Beliefs and practicalities
The unexpected resignation of Tim Farron as leader of the Lib-Dems last night is a development worthy of being remarked upon because it brings into sharp focus the eternal inner dilemmas that can sometimes face members of the political class – I’m talking about the potential inconsistencies, failures of logic and clashes between principle and beliefs, on the one hand, and the pressures of events and practicalities, on the other.
My piece today will be slightly unusual because, in seeking some background ‘colour’ or insight with which to leaven my metaphorical bread, I tapped into my search engine ‘the art of politics’ and thereby alighted upon a couple of websites that offered some interesting quotations [and perhaps unsurprisingly, one of them was devoted to ‘art’ in the sense of painting, sculpting and drawing!].
Some of these struck me as distinctly relevant and others thought-provoking or amusing – which is why I’m going to present some them for the hoped-for delectation of my Rust readers. It may not surprise you that some are contradictory to others!
Accordingly, I give you:
Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best.
Otto von Bismarck.
[or]
Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
John Kenneth Galbraith.
[or a cynical alternative]
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx.
[on the subject of democracy]
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.
E.B. White.
Politics is an act of faith; you have to show some kind of confidence in the intellectual and moral capacity of the public.
George McGovern.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
Plato.
[or some cynical alternatives]
I have never voted in my life… I have always known and understood that the idiots are in a majority so it’s certain they will win.
Louis-Ferdinand Celine.
Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.
H.L. Mencken.
You go back and tell them that the New York State Supreme Court rules there’s no Santa Claus. It’s all over the papers. The kids read it and they don’t hang up their stockings. Now what happens to all the toys that are supposed to be in those stockings? Nobody buys them. The toy manufacturers are going to like that. So they have to lay off a lot of their employees…. and they’re going to adore you for it. And they’re gonna say it with votes.
George Seaton.
Popularity should be no scale for the election of politicians. If it would depend on popularity, Donald Duck and The Muppets would take seats in the Senate.
Orson Welles.
[Before continuing with my comments upon Tim Farron’s resignation, I feel it incumbent upon me to declare an interest – to wit, that I am an atheist – not that (I hope) this will particularly affect my comments upon Mr Farron’s religious beliefs which I allow him every right to hold.]
Before considering or embarking upon a life (or career) in politics an individual must necessarily address some searching questions regarding both their beliefs/principles on an innumerable number of issues and their ambitions.
And if that reads as a simplistic or straightforward statement, maybe it shouldn’t. Why? Because it matters not only what your beliefs are but how strongly you hold them.
Furthermore, if you believe in God – I mean really believe in God, as opposed to for example just ticking the box marked ‘C of E’ on your candidate application form because notionally that is what you were born to, although de facto you wouldn’t be prepared to go to the stake or the gallows for any of the beliefs or teachings of the Church of England, even (that is) if you knew what any of them were/are, which you probably don’t – you may face some problems down the line.
Let’s take the potentially vexed issues of homosexuality and abortion, for instance.
If, for example, the Quran and/or the Bible decree that either or both of the above are mortal sins [and I don’t know if either of them actually do, but certainly some Christians, on some interpretations of the Bible, believe it and – for the sake of this example – let us presume you are one of these] then in a modern 21st Century liberal Western democracy you’re always going to have a bit of a dilemma.
Tim Farron certainly seems to have.
It is a fact of life that sacred texts are inevitably a significant problem for religions. If they are supposed (or believed to be) literally ‘the word of God’ as it should be applied to human society then religions have only two ways to go in terms of remaining relevant and popular: (1) stand at the side of society ranting at any ‘falling off’ said text’s standards and teachings; or (2) adopting a ‘progressive’ approach which maintains that sacred texts are not literally ‘the word of God’ but merely an interpretation of them ‘of their time of origination’ – a device which allows adherents of this line down the centuries to constantly ‘evolve’ their religion’s teachings so that they remain relevant (but perhaps one step behind?) the route down which human society as a whole is inexorably travelling.
(As I have indicated above, I don’t have a dog in this fight myself).
Mr Farron’s problem was clearly that – via his religious beliefs – he believes that homosexuality is a sin. The only problem with that is that he not only joined, and remains, a member of the Lib-Dems but more recently has been its leader.
Maybe he shouldn’t have joined the Lib-Dems in the first place (did he actually read their literature before doing so?).
Some who contribute to this website have, and do, argue that – by definition – anyone who joins the Lib-Dems is not a serious politician, they just want to enjoy being part of the ‘political elite’ without having power or responsibility. Not only that, the Lib-Dems have a uniquely-privileged position, viz. they get far more exposure in the media and political life than their Party deserves given the paltry number of seats it ever likely to win.
But then, via another viewpoint, if politics is not about practicality and compromise it is about nothing.
For example, the first Duke of Wellington was never in favour of Catholic Emancipation but, given the state of the world when he was Prime Minister, he brought it in 1829.
We’re right bang in the middle of similar as I write, post the 2017 General Election.
The Tories are currently cobbling together their own ‘coalition of chaos’ [I like the irony of that term given this was what they predicted would result if Labour had won] – with its ‘One Nation’ wing having to compromise as much as its other-end-of-the-spectrum counterpart, the head-banging right-wing faction – in their desperate attempt to retain power and avoid another General Election which they fear they wouldn’t win.
Another irony is that their proposed bedfellows in said enterprise (the Northern Ireland DUP) hold some pretty conservative principles, two of which are their positions – based upon their ultra-Protestant religious beliefs – on homosexuality and abortion.
Which is just about where I came in.
I never thought I’d say this but I’m feeling some sympathy for Tim Farron today.
[Simon Campion-Brown is unwell].
