Skip to main content

A leap of faith

Tony Blair thinks that his decision to go to war will be judged by God. The fact that George W. Bush also trusted to his faith makes me cringe. This messianic appeal to faith I personally find repellent. It smacks of the hypocrite - "but I say unto you that they have their reward".

However, perhaps it also explains why the West is getting into such a mess. The certitudes of faith should be leavened with doubt, otherwise we might have leaders of the West who believe that their personal relationship with the divinity renders them automatically successful. Then, they might insist that they alone know what is good for their citizens- that any crime is permissible- the abolition of "inalienable rights" such as Life or Liberty, for example. The prosecution of war, irrespective of constitution or international law; the use of torture; the intrusion of the state into any aspect of life that "the war on terror" requires - all this is allowed and justified by faith. In the words of Cromwell "I beseech you... think it possible that you may be mistaken". However, such faith as that professed by Bush or Blair allows no room for doubt. The consequences are there for all to see. In battling the perverted certainties of Islamo-fascism, the West has fallen into the hands of justified sinners of equal self righteousness.

Whether we talk of investment and the ideas of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, that I have discussed on this blog before; or of science and Mandelbrot or Heisenberg; or of politics and Aristotle and Cicero, the key is to understand that we ourselves are inherently fallible. Thus we must construct political systems that nor merely accept that their leaders are flawed, but which expects that we are and bases its design on that single key assumption. In fact we have mostly done so. That is why the tinkering with the constitutional arrangement in Britain or the United States must be resisted so fiercely. In fact in Britain, the fact that constitutional order can be subverted so easily should now make us more determined than ever to create a political system that is less open to corruption and misuse. The latest allegations against David Mills, whether true or not, show again how high-level corruption can reach into the heart of the state and undermine our democracy with money.

It is no longer enough to trust our politicians, we must- in that Russian proverb much quoted by Ronald Reagan- "trust and verify". No matter how certain the Prime Minister may be of his faith and his justification, he must verify himself, through the constitution, to the people who employ him: the British people.

Comments

Anonymous said…
You like most of the media are completely mis-representing what Tony Blair said on Parkinson. His comments were very clearly in the context of personal responsibility and judgement - he was not using 'God' to justify his decision over Iraq in the way that Bush - and indeed many main stream American politicians - have done.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...