By far the best comment I have seen on recent political events is, as so often, from Lord Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. It can be be found here. Our politicians have too often forgotten that there are choices you can make which you should not take, and acted as though the only commandment they feared was the 11th – thou shalt not get found out’. The widespread view that our politicians are not up to the job and that they have failed us is part of what is fuelling the popular insurgency movements in American and european politics. It takes many forms, but Trump, Brexit, Corbyn, Marine Le Pen and Gert Wilders are all part of it; people are angry; they fell let down and they want to blame someone. We were told we were all in it together, and yet the bankers and those most responsible for the crash of 2008 appear to have escaped scot free with their fat pension pots; there is a feeling that justice has not been done. This has led to what might be called the rise of fantasy politics.
When, during the Referendum campaign, Brexit leaders disdained the role of ‘experts’ they were taking the failures of such in areas such as Iraq and the great Crash as proxies for a more general failure, feeding on popular disillusionment. Snap answers and sloganeering are the currency of this revolt. Quite what people will do when they find out that the pat solutions they have been offered are not really on offer, is an interesting question with a potentially dangerous answer. How long before the people begin to clamour for a ‘strong leader’?
Lord Sacks goes deeper though:
But there is something deeper behind the dysfunctional politics of the contemporary West. For the past half century we have been living through one of the great unstated social experiments of all time. We have tried to construct a world without identity and morality. Instead we left it to two systems to deal with the problems of our collective life: the market economy and the liberal democratic state.
People want a sense of identity. It is all very well to talk about the virtues of multi-culturalism, but if people do not feel those benefits, but do feel alienated in their own country, then you are storing up trouble. It is all very well screaming ‘racist’ at anyone who raises that question, but eventually, as the Brexit votes shows, the democracy may roar back at you and criticise you for ignoring it. The Guardian-reading classes are now bemoaning the ignorance of the electorate – with so many teachers and lecturers amongst its readership, they might stop to ask why so many of the electorate are so ill-informed?
Then there is the question of morality. Those of my generation grew up in a Britain moulded by Christian values. That’s not the same as saying we grew up in a Christian country, but our sense of what was right and what was wrong was shaped by many centuries of Christian teaching. In a couple of generations that has ceased to be the case, and we now live in a society where relativity rules. Our bankers and politicians have, literally, profited from that – but the rest of us? In the name of the ‘market’ we have not asked the question of what should be done with communities where the basic industry and main employer have gone – we have assumed the ‘market’ would take care of it. It is clear that this has not happened, but no one seems to have thought it was the job of politicians and economists and ‘experts’ to come up with answers, or even to invest in infrastructure and research and development; a quick profit for the shareholders was the name of the game – and a bigger one for the executives.
This was not what Christ taught about leadership. This is not what the Christian churches have taught. Now, you might say we cannot go back to that, but in response, I would suggest we cannot go on as we are now – that really is the road to nowhere. Our society needs to find some shared values – and a sense of identity – and fast. There is here, if they will seize it, a role for our churches.
All Along the Watchtower 
Lord Sacks is, in my view, correct. There are a few spots where I could quibble as is normal, but overall, he is correct. I’m just putting my post together, and as always on 4 July, it features the Declaration of Independence. Even more than usual, I was struck by Mr. Jefferson’s last sentence.
“And for the support of this Declaration,
with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
Unless and until, we again live those words, here and there, we are but shadows of our former selves.
Brexit is an attempt, however wrong-headed, I think, to restore, as our revolution was, the rights of our citizens. Once upon a time, not very long ago, the only free people in the world spoke English, it would be well to ‘complete the revolution’, as our forefathers did, preferably without spilling blood, as they found necessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for this article ,however the comments about experts in my understanding was that it becomes useless to the crowds when each side can pull out an expert to refute the other- the lay person just gets more confused. The problem of Europe for a catholic is the uncertainty of its aim. Please look at the you tube video of the Swiss Tunnel Opening on 01.06.16 and then say to me as a catholic that there isn’t concern. This needs to be reported on and examined. The brexit vote is only wrong by those who voted remain. I feel, although financially painful, the leaving of Europe will only be positive in the long run.Remember England is Our Lady’s Dowry!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Since this posted as a reply to me, I’ll answer, but perhaps so will C.
As it happens, I, as an American conservative, supported Brexit, as I have said, for the same reasons I would have supported the Declaration of Independence 240 years ago. That being primarily the stifling effects of a distant bureaucracy, and the loss of freedom. See also Jefferson’s bill of particulars, or read Algernon Sidney’s “Discourses Concerning Government”. Sidney, a descendant of Hotspur, was considered a martyr to liberty by many of our founders. It can be found here:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sidney-discourses-concerning-government
As to experts, there is a saying in American construction that an expert is anyone 50 miles from home, and there is ample basis for the jibe. But there are also actual experts, C is one of them, whose opinions I always consider deeply. Much of the trouble comes from the inability to discern actual experts from those who without knowing much at all, assume the mantle of expertness, and cover themselves with the mantle of bovine excrement, those are simply charlatans, or worse, people with an agenda: for power, for riches, for whatever other things they desire.
Frankly, as a non-Roman Catholic (Lutheran), I find nothing at all uncertain in the European elite’s aim. It is quite simply the destruction of the faith, in all our variants, and the subjection of our people to tyranny.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chalcedon – continuing from the previous blog, I think you (and Lord Sacks) have missed the point about ‘Brexit’.
I know why I’m in favour of Brexit. The fishing community (my community) has been destroyed by the Common Market / EU. I don’t care about abstract things such as ‘the economy’ and no expert, telling me how much better life is now that we’re in the EU is going to be able to persuade me to discount what I see with my own eyes.
Also, MPs and parliamentarians are not principally there to show ‘leadership’; they’re there to serve. Boothby was a popular MP for East Aberdeenshire (1950-58) because he took an interest in the local economy. I think he had a part to play in the subsidies to install diesel engines (much better than the coal fired engines which they replaced). Boothby was hardly a fine Christian gentleman (there were, of course, stories about his private life), but people didn’t mind, because he did so much for the local economy – not at an abstract level, but looking at how people actually earned their livings.
He was replaced by Patrick Woolrige-Gordon, who never bothered to come north of the border (because it was such a safe Conservative seat that he thought he didn’t have to). He got kicked out in 1974 by the SNP who advertised themselves as the ‘non-socialist alternative to Labour’, the ones who took an interest in the local economy (unlike P W-G).
So we’re not looking for people who exhibit marvellous ‘leadership’. We don’t want people with crack-pot abstract ideas who ‘lead’ people where they do not want to go. The MP is there to serve.
This (of course) is not the idea of those who took us into the Common Market, who were quite happy with the wholesale destruction of local communities – just as long as the economic figures added up and just as long as, on paper, the GDP seemed to be growing.
LikeLike
sorry – non-socialist alternative to the Conservatives.
LikeLike
I agree, up to a point. We do need leaders as well as back-bench MPs. In terms of local communities, as I said before, one could apply it to mining, steel, the docks etc, etc.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – I have no direct experience of mining, steel or docks, but if indeed our government ran down functioning, competitive industries in order to enter the Common Market, then it explains why Wales voted ‘Leave’ (and it has absolutely nothing to do with immigration). I suspect that you may be right.
When we elect leaders, we don’t expect them to destroy our communities for our own good and for a higher and honourable objective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, and that is part of the problem with worshipping the market – it was the demands of market economics which dictated entry into the EU and the economic policies which took priority over people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of the oldest debates in representative democracy, Jock. Is the representative there to merely represent his constituents or is he there to use what may well be superior knowledge to do what they would presumably want done if they knew all he did? In addition, a representative must balance majority and minority of his constituents on any issue, and sometimes they must even put aside the local issues for the common good. Where to draw the line has been argued in America for 240 years, in Britain far longer, there is no definitive answer.
My experience is that the best ones do what they think is right, after consulting the people and hang the consequences.
Being an MP (or a Congresscriter) is no easy job, if one wants to do the right thing. Being PM is worse, for the same reasons.
And a perhaps naive question. If the diesels were so much superior, why did they need subsidies? They should have done it to improve their bottom line.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO – this is a beautiful question, which I’m not really qualified to answer, because all of this happened at least a decade before I was born.
It is a question of ‘serving’ or ‘leading’; it was as clear as a bell that they should convert to diesel, but many of them were rather cautious. Even while accepting the subsidies, quite a few were wondering out loud whether any good would come of this, were they doing the right thing, etc ….
The communities were basically Christian, so the idea of taking bank loans was most definitely out of the question for them; I think that the offer of subsidies was the only way to modernise the industry.
But I’m not at all sure of this – it goes back to pre-history (at least for me).
LikeLiked by 2 people