospel truth.

Q: How does that help anyone?

A: You have no idea. Once people have scapegoats they can blame and hate, you can give them a lot of satisfaction just by hurting stigmatised groups – make them suffer, deport them if you can, let them starve and get no help when they are sick, make them feel despised and isolated, vilify them at every opportunity. At the same time, once consumed with rage and disaffection, they won’t listen to facts or expert analyses about the real causes of the social, economic, or environmental problems facing them. My rich and powerful clients don’t have to worry about meddlesome politicians stepping in to deal with their irresponsible and harmful activities. It’s a win-win. 

Q: Win-win for the rich and powerful who are basically ruining others’ lives.

A: Others’ lives don’t matter. That, incidentally, is our mission statement.

Meet the Privatisers – and their 5-point agenda

Sports fans rant about referees over any decision that goes against their team, but they know without referees there could be no sports matches at all. Beyond individual matches, leagues and competitions involving multiple teams need a governing body to resolve disputes, provide collective support, and share out resources. Similarly, for societies in general to function fairly and effectively, governments must be given a decisive role. 

There are too many challenges and opportunities that require us to work together with agreed rules. Ignoring each other, or falling out over disagreements, would drag everyone down. So why do the privatisers keep trying to subdue state institutions in favour of private powers? Why do they relentlessly attack public bodies and pretend things will inevitably be better in private hands? The answer lies in these five aims of theirs:

[1] Removing Restraints from Irresponsible Private Actions

Privatisers want to be able to do as they please – cheat consumers, mistreat their workers, bully their tenants, sell unsafe goods, pollute the environment – and they detest regulations that would restrain their irresponsibility. Hence the endless calls for deregulation and attacks on essential rules as cumbersome ‘red tape’.

[2] Diminishing the Public Safety Net

Privatisers know that without an effective public safety net against the threats of sickness, homelessness, and poverty, they could more easily pressure people into accepting their exploitative demands. By attacking ‘dependency’ on public support, they seek to increase people’s actual dependency on the whims and mercy of the rich and powerful.

[3] Increasing Wealth & Power Inequalities

Privatisers favour a system which would ensure the hard work of the vast majority of people in society produces rewards that could be overwhelmingly siphoned towards the tiny minority of plutocrats. Cutting taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor are designed to widen power inequalities, so the former can more readily dismiss the plight of the latter.

[4] Diverting Public Resources for Private Gains

Privatisers object to public resources being used for the public good when these can be transferred for making private gains for profiteers. By handing over public resources to the private sector in the form of commercial contracts or asset transfers, they can thereafter be managed to benefit a rich minority, at lower quality and accessibility, and with no democratic accountability.

[5] Undermining the Ethos of Public Service

Privatisers never tire of pointing to flaws and problems in the public sector, deliberately ignoring the fact that these are rare compared with the harm and deception routinely perpetrated in the private sector. They want to demoralise public servants, drive them away, so that public service is weakened and less able to help people poorly treated by the private sector.

Privatisers will always try to exploit public dissatisfaction with this or that aspect of their government, and stir it into a rejection of democratic governance altogether. It is not because they remotely care about other people, far from it, all they want is to deceive enough people to get them the power they need to impose their self-serving agenda on society.

Can Anybody Help: civics revisited

For many people, words like ‘politics’, ‘democracy’, ‘government’, ‘citizenship’, either strike them as boring, or worse, have negative connotations of being something that gets in the way of individuals living their lives without outside interference.

What they don’t recognise is that how they get to live their lives depends critically on the state of democracy and how they are governed. But they are not likely to know much about that when it is almost the social norm to avoid having informed conversations about such matters. Friends worry about antagonising each other. Teachers feel safer to keep silent rather than risk being accused of showing bias. Even politicians jump at the chance of saying ‘let’s keep politics out of this’ as though the subject is best brushed aside.

In reality – and here the facts speak for themselves – human beings are vulnerable to so many threats and problems as isolated individuals. Alone, we are more likely to succumb to disease, injuries, attacks, abuse, oppression, natural disasters, and other predicament. Throughout history, the plea ‘Can Anybody Help’ has only been answered reliably when there are adequate collective arrangements in place to give a satisfactory response. To understand what would constitute ‘adequate collective arrangements’, we need to learn about politics, democracy, and matters of government.

In the absence of civics education, we are left with simplistic regurgitation of dangerous ideas. We have the advocacy for authoritarian, ‘strongmen’ politics – with diverse lineages coming down from Hobbesian absolutists, Bonapartists, fascists, Stalinists, converging towards contemporary right-wing ‘populists’ who seek to wield unrestrained power to do as they please. And we have the propagation of anarchistic, libertarian politics – echoing the demands of the likes of Mandeville, Godwin, Spencer, Rand, to leave individuals to their own devices without any government stepping in.

It is hardly surprising that an increasing number of people, old and young, are drawn to unscrupulous politicians who insist they could do so much better for their country if they were not hindered by accountability procedures, safeguards for human rights, and public scrutiny; and that their country would thrive if government would leave it to the private sector to sort out healthcare, education, energy, water, housing, business dealings, etc.

It hardly requires much time to remind people the dire consequences of dictators imposing their ruthless and arbitrary rule on countries they have gained power over; or the terrible effects of leaving key matters to the private sector through privatisation or callous deregulation. 

As educators, we must communicate, explain, and engage as widely as we can so that our fellow citizens can better understand how the threats they cannot deal with on their own needs democratically controlled government institutions to pool resources and devise responses which genuinely help the people concerned.

The hijacking of conventional and social media by manipulators, the brazen attacks on teachers by ideologues and culture warriors, the systematic spreading of lies and false rumours in political campaigns, the undermining of universities by fundamentalist and corporate influences, are all making it critically urgent to counter distortions with facts, analyses, and explanations. Through reports, drama, classroom discussions, historical accounts, and a variety of other tools, we must reach out to those who are worried that they have been forgotten, and show them help is available, but only from those who are committed to serving the people through a strong, democratic government.