Monday, November 20, 2006

Welcome Paul/Guido

Right. Paul Staines has left a superb comment on my post below about politics and bloggery. Assuming this is the Paul Staines who is, in fact, uber-blogger Guido Fawkes, this demands to be taken further. In response to my own opinion that politicians are now too debased by journalists and bloggers, Paul/Guido says, 'If our politicians were honest men with noble goals they could not be debased.' Well, yes. But he also dismisses my argument that British politicians are less corrupt than those in most developed countries by saying, 'The degree of corruption is not the issue.' But, of course, it's the issue - how else are we to judge whether they are worthy of debasement, whether there is honesty and nobility? Unless, of course, Paul/Guido is arguing that only absolute purity will protect the political system. Such an argument would, of course, be borderline crazy and, if applied, would result in a very unpleasant world indeed.
Paul/Guido also refers me to a post by Stephen Tall which, in turn, responds to the remarks of Matthew Taylor about the malign effects of blogging. Tall is a Labour apostate and he says the patronising assumptions behind Taylor's argument are why he left. In this, I absolutely agree with him. New Labour does not trust the citizenry and regards them as infants, worthy only of bullying and condescension.
But the deep flaw in Tall's position - and, for some time, it was a flaw in my own - is the failure to recognise that Labour's attitude to the people was the inevitable outcome of its acceptance of the power of the press. Once that had happened, hyper-democratic populism was the only possible political discourse. Everything was to be judged by instant, visceral reaction. Of course, the politicians are at fault in this, but, just as importantly, so are the people. Why did parents not demonstrate outside failing comprehensive schools or patients outside filthy NHS hospitals? Because they too had accepted the new agenda, they were willingly infantilised. Politics for the people, the press, the bloggers and the politicians had become nothing more than a gossip-laden Westminster soap.
Libertarian bloggers, says Paul/Guido, 'want to expand the non-political, non-governmental space in society. ' This suggests a discourse of ideas, debate and real reporting. This would, indeed, expand the civic space. But. of course, that is not what we get, we get a constricted hell-hole of gossip, distasteful abuse and back-stabbbing, all of which feed directly back into the New Labour policy of making sure that real politics can be concealed beneath the daily chatter. They are all inside Labour's big tent, riding the same roundabout. Outside, only a few are anxiously watching the gathering thunderheads.

11 comments:

  1. I agree with Paul Staines's post. People are disengaged from politics at just the time when they should be marching in the streets to preserve us from this degenerate and corrupt political class that is busy kicking away the ladders up which it rose to power.
    However, I disagree with his rather Panglossian view that all it would take is for decent politicians with noble causes to stand for election. No decent man would long survive the combined onslaught of the establishment press and the liberal political class. Things, I fear, are much worse than that.

    And Bryan, I don't think it's Labour's acceptance of the power of the press that resulted in 'hyper-democratic populism' (good pejorative phrase) but its self-righteous desire to stay in power at any cost. But doesn't the government represent a generation that can't accept it will die and in its heart believes apres eux le deluge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well spoken, Mr. Walling! Do you think this gov. is going to lose their heads, too, before the deluge?

    I, too, keep wondering where our modern Robespierre is right now. I am quite sure, though, that he and henchmen are about and that a very repressive regime could follow what we have now in the West.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wouldn't blame the public too much for being infantilised because perhaps it's human nature to believe in the fundamental goodness of one's tribe, and to trust in its leaders and cultural norms. The cultural norms now however are intellectually and morally...I was going to say bankrupt, but that insidious nature of these norms. For example, what kind of view of life is a government offering to people who are encouraged to spend money on cards with random numbers in the hope that this will offer sudden immense wealth and happiness. The undercutting of any intelligent structure of society, and for black comic effect- hundreds of millions of people staring at tv screens looking at numbered balls emerging from a larger transparent one... just one little snapshot of modern mass culture.
    I referred to the following recently, but I think it's worth repeating regarding citizen apathy.
    In 1975, the Trilateral Commission, comprising of the US, Britain and Japan's finest, published a study entitled The Crisis of Democracy, which interprets public participation in decision-making as a threat to democracy, one that must be contained if elite domination is to persist unhindered by popular demands. The population must be reduced to apathy and conformism if "democracy," is to be kept workable and allowed to survive."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I must start paying a bit more attention to whether my sentences achieve their destiny in the field of making sense. "The cultural norms now however are intellectually and morally...I was going to say bankrupt, but that doesn't quite suggest the actively insidious nature of these norms" is what was meant to appear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But of course, that is not what we get, we get a constricted hell-hole of gossip, distasteful abuse and back-stabbbing, all of which feed directly back into the New Labour policy of making sure that real politics can be concealed beneath the daily chatter. They are all inside Labour's big tent, riding the same roundabout.

    This is so true. One of the things I detest is the intra-blogger backbiting when we should be combining to maintain our last vestiges of liberty. Not sure Guido's real identity should have been mentioned, even though we all know who it is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Guido's motivation is that he wants less politics. Less lying and hypocrisy. Guido is prepared to get down and dirty with them and expose their ways. That is the secret of Guido's success. Usually those in the know have political or journalistic ambitions. You get sucked into the system and/or marginalised.

    To be populist and influential (or at least widely read) is not easy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was going to leave a comment but my spell checker is nackered.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Both Guido and Bryan agree that the central cause of ill in our political world is Nu Labour mendacity with Hype over reality.

    They now hate the beast that rode them to power (Guido is great) and they cannot stand (Taylor) what they themselves created.

    However, will this really be the source of their downfall?

    I think not. Cameron and his brigade are on the same boat. The real issue lies in the very construction of our democracy.

    My view is that Guido is aforce for good, as he rightly points out the foolishy and duplicity of the current political situation. However, Bryan also alludes to the press/media faultline in the current system which needs fixing by constitutional change.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now isn't Guido's last comment so interesting because that is precisely what I've just posted on - the getting sucked in or marginalized and I hadn't seen these comments at that point.

    It is so true and comes down to this exclusivity and influence syndrome.

    Bryan, there are very few blogs indeed engendering this sort of discussion. Your blog is essential at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. James, it is one of the features of some enduring institutions/systems that they exercise power by sucking-in or marginalising, offering exclusivity or withholding it. That can be seen as insidious, or it can be seen as rather benign, by contrast with systems that operate in a more directly punitive manner. (It is also rather efficient, since it is effectively a form of self-policing.)

    Watching the exquisite agonies of MP-wannabes equivocating at the system's periphery (we all know who we are talking about here), 'benign' institutional methods can also be consumately cruel.

    The other part of Guido's last comment above was: "To be populist and influential (or at least widely read) is not easy".

    Discuss!

    ReplyDelete