Skip to main content

Cultural Austerity: Political Seriousness

In some previous posts, I suggested that the likely effect of the economic downturn might include some significant cultural changes. After the age of excess, I suggested, there might come an age of restraint, and that not of of this would be negative.

To a certain extent the suspension of Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand for making obscene telephone calls on a radio programme is the kind of thing that I meant. I do not particularly like Ross or Brand whose style of humour is pretty coarse at the best of times, but the spectacle of two middle aged men behaving like teenagers seems to have been pretty unedifying to a whole lot of people. Although some sources close to the BBC have suggested that the root of the complaint was "salary envy" at Ross's £18 million package, in many ways the whole idea of such a vast amount of money being paid to anyone seems, well so "last year". Ross's vulgar humour in any event is based on a certain level of cruelty which now seems rather dated and unnecessary.

The tolerance level for the bad behaviour of celebrities seems to be falling fast. Likewise, perhaps the tolerance for boorishness in general. The failure of Little Britain USA to attract Americans seems partly that the ideas behind the series now seem exceptionally tired, but also, perhaps, that Americans are not so eager for the kind of potty humour that La Walliams and Mr. Lucas have made their own. Being offensive is not, in and of itself, actually funny.

As the financial catastrophe brings down the curtain on the age of excess, perhaps the age of restraint may score a few more victories in the kulturkampf . It may even have already changed the political weather in the United States. The blatant insult to the intelligence that is usually the core of Sarah Palin's speeches seems to be going down exceptionally badly with the American voters. Meanwhile the fact that difficult problems- like the credit crisis- require complicated and often only partial answers seems to be accepted by the American people. It seems to be almost certain that the cerebral, even distant, figure of Barack Obama will triumph over a Republican Party that has been lead for eight years by an irresponsible frat boy.

In the UK, the shallow and vacuous figure of George Osborne has inflicted substantial damage on the Conservative brand. In Scotland the glib certainties of Alex Salmond have been revealed a simple nonsense. The age of restraint will favour the serious and the measured over the brash and the easy answer. Whoever can catch this new spirit will find a new connection with the voters, in the same way that it appears that Barack Obama already has.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Yes compared that Political heavyweight Nick Clegg.....Lib Dems on 15% Tories unchanged on
42%. Carry on dreaming Consul.


Lepidus
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

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'...