It is no coincidence the New Labour figures you name came from a hard-left, Trotskyist background. Feigning centrism (‘Peace. Bread. Land. All power to the Soviet’) then ruthlessly executing a coherent plan, without popular legitimacy, to achieve their political objectives, is the essence of this concept of political action. It is telling that Peter Hitchens, who came from the same Trotskyist background, was the one voice calling this out and remains so to this day. Alas, the sophistication of the revolution is such it defeats simple explanation in red top headlines, which would garner popular opposition. Raab appears to have understood the problem and started to moot solutions but was vomited out by the Administrative State as a consequence. To undo the Blair/Brown revolution will take an equally intelligent, determined and organised team on the right, prepared to ride roughshod over opposition, once they have power. Maybe a catastrophic election this year may allow such a team to form in the wreckage.
That is I think what will happen. The important point to emphasise is that 'riding roughshod over opposition' should not mean political opponents but rather vested interests on both sides.
Absolutely. I should have qualified my original point with ‘elite opposition’. Neutralising an elite locus of opposition to the revolution was what drove the Blairite assault on the House of Lords.
An interesting poke at the minutiae, David. A few remarks on this....
Firstly, I am at a loss to understand how taking this case to the courts was in any way practicable, since it surely was not cheap to go this route, which raises further questions. I see it was raised by 'Public Interest Lawyers'. I feel there is a story here we might not have access to.
Secondly, the parallel with Roe vs Wade in the US in 1973, in so much that it was (as they say) an 'activist ruling'. It was readily apparent that 'privacy' was not the relevant issue, but this approach allowed access to abortion to be enshrined *above* the legislature, as 'precedent'. The effect was to undermine the rule of law by forcing opponents of abortion to resort to methods such as 'stacking the deck' for the Supreme Court. More or less every other nation managed to resolve this quagmire politically... the US was prevented from doing so, with seriously deleterious effects to its political landscape. There's a warning here that neither faction can see because the issue became so hopelessly overcharged.
Finally, on the woeful decline of Kant's rightful condition (Recht) from which human rights descend and then, rapidly after they appeared, degenerated into code for 'things we really want' (an accusation Alasdair MacIntyre was keen to make). No amount of flag-waving for 'progress' can obscure the regression that has gone on in moral and political philosophy, as exemplified in the transition from Kant to Rawls. While left of you politically, I think we agree that something went horribly wrong here.
It was once thought that the purpose of university education was to prepare people to be good citizens - to think for themselves, and to understand the foundations of knowledge and indeed statecraft. Now, going to university is apparently purely an economic decision for everyone concerned. Now that we are eroding academic freedom as well, it is hard to honestly suggest that 'university' today has any connection but the etymological with the concepts that animated it for half a millennia.
Great point, Chris. I didn't want to open that can of worms but it is astonishing to me that the decision in this case basically hinged on the economic benefits of university, whether to the individual or society. That says a huge amount.
Regarding funding: yes, you're right. I believe Ms Tigere belonged to a campaign group of some kind, but how they were funded I am not sure.
And finally, on overcharging, you're absolutely right. There is room for compromise on the HRA, and actually Dominic Raab's Bill of Rights was a good way to achieve this. But because proponents of the existing system were not willing to compromise even by an inch, the result I think will be that repudiating the ECHR entirely will become Tory party policy and ultimately I think will happen. Something similar went on with Brexit. If David Cameron's sensible compromise had not been rejected by the EU, we'd still be in it. A lesson that nobody seems to want to learn!
'Sensible compromise' has become an oxymoron in British politics... indeed, in international politics, alas.
Oh, and it might just be because it's on my mind, but I think the view from 1925 in this week's Stranger Worlds bears in on these problems in a broader sense, namely the blindness to a complete view of life and the perils of specialisation:
I know he's a troll and a provocateur, but Richard Hanania makes compelling points about the intellectual inadequacies of conservatism in the US. Having become interested in conservative perspectives I find it very strange that this stack stands out as one of very few from which I ever actually learn anything with any intellectual heft.
Anecdotally I've always noticed that the conservatives in my personal world were the least gifted as thinkers. And the way that genuine fools rise to prominence in the Conservative Party - deeply unserious caricatures like Rees Mogg spring to mind - suggests that there's something in the DNA of right politics that prevents it from really accomplishing anything, beyond the enrichment of donors. What the hell is going on here?
I don't have an answer for you other than that I've observed something similar. It amazes me, for instance, how much Roger Scruton is lionised by conservatives. While I think he was a beautiful writer and that he was a good advocate for conservative intellectualism, he was by no means a philosopher of the first- or even second rank. He was really an educator/populariser rather than a thinker as such. Yet he is pretty much the best that conservatives can point to. Though I would caveat that observation by saying that I don't tend to find most leftist intellectuals (or politicians) very convincing or impressive these days either.
Jordan Peterson is another example of a lionised right wing intellectual who leans too far into arm-waving polemic to come across as a serious player, at least to me. But these people are lauded for a reason - and I think it may be because conservatives like the pugnacious blusterer. Don't get me started on leftishist 'intellectualism', because it takes very little scrutiny to see through that. But ... and as you point out in the piece, it's a big but ... the leftish is brilliant at vision; selling it, taking the steps to secure it and then holding on to the power that really matters by creating a self-enforcing narrative. The leftish has the peculiar kind of intelligence to instrumentalise itself.
I have so much time for Jordan Peterson. I recognise that he has become a bit shrill, but he genuinely cares. This counts for a huge amount. I fully accept he is polemical; but I like the polemic. (Reminds me of an old music critic friend of mine who once said to me, 'The Strokes only have one song, but luckily it's a song that I like.')
By 'strange' I don't mean it's strange that you're so smart. Strange that you're almost the only example of a smart British conservative thinker I'm aware of.
It is no coincidence the New Labour figures you name came from a hard-left, Trotskyist background. Feigning centrism (‘Peace. Bread. Land. All power to the Soviet’) then ruthlessly executing a coherent plan, without popular legitimacy, to achieve their political objectives, is the essence of this concept of political action. It is telling that Peter Hitchens, who came from the same Trotskyist background, was the one voice calling this out and remains so to this day. Alas, the sophistication of the revolution is such it defeats simple explanation in red top headlines, which would garner popular opposition. Raab appears to have understood the problem and started to moot solutions but was vomited out by the Administrative State as a consequence. To undo the Blair/Brown revolution will take an equally intelligent, determined and organised team on the right, prepared to ride roughshod over opposition, once they have power. Maybe a catastrophic election this year may allow such a team to form in the wreckage.
That is I think what will happen. The important point to emphasise is that 'riding roughshod over opposition' should not mean political opponents but rather vested interests on both sides.
Absolutely. I should have qualified my original point with ‘elite opposition’. Neutralising an elite locus of opposition to the revolution was what drove the Blairite assault on the House of Lords.
An interesting poke at the minutiae, David. A few remarks on this....
Firstly, I am at a loss to understand how taking this case to the courts was in any way practicable, since it surely was not cheap to go this route, which raises further questions. I see it was raised by 'Public Interest Lawyers'. I feel there is a story here we might not have access to.
Secondly, the parallel with Roe vs Wade in the US in 1973, in so much that it was (as they say) an 'activist ruling'. It was readily apparent that 'privacy' was not the relevant issue, but this approach allowed access to abortion to be enshrined *above* the legislature, as 'precedent'. The effect was to undermine the rule of law by forcing opponents of abortion to resort to methods such as 'stacking the deck' for the Supreme Court. More or less every other nation managed to resolve this quagmire politically... the US was prevented from doing so, with seriously deleterious effects to its political landscape. There's a warning here that neither faction can see because the issue became so hopelessly overcharged.
Finally, on the woeful decline of Kant's rightful condition (Recht) from which human rights descend and then, rapidly after they appeared, degenerated into code for 'things we really want' (an accusation Alasdair MacIntyre was keen to make). No amount of flag-waving for 'progress' can obscure the regression that has gone on in moral and political philosophy, as exemplified in the transition from Kant to Rawls. While left of you politically, I think we agree that something went horribly wrong here.
It was once thought that the purpose of university education was to prepare people to be good citizens - to think for themselves, and to understand the foundations of knowledge and indeed statecraft. Now, going to university is apparently purely an economic decision for everyone concerned. Now that we are eroding academic freedom as well, it is hard to honestly suggest that 'university' today has any connection but the etymological with the concepts that animated it for half a millennia.
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
Great point, Chris. I didn't want to open that can of worms but it is astonishing to me that the decision in this case basically hinged on the economic benefits of university, whether to the individual or society. That says a huge amount.
Regarding funding: yes, you're right. I believe Ms Tigere belonged to a campaign group of some kind, but how they were funded I am not sure.
And finally, on overcharging, you're absolutely right. There is room for compromise on the HRA, and actually Dominic Raab's Bill of Rights was a good way to achieve this. But because proponents of the existing system were not willing to compromise even by an inch, the result I think will be that repudiating the ECHR entirely will become Tory party policy and ultimately I think will happen. Something similar went on with Brexit. If David Cameron's sensible compromise had not been rejected by the EU, we'd still be in it. A lesson that nobody seems to want to learn!
'Sensible compromise' has become an oxymoron in British politics... indeed, in international politics, alas.
Oh, and it might just be because it's on my mind, but I think the view from 1925 in this week's Stranger Worlds bears in on these problems in a broader sense, namely the blindness to a complete view of life and the perils of specialisation:
https://strangerworlds.substack.com/p/the-power-of-reason
With unlimited love,
Chris.
A brilliant exposition David.
I so wish you were on the policy team of a mainstream political party :(
Oh, of ANY political party.
I know he's a troll and a provocateur, but Richard Hanania makes compelling points about the intellectual inadequacies of conservatism in the US. Having become interested in conservative perspectives I find it very strange that this stack stands out as one of very few from which I ever actually learn anything with any intellectual heft.
Anecdotally I've always noticed that the conservatives in my personal world were the least gifted as thinkers. And the way that genuine fools rise to prominence in the Conservative Party - deeply unserious caricatures like Rees Mogg spring to mind - suggests that there's something in the DNA of right politics that prevents it from really accomplishing anything, beyond the enrichment of donors. What the hell is going on here?
I don't have an answer for you other than that I've observed something similar. It amazes me, for instance, how much Roger Scruton is lionised by conservatives. While I think he was a beautiful writer and that he was a good advocate for conservative intellectualism, he was by no means a philosopher of the first- or even second rank. He was really an educator/populariser rather than a thinker as such. Yet he is pretty much the best that conservatives can point to. Though I would caveat that observation by saying that I don't tend to find most leftist intellectuals (or politicians) very convincing or impressive these days either.
Jordan Peterson is another example of a lionised right wing intellectual who leans too far into arm-waving polemic to come across as a serious player, at least to me. But these people are lauded for a reason - and I think it may be because conservatives like the pugnacious blusterer. Don't get me started on leftishist 'intellectualism', because it takes very little scrutiny to see through that. But ... and as you point out in the piece, it's a big but ... the leftish is brilliant at vision; selling it, taking the steps to secure it and then holding on to the power that really matters by creating a self-enforcing narrative. The leftish has the peculiar kind of intelligence to instrumentalise itself.
I have so much time for Jordan Peterson. I recognise that he has become a bit shrill, but he genuinely cares. This counts for a huge amount. I fully accept he is polemical; but I like the polemic. (Reminds me of an old music critic friend of mine who once said to me, 'The Strokes only have one song, but luckily it's a song that I like.')
By 'strange' I don't mean it's strange that you're so smart. Strange that you're almost the only example of a smart British conservative thinker I'm aware of.