Politics has changed a lot
over the centuries. The dominant form of politics used to be loosely based on a
Christian flavoured notion of human representatives promoting the common good,
rather like Thomas Carlyle's version of the great men, but in this case seeking
a collective, objective human goal of divinely-inspired improvement.
Then, after the gradual
influence of philosophers like Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Mill and Rousseau, a
more liberal approach was fostered, with a more symbiotic relationship between
society's rights and freedoms and the state's ability to govern by respecting
those qualities.
Then came the devastation
of two World Wars, which was followed by the cognitively dissonant simultaneity
of believing that on the one hand the wars showed just how dangerous
totalitarian extreme politics can be, and on the other the huge requirement of the
state in pre-empting such forces again, not to mention the reparation and
rebuilding projects that were required.
In the following decades,
for all sorts of reasons too involved to go into now, both narratives have
become intertwined, whereby some politicians pursue what they think is the
common good with top-down prescriptions, and other politicians continually look
for ways to promote our freedoms.
Sometimes there is
intellectual strain and emotional duress on politicians' goals when, for
example, the common good is for everyone's individualism to be allowed to
breathe, in cases when what is proclaimed as the moral thing to do is another attempt
to infringe on our liberties, and in cases where the more liberty we have the
less we should pursue notions of what I call fabricated
equality (artificially trying to make positively unequal things equal).
Given that human progress
occurs dialectically, it is understandable that wherever possible modern
politics is always seeking to synthesise apparent theses and antitheses into a
coherent narrative that draws on the best of past political ideas.
That is also why we see
the main body of political parties (comprising most elected MPs in the House of
Commons) occupying more of the centre ground than ever before, in many ways
indistinguishable from each other, making the fringe parties that hang on the
periphery (most notably: UKIP, the Green Party, and Corbyn's wing of the Labour
Party) appearing somewhat heterodoxical in the modern political context.
The key thing that people
are gradually starting to learn is that things are generally not designed by a
central planner, they evolve over time, and although they look spectacularly
like they are too sophisticated to have emerged by a long process of trial and
error with no end goal in sight, it is not the case.
Once it is more widely
realised that, just like organisms in biological evolution, bit-by-bit
selection is the primary game in town, I think we'll begin to adjust our
interpretations of a coherent political narrative towards the next stage of
human evolution - the stage at which the system of state meddling is
deracinated, and what's planted in its place are the seeds of understanding
that human societies thrive and progress in a bottom up manner, not a top down
one.
No comments:
Post a Comment