Skip to main content

Time Future contained in Time Past

"Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past."

TS Eliot

Eliot is, I think, one of the greatest of poets, and as my own eye is distracted by ever more intractable problems in our political process, I have often taken comfort in the more nuanced and universal eye of a truly great poet.

This blog eschews detailed futurology, the present is difficult enough, and the future in detail cannot be accurately predicted. Yet there are ways we can think about the future. We can identify trends, we can make general statements, and as humans, most of all, we can use our imagination to shape the future.

Neither is this blog particularly relativist. There are some universal truths, and saying "it ain't so" does not change them. We can use the scientific method to establish facts about our existence. No matter how powerfully contrary opinions may be expressed, the facts remain supported by analysis and evidence, when mere supposition is not. More to the point the same, Socratic, method can establish worth for a variety of different concepts. We can establish the likelihood of achieving desired goals, and we can set relative values on those goals.

Objectively the world is not the mess of popular imagination.  At no point in human history have we lived longer, more peacefully, or more prosperously. In general, we have been spared the pestilence and famine that has afflicted all previous generations. Even the crises that afflict our discourse: in the middle east for example, the level of violence- cruel as it may be- is pretty low by historic standards. We know more, travel more, see more, than we have ever known. We share each others cuisines', languages' and indeed countries' in ways that would astound people even two generations past.

Yet we do see, despite this unprecedented wealth, that there is one area which is weaker than the past: our leaders. Faith in democratic institutions is falling, and national leaders are generally assumed to be incompetent and/or corrupt.  In a sense the emergence of the crooked braggart, Donald John Trump, as the leader of the worlds most powerful state is a symbolic symptom of a wider democratic retreat. But the root cause is a failure to recognize some universal truths. Responsible politics must rest on Socratic virtues like wisdom, temperance, courage and justice,.However, the political brands are marketed like soap powder. Instead of talking about establishing key principles for how difficult government decisions should be made, we turn political debate into a choice of which incomplete and ill thought out policies should be imposed, regardless of changing times, as parties seek to offer bribes to the electorate. We talk about "tough choices" without justifying them.

Yet the electorate is wise to this process, and the gathering disillusion has led to a dismissive "you're all the same", a statement that could hardly be more corrosive of democracy in general. Under such circumstances the voters turn to people who are demonstrably different- be that shyster American real estate celebrities or thuggish Brazilian neo-Fascists.

Meanwhile those who have espoused conventional politics, such as Angela Merkel, seem lacklustre or clumsy. A new broom in politics is called for. Yet the deep fear is that we are in a time that mirrors the 1930s, where violent and criminal leaders overthrew democracy.

It could indeed be so. I took the nom-de-blog of Cicero because I feared that I was living in a time of collapse, similar to that of the late Roman Republic. I still have that fear, but equally, and like Cicero himself, I believe that there are political solutions that can maintain freedom and wise, temperate and fair societies.

However in order to do this, we must relearn some lessons. 

The first is to recognize that we have failed to express the higher goals of our society. We offered transactional policies, and when the bargain failed, we alienated the voters.  People tell me that political messages need to be simple, and certainly when one listens to opinion polls that show many people still believe things that have been comprehensively disproved you do begin to despair a little. Yet dumbing-down has not improved the clarity of the debate, indeed in many cases it actually insults the intelligence of the electorate.  Expressing well thought-out ideas should not alienate, even if not all understand them: they may still give you marks for intelligence.

The second is to relearn the virtues of moderation. There are ideas in every platform that have validity, and instead of belittling and attacking all ideas of our political opponents, we should engage and critique. If we know our own principles, we can accept policies that support those principles, while at the same time being coherent in our own world view.

The third is to express and to follow a moral course.  It is the cynicism and self serving nature of politics that puts off most people. We need to praise those who serve the public good, as well as attacking those we oppose.

These are high principles, but as we examine the history of ideas, we see again and again that divisiveness is best fought with the counter-intuitive ideas of inclusion and collaboration, provided- of course- that we do not compromise on principles, especially the Socratic virtues.

We live in a time of fear. Our systems and leaders weakened, with the growing possibility of economic and social breakdown and even war- a war likely to involve a nuclear exchange.  Yet this does not have to be a parallel to 1930s collapse.  We have the ideas to solve our problems: ecological, social and political. 

The question is can we, individually and collectively make moral choices to change things for the better? 

Comments

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'...