I think there are definitely cycles inbuilt into political systems, as with any organization. You don't have to be a Marxist to accept that successful systems can have their own doom built into their successful structures. You can of course see this in a variety of historical precedents, such as the decay that seems to characterize most later empires, or the middle income trap that ensnares so many fast growing 'catch up economies - and it remains to be seen if China can escape that particular problem.
One thing, of course about the US and UK in particular, but also Germany and France, is that they've often shown a remarkable ability to rebound after apparent calamities. All those countries have been written off at one time or another, or in the case of Germany, bounced back from a genuine near extinction event. The US and UK systems have shown remarkable resilience for a couple of centuries or more. So I wouldn't write any of them off.
Writing from a small by-standing country, Ireland, some of the problems are also apparent, if not all that dangerous yet. A PM like Leo Varadkar definitely falls into the pattern of a hollow shell politician rising into power without any apparent idea of what to do with that power or how to wield it. But other cannier politicians are around who fall into older molds (for good or ill). The problem with the US and Europe seems to be that the cycle is going one way, but any countervailing forces aren't there. History tells us that when brakes don't apply to failing systems, then they come to a stop the hard way - usually by running into a cliff.
I like your explanation, and find it plausible, of why our current political class is so pathetic compared with earlier generations.
Just one you are talking about Im not so sure: Morality. In my country, Germany, we have these two top-dogs of the Green Party in the current government, Baerbock and Habeck, and both of them, far as I can see, are highly moralistic. Baerbock, our foreign minister, is so ridden by her morals that she is spitting in the faces of Russia, China, and Iran at the same time. I would really, really prefer politicians at that level to be a lot more cynical and pragmatic. The moral aspect of politics here seems to have gone down to the kindergarten-level of "China is evil, thus I have to say aloud that China is evil."
Moralistic: characterized by or expressive of a concern with morality
Moral: conforming to a standard of right behavior
So yes, Baerbock & co are moralistic. But moral? Definitely not. A Green party that was voted in on a green platform that pushes for policies that are guaranteed to increase use of coal, that are in favour of increased war and that put the needs of the global hegemon above the needs of their own citizens is definitely not moral. They use "morality" as a shield, as a fig leaf.
In fact, they are excellent example of all that Aurelien was speaking about (though with even less intelligence and life experience than the average).
Good essay with which I have much agreement or at least can see Aurelien's argument.
One point I have an interest in. Aurelien says that he believes Margret Thatcher destroyed the Tory party. I worshiped Margret Thatcher from the moment she won the leadership contest and supported her 100% through her first 2 governments. Yes she made a few mistakes, but I still believe she was the right person at the right time to prevent the UK from chaos and marxist Leninist Union driven collapse.
Where does Aurelien expound on WHY he believes Thatcher destroyed the Tory party? I would be interested to see that thesis.
I don't know if the problem is less acute in countries that retained local traditions, but what is staggering to me is the speed at which these local traditions have been swept away. At least in United States, localism was bedrock of all politics--making deals in service of local interests was how everything got done, even big policy changes on national scale. Now, nothing is really local in American politics, except "local" politics which is usually indescribably corrupt. But this turn to "nationalized" politics has made good national policymaking far harder because nobody is willing to cut deals any more.
The following is excerpted from James Madison's speech at the Virginia (Constitutional) Ratifying Convention. Something relatively rarely read these days (certainly compared to Federalist #10, which, superficially, delivers the opposite message )
"But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them."
I think, personally, this complements Federalist #10: we may not be able to rely on good people when there are bad institutions--because people are not "naturally good"--but to imagine that a theoretical form of government, facing bad leaders and indifferent public's, can be of any use, is moronic. We may not get angels running government, but we, as publics, can't become stupid enough to let the virtueless rule, or we deserve all the vile consequences coming our way.
One might say that the great majority of "liberal" politicians DO have a constituency they support over all others, namely a [family blog] little country in the Middle East. Watching from afar, I find it amazing how the majority of your politicians consistently bow down, kiss the brass ring, and swear undying fealty to this polity while denigrating and impoverishing their own people. Seems that those who step even a little outside allowed bounds lose position, reputation and even life. Is it possible that those who enforce this imperative, and provide the (colossal) funding which drives it, cannot permit the locals to have a voice? Might such "meddling" be a factor in the general decay of politics in the West?
Some more than trivial typos in the final paragraph.
Politics is downstream from culture. Culture is downstream from religion. Religion is downstream from yearning for unity and freedom. Yearning for unity and freedom is downstream from noble parenting and equal love for all.
Wars of any kind are won at the operational and especially strategic levels, not the tactical level. One thinks something is wrong in society, politics, economy? One moves to make their house and heart clean.
I think there are definitely cycles inbuilt into political systems, as with any organization. You don't have to be a Marxist to accept that successful systems can have their own doom built into their successful structures. You can of course see this in a variety of historical precedents, such as the decay that seems to characterize most later empires, or the middle income trap that ensnares so many fast growing 'catch up economies - and it remains to be seen if China can escape that particular problem.
One thing, of course about the US and UK in particular, but also Germany and France, is that they've often shown a remarkable ability to rebound after apparent calamities. All those countries have been written off at one time or another, or in the case of Germany, bounced back from a genuine near extinction event. The US and UK systems have shown remarkable resilience for a couple of centuries or more. So I wouldn't write any of them off.
Writing from a small by-standing country, Ireland, some of the problems are also apparent, if not all that dangerous yet. A PM like Leo Varadkar definitely falls into the pattern of a hollow shell politician rising into power without any apparent idea of what to do with that power or how to wield it. But other cannier politicians are around who fall into older molds (for good or ill). The problem with the US and Europe seems to be that the cycle is going one way, but any countervailing forces aren't there. History tells us that when brakes don't apply to failing systems, then they come to a stop the hard way - usually by running into a cliff.
what rough beast, its' time come at last, slouches towards Bethlehem, waiting to be born?
I like your explanation, and find it plausible, of why our current political class is so pathetic compared with earlier generations.
Just one you are talking about Im not so sure: Morality. In my country, Germany, we have these two top-dogs of the Green Party in the current government, Baerbock and Habeck, and both of them, far as I can see, are highly moralistic. Baerbock, our foreign minister, is so ridden by her morals that she is spitting in the faces of Russia, China, and Iran at the same time. I would really, really prefer politicians at that level to be a lot more cynical and pragmatic. The moral aspect of politics here seems to have gone down to the kindergarten-level of "China is evil, thus I have to say aloud that China is evil."
From the dictionary:
Moralistic: characterized by or expressive of a concern with morality
Moral: conforming to a standard of right behavior
So yes, Baerbock & co are moralistic. But moral? Definitely not. A Green party that was voted in on a green platform that pushes for policies that are guaranteed to increase use of coal, that are in favour of increased war and that put the needs of the global hegemon above the needs of their own citizens is definitely not moral. They use "morality" as a shield, as a fig leaf.
In fact, they are excellent example of all that Aurelien was speaking about (though with even less intelligence and life experience than the average).
Yes, I'd rather say that Baerbock et co are hypocrites, about as far from being moral, decent human beings as one can get.
Oh, very well, then....
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/10/sunak-has-been-set-up-to-fail-and-the-likelihood-is-that-he-will.html
Adam Tooze has his commentary. Mine is that we have reached the "open looting of anything not nailed down" stage of British decline.
It all depends on what the police and armed forces will decide to do.
Good essay with which I have much agreement or at least can see Aurelien's argument.
One point I have an interest in. Aurelien says that he believes Margret Thatcher destroyed the Tory party. I worshiped Margret Thatcher from the moment she won the leadership contest and supported her 100% through her first 2 governments. Yes she made a few mistakes, but I still believe she was the right person at the right time to prevent the UK from chaos and marxist Leninist Union driven collapse.
Where does Aurelien expound on WHY he believes Thatcher destroyed the Tory party? I would be interested to see that thesis.
I don't know if the problem is less acute in countries that retained local traditions, but what is staggering to me is the speed at which these local traditions have been swept away. At least in United States, localism was bedrock of all politics--making deals in service of local interests was how everything got done, even big policy changes on national scale. Now, nothing is really local in American politics, except "local" politics which is usually indescribably corrupt. But this turn to "nationalized" politics has made good national policymaking far harder because nobody is willing to cut deals any more.
The following is excerpted from James Madison's speech at the Virginia (Constitutional) Ratifying Convention. Something relatively rarely read these days (certainly compared to Federalist #10, which, superficially, delivers the opposite message )
"But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them."
I think, personally, this complements Federalist #10: we may not be able to rely on good people when there are bad institutions--because people are not "naturally good"--but to imagine that a theoretical form of government, facing bad leaders and indifferent public's, can be of any use, is moronic. We may not get angels running government, but we, as publics, can't become stupid enough to let the virtueless rule, or we deserve all the vile consequences coming our way.
One might say that the great majority of "liberal" politicians DO have a constituency they support over all others, namely a [family blog] little country in the Middle East. Watching from afar, I find it amazing how the majority of your politicians consistently bow down, kiss the brass ring, and swear undying fealty to this polity while denigrating and impoverishing their own people. Seems that those who step even a little outside allowed bounds lose position, reputation and even life. Is it possible that those who enforce this imperative, and provide the (colossal) funding which drives it, cannot permit the locals to have a voice? Might such "meddling" be a factor in the general decay of politics in the West?
Burns wrote a poem about a similar situation.
"What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain;
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane -
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation."
Sad state of affairs.
Ishmael Zechariah
"
Some more than trivial typos in the final paragraph.
Politics is downstream from culture. Culture is downstream from religion. Religion is downstream from yearning for unity and freedom. Yearning for unity and freedom is downstream from noble parenting and equal love for all.
Wars of any kind are won at the operational and especially strategic levels, not the tactical level. One thinks something is wrong in society, politics, economy? One moves to make their house and heart clean.