The Politics of the self

For the purposes of this text let me presume a ‘good’ person is someone who strives to do positive and perhaps ethically correct things in perhaps an altruistic manner. Of course no one is entirely selfless but let’s for one minute presume it was possible. On the other hand, let us in equal measure presume a ‘bad’ person is someone who thinks only of themselves and goes through life in the pursuit of their own happiness without hint of conscience or social outcome. Even as a child of 7 I was aware I harboured a sense of what was good and aimed to act good at all times. Like a stamp of chivalry. I had a code of conduct that influences my life choices to this day. A clear recognition of what is good and bad to me of course. I couldn’t cheat. Jump queues. To some I must have appeared a wimp an alien but all the same I was no pacifist and not scared to put up my dukes when needed. Although my parents surely set this in motion I am not entirely sure all my moral sense came from my parents alone. In fact I often feel it was encoded into me somehow. Difficult for someone to explain as an atheist. This brought me to the next question — Are we not all the same? If we are, then explain why it is politicians largely seem deficient in this area and why is it the good ones get killed and the really bad ones proliferate and succeed with relatively little friction. What is even worse they use ‘incidents’ that have occur as a further excuse to pull up the moat bridge and reinforce the walls and as a consequence be less answerable to the crowd.

It got me thinking that perhaps we live in the era of the bastard. For that reason I have never truly been able to understand the WHY in world politics. WHY do we go to war? WHY did we have slaves? WHY did the Nazi’s seek to exterminate ‘undesirables’. On reflection I think part of me went to university in pursuit of an answer to this question that binds all human societies. But on the contrary, as is often the case, the more knowledgeable I became about history and it’s abridged highlights — the more tools I learned to improve my interpretive facility — the more distant and illusive the answers became.

Bad, all bad I tell you

Is it me then or do politicians seem to be overwhelmingly be ‘bad’ when using my definition? Or are they genuinely representing the questionable values of the people they represent. So if good is defined as above and yes it is a simple definition but is it not a laudable one to aim for? Should it not be what we should at least aim to achieve. Perhaps an evolutionary step for humanity. On the contrary politician seem ‘bad’ in many ways and not just one area or facility. Maybe they are not bad enough to pilfer from your home now but maybe, just maybe, if they lost their means to wealth, or circumstances were right, they are more than capable of pilfering with no guilt of conscience. As a result surely politics must change! Is it not wrong that ‘bad’ people continually rise to the top in society? We seem to live in a law of the jungle and should we not work harder to create a more sustainable country in more unified world.

Let us look at an example I really don’t think what Blair and Bush did is cool or is in evidence of some superior intellect at work. I do not see this as an example of 'good' leadership. The same way I don’t think the 172 Labour MPs have behaved in a good way by acting our some predictable Shakespearean tragedy against their elected leader Jeremy Corbyn. But in the same breath we have many people exclaiming that Jeremy Corbyn who has behaved rather impeccably is ‘un-electable’. Now maybe they are right. Maybe the country wants to continually vote for the inept and the immoral but this is not Corbyn’s or the Labour Party’s problem. It is surely British politics and the public that is wrong. It would seem that he is by far the most ‘good’ leader in any party and furthermore they would admit that. So why keep beating him with sticks? Why bully? Perhaps we need Corbyn and he needs to show us that we can be more. He certainly seems better than I. How easily I could do time if confronted by his opposite number Owen Smith. I wonder if what people in the UK perceive to be ‘leadership’ is a faded memory of an old primary school headmaster with a cane called Mr Motivator. It seems to me, that time and time again in fact every time I hear that someone is not a ‘Good’ leader it is because they are not, ‘Bad’ enough. Really ? Is this the extent of our ambition?

The one-seven-two

So where does that leave contemporary politicians? For me the 172 MPs who have risen up against Corbyn have proven the extent of their narcissism, detachment, immorality and has to be said a complete lack of political intelligence. I don’t know if this is learned in the Westminster bubble or a trait they have harboured all their lives but they and their supporters seem somehow dysfunctional. To me it appears they are incapable of visualising a world outside of themselves. Outside of a bubble. That includes their supporters and flag wavers. Can they even interact with their families I wonder? Perhaps I agree with some psychologist commentators that politicians need psychiatric support. Could be true? It’s almost as if they take the Cartesian quote of "Cogito ergo sum" - I think therefore I am - a step too far and believe only they exist and everything outside is a puppet in their own personal game.

self proliferation

Throughout human history what we see is successive governments and leaders that are rarely ‘good’. In fact in most cultures seldom do we see good people rise to the levels that bad people do and think in 2016 this needs to be fully explained. I am not religious but it is a safe bet there was a guy called Jesus Christ and if he was alive today I still think he would be crucified, side-lined or belittled for fear of what he represented to those who seek their own interest. It at least appears that every good person always has to suffer more persecution than the bad. And although we don’t nail people to a cross and hang them out to dry in 2016 they certainly get crucified by the media and in their careers. What ever it is powering this machine — I genuinely hope it’s more than self-interest. I can only presume that to behave in this way and evidence no conscience or regret — even when proven to be bad — is ultimately dysfunctional and deviant in some way.

In conclusion I am still confused. Even at the time of writing I can not clearly focus on why politics is so corrupting. So uncaring and ambivalent. So inhuman. You know, what seems obviously, ‘good’ to me now, could easily change if I was a political leader tomorrow. Is this the problem? Is there something about power that corrupts or is it a skill you need to adopt to survive? Do you know what, regardless of not having the answers, ultimately politics must change and why not make a start in 2016. It may be late in the chronological picture of the human race but there needs to be a ground zero so why not make it now. Do any of us really want to proliferate this sense of poverty and hopelessness for the generations that come after us? Do you really want to pre-ordain your kin to have that feeling of disenfranchisement that the majority of us have felt? Is this the best- we as a species — can do? We can be more but only if we demand it of those who say they represent us.