Compassion Separates Rational Liberals From Populist Libertarians

For those driven to despair by the rise of Brexit Johnson (or Trump or any of the other right wing demagogues), "How to Beat a Populist" promises some relief. We know that the populist, libertarian message is emotional, nationalistic, angry, false and divisive. We know that rational argument seems a waste of time and we shouldn't allow ourselves to "get dragged down to their level", but with the populists dominating the political scene it's hard to know what else to actually do.

Enter Larry Diamond, from Stanford University, jangling a bunch of keys that might just unlock a more rational future.  Here's a flavour of what to Do:

• Pursue an inclusive strategy - connect with the doubters among the populist support base
• Appeal to their interests and positive values
• Stick to liberal principles and behaviour
• Show humility, empathy - even love - understand why they answered the siren song of illiberal populism, and what positive, unifying messages or policies would address those anxieties
• Focus on positive, practical, evidence/issues-based policies that expose/exploit the populist's failings and vulnerabilities
• Offer a liberal, democratic vision for unifying pride in the country (patriotism, not nationalism)
• Offer hope and excitement for an optimistic vision of a better future 
• Find lively and creative ways to communicate a message of hope, inspiration, and concrete policy alternatives with passion and conviction. 

Here's a flavour of what to avoid:

• writing off anyone who voted for the populist as or "deplorable” 
• questioning the morals or motives of populist sympathizers
• tit-for-tat 'slugfests'
• the muck of ridicule, invective or verbal abuse.  
• ideological or 'radical' policy proposals 
• looking backwards
• being boring
• falsehood. 

Overall, the message I'm getting is to be compassionate. At the end of the day, everyone is let down by a populist leader. Some were duped into believing, some knowingly believed and others never  believed and even vigorously opposed, but it's kind of irrelevant to the future - the "Now What?"  We are all victims, and we must club together to dig our way out of the populist hole.

Labour's Idealistic March Into Oblivion

So, another political 'party' season slips by and the casual observer would think the Tories' policies must be more or less the right. There are no practical alternatives for anyone interested in the decisions actually required to drag the UK back from the abyss into which it's been staring for decades. Fortunately, that seems to be the majority of voters - the electorate finally understands that the UK reached the limit of taxing and spending sometime in the noughties and it's the Government's job to figure out how to do less of both.

Sadly, the Labour Party is giving up on such tough decisions, preferring the cosy bubble of idealism in which the air is a mixture of moral panic and dogma, and the 'answer' must fit on a placard. 

For instance, this week's 'news' that a single grammar school in Kent is expanding is said to threaten the quality of teaching at every school in the country, and Labour's 'solution' is that all children must go to state school. 

Trident costs too much? Unilateral disarmament. 

Steel plants to close through lack of demand for British steel? Nationalise them.

A living wage? Tax credits.

Unhelpful, impracticable, unrealistic, vacuous, dogmatic twaddle.

And since Liberal Democrat voters decided they, too, are sick of their party having to make the hard decisions, we are left with the Tories having to be their own conscience...  and do all the work.  

Let's hope they get it right - and remember, every country has the government it deserves.

Another Hung Parliament, Please

With the UK general election looming in May, I thought I'd declare my apolitical hand: I'm hoping for another 'hung' Parliament and a coalition government.

I've been a fan of the idea since the opportunity presented itself in the last general election. I think the beast has worked pretty well for the pragmatic amongst us, and is well suited to dealing with the nasty challenges ahead. As I hoped in April 2010, politicians on both sides of the coalition have had to behave much more reasonably and responsibly in seeking solutions to the root causes of our problems than their party-political dogma would have otherwise dictated. This has spiked the guns of an extremely dogmatic opposition. And even the media's doom-mongering about instability and chaos has proved groundless. Sure there have been U-turns and major disagreements between the coalition parties, but the democratic progress should be dynamic, open and messy - not engineered, top-down, by a party leader with a Whip.

The same form of government is needed over the next five years because the long journey out of the tunnel has barely begun. That light up ahead is not looming economic recovery, it's an on-coming train laden with vast public sector debt, slowing Chinese growth, savagely low oil prices that might rebound higher than before, the Russian Problem, insanity in Greece, negative real interest rates and a stagnant Eurozone. Oh, and a new global financial crisis, as Hank Paulson infamously forecast in 2010:

"...We'll have another financial crisis sometime in the next 10 years because we always do.""

The public finances are still in a parlous state. So all the UK political parties face the need to cut public spending, whether they like it or not. Raising expenditure is out of the question, because it would mean borrowing more - and higher taxes won't bring in any more money. The total UK tax receipts have hovered at or below 40% of GDP for over 40 years. We're bumping along the ceiling, people! Raise taxes, the economy grinds to a halt and the best you'll get is 40% of a smaller pie. Cut taxes to around 35% of GDP,  the economy roars into life and you get a smaller slice, but of a much bigger pie.

But, hey, if you think the UK should drift into the next financial crisis with even higher debt and taxes, why not simply move to Greece?

What's left to cut? There's no end to it: we need our politicians and civil servants to remain focused on making the public sector more efficient, by removing waste and insisting that services be designed to operate more efficiently in future, particularly in the major spending areas. The defence budget, for example, is a rounding error on a more efficient tax and benefits system and a leaner, better co-ordinated public health and social care sector (20% of hospital beds are occupied by people who aren't even sick!). Money could also be saved by addressing root causes instead of their many symptoms. For instance, would more social housing have helped ease the pressure on first-time buyers, avoiding government subsidies to them and pre-empted the policy battle over immigration levels? Similarly, we must continue financial reforms to increase the sources of funding and the range of payment services for consumers and small businesses (who create half of all new jobs) because the economy is still too dependent on a few major banking groups who remain a millstone around the country's neck.

Some people will say this is dry, boring and unimaginative. But if you want entertainment, head to the movies. 

Others want something to believe in. For instance, they accuse David Cameron of lacking political ideology or a 'pattern of belief', an '-ism'. Yet they claim that his "legacy will be a collection of tactical manoeuvres, with as many prominent surrenders as victories." Apparently these people have never heard of pragmatism. But they've also unwittingly hit on the benefit of the hung Parliament in restraining coalition parties from implementing their more extreme policies. By contrast, the 'believers' expect us to cling to the idea that Ed Miliband is "in politics for the right reason" (just the one?) or "propelled by something more noble than the salvation of his own skin", which you could choose to mean anything that gets you through the day. But beware words like 'right' and 'noble'. They are the cloaks of dogma and moral panic - rallying cries for the likes of Tony Bliar's weird crusade or Gordo's crash, in which Miliband (and Balls) played key roles - not to mention the ballooning cost of the Security State. So, actually, if we believe anything in this vein, then it's surely that such 'noble' ambitions make Labour governments the kind of luxury that only a much wealthier country could afford. 

But, who knows, maybe being trapped in a coalition would even convert Ed to pragmatism.

Whichever way you look at it, we need a government that's forced to focus on resolving the root causes of society's actual problems - not one driven to distort the facts to suit its own dogmatic solutions. And my sense is that only another hung Parliament will ensure we get it.

Will This Book Stop The Dogmatists Waving Their Fallacies Around?

As one who loathes the use of party-political dogma to muddy the waters of sensible debate, I was delighted to read Tim Worstall's list of the top "20 Economics Fallacies" that political types wave around to justify some of their weirder ideas, and exactly why they're false. Maybe this book will help focus debate on the real issues.

At any rate, with the next general election less than a year away, you'd do well to keep a copy by the armchair to guide you through the evening's political interviews. So long as you can resist the urge to throw it at the screen.

What Happened To 'Class A' Political Journalism?

My appetite whetted by this week's local electoral melodrama, I've been searching for some Class A political journalism to feed my lust for pragmatism. 

There were little flashes of it from a few of the TV people. Michael Crick, who blew the lid off the Andrew Mitchell stitch-up, was rude as hell to Farrago, no doubt furious at having stuck to him like a leech in the hope of discovering anything coherent and coming up empty-handed. That left the usually mild-mannered Gary Gibbon to go after the rest of the gang. Desperation set in after the AutomEtonian responded to every single question with the line that this week was simply about local councils. He genuinely seemed to forget he was the Prime Minister, and I guess it's easy to see why. This seemed to put Gary in such a foul mood that he went after Flash Nick and Millibore like a mortar crew on speed. Each prevarication was interrupted with a fresh round down the tube, and another explosion of disbelief at the factually-twisted response. 

The only problem with the Gibbon assault was the apparent premise of the questions on capital spending: that it's the job of the state to fill every hole in the infrastructural landscape. Creating a whole new mountain range out of UK public debt is strange medicine indeed, whatever the cause. Ironically, Flash Nick went closest to a straight response, saying that while they'd barely invested a bean of new public money, the coalition has done a great job of attracting private capital to public projects. If that's true, then let's hope they've overcome the planning fallacy, and the PFI vultures leave a little flesh on the state carcass for the rest of us. 

As for Ed, well... 

In the end, the howling in my soul could only be quieted by re-reading "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72". Forty years on, nothing has changed. The vicious wheels of the party political machines are still flattening the best interests of the citizens into the road in the rush for power and patronage, and Thompson's substance-fuelled take on the political animal is so brutally right that the recognition will make you laugh like a hyena. This, for example, could have been written today:

"This also reinforced my contempt for the waterheads who ran Big Ed's campaign like a gang of junkies trying to send a rocket to the moon to check out rumours that the craters were full of smack."

Now why doesn't anyone write about politics like that anymore?

Is it merely because today's journalists are sober, or have they abandoned hope that we can produce anything different to the current stage-managed pantomime?

Thatcher Failed To Make It Personal

Whether you loved or loathed her, you have to be impressed that 23 years after she was hunted out of office Margaret Thatcher's funeral is as divisive as a Poll Tax riot.

Clearly Britain has failed to 'move on' from the Thatcher years, which suggests to me that the work she started was on the right track but is seriously incomplete. I mean, if her policies had been just plain wrong-headed or disastrous, Britain would have dropped them like hot coals - or the notion of 'light touch' banking regulation. Instead, we're still trying to balance Thatcher's blast of economic reality with its personal and social impact.

Whatever your politics, it's clear from all the recent commentary that Thatcher was focused solely on improving the way the failing British economy 'works'. She spent her energy arguing relentlessly with people about the nature of the problems, their causes and the improvements that should be made to resolve them. The resulting policies obviously appeared 'right wing', but this was largely by comparison with the dogmatic lunacy espoused by the economic lemmings in charge of the Labour Party and trade unions at the time. Their policies seemed predicated on the private sector operating as a charity for the public sector, rather than economic sustainability. Thatcher's opponents were not arguing either on the same rational terms or with the same rigour. Her disciplined approach ruthlessly exposed dogma, from both left and right, and homed in on the most feasible economic solution. Then she rammed it home...

While Britain's reward was increased productivity and employment, far too many of its people were ill-equipped to cope with this fairly brutal brand of politics. Thatcher is infamous for the quote that "there's no such thing as society" which is often unfairly given without the qualification she gave it. But even the full quote reveals a serious flaw in her approach:

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."  Women's Own, 1987.

Thatcher's words "and then" raise the issue of when, which we naturally interpret as 'when we have enough for ourselves'. But enough is never enough. Our society is obsessed with personal rights and entitlements, rather than the duties and obligations which must be performed if those entitlements are to be delivered. After all, who ultimately bears the responsibility for delivering everyone's rights and entitlements if not each of us personally? Thatcher was right to the extent that the state cannot perform our personal obligations for us - ultimately, it can only act as a facilitator for our own endeavours - but it was a mistake to assume that society would automatically benefit if each of us looked after ourselves as a first step. Perhaps this was as much a flawed belief in the 'efficient markets hypothesis' as that of Alan Greenspan (and Gordon Brown) a decade later.

At any rate, we are now faced with the fact that, in Thatcher's own terms, we are not looking after a fairly large number of our neighbours. While it's worth noting that Thatcher's governments produced consumer-oriented legislation such as the first Data Protection Act (1984), the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act (1985) and the Consumer Protection Act (1987), it took British society several more decades to establish even a basic sense of 'customer service', and most of the UK's institutions are still not designed around the 'customer'.

In my view, we will continue to struggle with significant social imbalances until we grasp the idea that society and the economy only 'work' if each of us - whether acting as individuals or employees of corporations or the public sector - acts in ways that are sustainable for both ourselves and society at the same time. It's not a matter of looking after ourselves first "and then" our neighbours, as an afterthought. Our activities have to be aligned to be sustainable. And only by focusing on our duties and obligations to everyone else will we secure our own rights and entitlements. That is the fundamental concept behind what I would call “the Personal State”. It's time we built it.

Image from DelhiNewsRecord.

LSE Gets It: More Pragmatism, Less Politics

Having recently made the same point, I'm encouraged to see the London School of Economics setting out in detail some of the ways in which the UK could benefit if pragmatic political consensus were to replace party-political dogma. 

However, it would be wrong to think that this approach is only needed in the areas of education, infrastructure and innovation, on which the LSE's report focuses in particular. It's a general shift in attitude that is required in every aspect of our lives. 

This doesn't simply mean that politicians and civil servants should adopt a different top-down attitude. It means inverting the institutional narrative altogether. Politicians and the public sector must adopt a pragmatic, bottom-up view of what works and what does not work at the individual level, for the common good. The public sector must monitor and disclose publicly whether - and, if so, how - its activities, regulations and incentives distort all kinds of local and national markets in favour of private and public sector institutions, thereby constraining innovation and competition. Critically, this extends to the wasteful way in which the public sector purchases its own goods and services.

In practical terms, that shift in attitude requires the civil service and politicians to focus on obtaining data, defining problems, measuring their scale, analysing root causes and implementing lasting solutions. After all, hard choices are easier for more people to accept when they can be shown to be driven by harsh reality rather than party political dogma.

While, fortunately, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that this change is already underway as part of longer term trends discussed on this blog, the voices of institutions like the LSE are critical to those trends becoming mainstream behaviour sooner.  Let's hope similar reports follow from others shortly.

Pragmatism Grows At Night

In "India Grows at Night" the writer and commentator Gurcharan Das shares his insights into how India's growing, pragmatic middle class can achieve the country's necessary political and economic reforms. While inspired by Das's presence in Tahrir Square two years ago, these insights also resonate with the plight of Western democracies whose growth is inhibited by extractive private and public sector institutions.

The title of the book comes from Das's belief that India's knowledge economy powered her economic growth because: 

"Bureaucrats did not know how to regulate it and could not choke it with red tape, in the way they stifled India's industrial revolution through licences, permits and inspectors... India's knowledge economy literally grew at night while the government slept."

But India's problems are not over. Das explains that the "puzzle is... how can a vibrant democracy with a rising economy and an energetic civil society have allowed the state and governance to decay"?  He then describes the evolution of the Indian state from before British rule until today, tracing the tensions between social and official structures, and the shortcomings of the political system and key market failures.

Despite different starting points, this 'decay' also awaits Western democracies who have not been alert to the need for ongoing political and economic reforms. There's an ominous familiarity, for instance, in the complaint that the Indian state is preoccupied with the quantity of schools and other public services rather than their quality - "which is what really drives shared prosperity." The problems in our financial system are well rehearsed.

Das's description of the reasons for India's institutional decay is also echoed in Phillip Blond's explanation of the 'political bankruptcy' in Western countries. I understand them both to be saying that right wing policies allow the concentration of wealth amongst relatively few extractive institutions and their management and investors, rather than creating an environment in which widespread entrepreneurship can flourish. Meanwhile, left wing policies that are designed to 'redistribute' income through taxation and public spending are grossly inefficient by comparison to markets. The self-interest of partisan politics has gone too far, and legislators have no real commitment to the common good. Electoral battles fought along social and cultural lines distract everyone from critical long term issues, as well as being dangerously divisive. As a result, we lack appropriate regulatory frameworks and incentives to address market problems that stifle innovation and competition. Not only does institutional decay reflect the bankruptcy of dogma-ridden political parties, but as that decay constrains growth the economy itself drifts into liquidation.

Das argues that successful reforms will only be achieved through more active political participation by the members of the rising middle class, since they are the most conscious of the problems and the most impatient for the necessary reforms. He argues that the intransigence of existing Indian political parties creates the need for an entirely new, 'bottom-up', liberal political party. Das explains that this is a 'classical' rather than a 'social' liberalism - tolerant on social and cultural matters, yet wary of state intervention where the private sector and the market can be more effective.

This also seems to reflect the "renewed political idealism" and "participative democracy" for which Phillip Blond argues. 

In UK terms, this would seems to place Das's vision for a 'liberal party' somewhere between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. And it seems quite telling that UK voters have forced those two political parties into coalition.

However, I disagree that the formation of a new political party or even a new political idealism is a necessary pre-condition for achieving political and economic reform.

As discussed in Lipstick On a Pig, the bottom-up approach that Das refers to has already been unleashed, largely enabled by the Internet's 'architecture of participation'. The 'Arab Spring' and developments in sub-Saharan Africa emphasise both the global nature of this phenomenon and its effective political impact. This process of 'democratisation' requires no more structure than the social media and a city square, and its power lies in the fact that it isn't confined to politics or economics. Greater transparency, knowledge and reform in one area creates the desire for change elsewhere. The result is both seismic and chaotic, yet significant reform is bound to be 'messy', not orderly and neat. As a result, I've suggested we're seeing the evolution of a "personal state" in which we're acting pragmatically as individuals in a highly collaborative fashion through the services of facilitators, rather than passively relying on our institutions to set the pace of reform.

New political parties and ideals might well emerge in this environment, but they will be a symptom of reforms achieved by each of us acting personally, not the cause.   

The Personal State

This decade is not going well for Britain’s institutions. The 2010 election did not magically restore our faith in a scandal-ridden Parliament. Bail-outs failed to improve the conduct of UK banks. Our public sector finances are in an appalling state. And as more sunlight has revealed the self-serving conduct of our mountainous bureaucracies, the gradual melting of our trust in them has become an avalanche. We want to know how rotten our institutions really are. More importantly, however, we want new models that work. 

As explained in “Lipstick On a Pig”, this plunge in faith in our institutions coincides with trends that are democratising the means of producing goods and services. Using digital technology we are personalising the one-size-fits-all experience traditionally offered by the likes of record labels, publishers, retailers, banks and political parties, and manufacturing our own physical products using desktop industrial machines. Rather than merely accepting what is ordained from the top down, both individually and as members of the ‘crowd’ we are shaping products, markets and political policies to solve the problems we encounter in our day-to-day activities. 

This process of ‘democratisation’ is being facilitated by organisations that are intently focused on helping us solve those problems. I call these organisations ‘facilitators’ to distinguish them from ‘institutions’, which exist to solve their own problems at our expense. The characteristics that I believe mark an organisation as being either a facilitator or an institution fall within broader themes of alignment, openness, flexibility, transparency and responsibility. In other words, a 'facilitator' solves its customers’ problems openly, flexibly and transparently, and takes responsibility for the impact of its activities on the wider community and society. 

Why are these features so critical? You might argue, for example, that focusing on ‘creating shareholder value’ or maximising management and staff compensation have proved to be more successful for some organisations than focusing on customers. As Anthony Hilton, Financial Editor of the Evening Standard, once said, “The City has done very well over the past 50 years dreaming up any old product and shoving it down peoples' throats.” 

But if that’s such a successful strategy, why are those City firms suddenly the subject of scandal after scandal and fine after fine for mis-selling and other misconduct? Why aren’t they able to recover quickly from their mistakes and move on? Why is Parliament labouring over new banking and financial services legislation? Why are people taking to the streets in protest? 

Because these firms are not 'facilitators'. 

In “Lipstick on a Pig” I explored the distinction between facilitators and institutions in the context of financial services, which then marked the latest consumer frontier. That sector also provides a great illustration of how organisations that produce complex products with hidden fees that their own staff can neither explain nor justify to customers become hooked on revenue and profits that disappear when the regulators finally wake up. How clubbing together with competitors leaves the whole club vulnerable to the same event or the consequences of the same mistake. How ignoring complaints and covering up problems leaves an organisation unable to understand the causes of issues it needs to fix. And how, when it finally emerges that the institution is not managed in the interests of the wider community, that community will no longer support it.

Since then, however, the frontier has expanded to confront the public sector and how society works – or doesn’t - as a whole. So I've been focused on the extent to which the public sector shares the same institutional characteristics that afflict our banks, and how facilitators are emerging in that wider context to help people solve their day-to-day problems that are being ignored. 

Whether an organisation is a facilitator or an institution is ultimately a matter of personal judgement for each of its customers. You might consider that a supplier is on the cusp of either category. Some will shift categories over time - although the drift from facilitator to institution appears to be easier than reform the other way. Some may never be reformed. Instead, they will gradually wither away while alternative models grow around them. 

Ultimately, however, the success or failure of our institutions and the facilitators that replace them is down to each of us. We are obsessed with ‘our rights’, but we must also realise that each of us bears responsibility for the wellbeing of everyone else. With our rights come duties and obligations that each of us must perform personally. The state cannot perform these obligations for us. The state can only act as a facilitator for our own endeavour. This is “the Personal State”. 

The Personal State is a simple concept. But it is of course a hugely complex dynamic, fraught with deeply-rooted life and death problems. For it to operate effectively, each of us must act pragmatically - in an informed way, rather than by adopting “uninformed, stupid practice”. That means no longer describing problems in terms of political dogma and propaganda. It means thinking critically and practically to identify and solve real problems. It means praising what works and explaining what doesn’t. It means spending, saving and investing our money in productive ways, and declining state benefits we don’t need. It means finding ways to improve the efficiency and productivity of the public sector to reduce public spending. Of course we must punish the gross mismanagement of our institutions and other violations of public trust. Yet we must also encourage entrepreneurs to engage in survivable trial and error, in order to promote innovation, competition and growth. In short, we must help each other wherever we can. 

Now a state like that would be worthy of some lipstick.

Image from Makeup Artist.

Nude Labour and The Hung Parliament

Hung Parliament

Three Labour Party conferences after the sun set on New Labour, and it must be obvious to everyone that the party's eon in power gave it no insight at all into what might fix the root causes of this country's economic and social problems. So I must henceforth refer to the latest evolution as "Nude Labour".

Not that I'm any great fan of the other parties. As I said in May 2010, a hung Parliament means we have MPs where we want them: "They are not in control. They have little alternative but to listen and respond to our issues bottom-up."

I said "little alternative" because they are very persistent in manufacturing policies designed merely to get themselves elected rather than to actually solve the country's problems. This manufacturing process seems to consist of endless polls amongst 'swinging' voters (the confused but willing) and 'deserters' from the last election, littered with leading questions designed to persuade the victims that the party has the answer to problems created to fit pet policies. At the same time the 'party leadership' must battle the zealots and extremists to avoid appearing like complete lunatics to the rest of us. Oh, and of course they must find ways to disagree with everything the other parties say. And blame other politicians for every error, to encourage the myth that politicians make a difference. 

The recent West Coast railway fiasco is a case in point. The opposition politicians seem obsessed with blaming other politicians, rather than focusing on the deep problems in the way government departments have handled such bidding processes for many years. For instance, Daniel Kahneman refers to a "Planning Fallacy" in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. He points to a 2005 study of worldwide rail projects between 1969 and 1998, in which it was found that 90% over-estimated passenger numbers by an average of 106%, and costs overran by an average of 45%, regardless of the publicity associated with each debacle. Gee, I wonder if it's possible that government tendering processes somehow reward bidders who over-estimate utility, and under-estimate cost?

It would be glorifying political parties to say they are themselves a root cause of problems in the UK. As I said in the context of the Red Book, their internal activities are more or less irrelevant to how any problems actually get solved by the more pragmatic amongst us. Witness the Labour Left's dogmatic approach to the reform of the NHS or social housing. And Ed Ball's astonishing rabbit-out-of-a-hat idea to blow the revenue from a 4G licence licence auction on affordable homes merely served to distract conference delegates from Labour's terrible record on actually building them. For the rest of us, his proposed magic trick eerily echoed Gordon Brown's ultimate destruction of the enormous 3G windfall. Hey, let's never forget that Balls was an economic adviser to Brown and staunch ally to the bitter end, and Ed Milliband was Brown's special advisor from 1997 to 2002. None of those people must ever be allowed anywhere  near the nation's coffers ever again.

Alas, not content with showering us with raw waste from two political non-events so far, we must now endure big media's coverage of the Conservative Party's attempt to thrill the faithful with its own recipe for clinging to power. A poor lens through which to view the world, but good fodder for the writers of vitriol. 

Meanwhile, it's down to each of us to find real solutions to the root causes of real problems, charting a pragmatic path through the party-political dogma-doo-doo.

Gen Y: Rise of The Pragmatists

On Wednesday I attended the launch of The Faith of Generation Y by Sylvia Collins-Mayo, Bob Mayo and Sally Nash, which the Daily Telegraph responded to on its front page on Monday.

Bob and Sylvie are friends (well of course, but also friends of mine), so this is a bit of a plug.

But in the course of the co-authors' presentation of some key findings, one of many interesting observations struck me in particular. Bob explained that Generation Y people are not so reactive to organised religion as their elders in Generation X, who tended to have had it forced on them as kids. Instead, Gen Y'ers are just as interested to hear what religion is and what it stands for, as any of the other spiritual messages out there. However, they aren't interested in whether the message represents the 'truth' in some dogmatic sense, but pragmatically whether it 'works'. So you will find a Gen Y person chilling out in a church because it is a chilled, spiritual place to be, rather than because he 'believes'.

Bob says this attitude is also encouraged by Gen X people as parents (and teachers?), who tend to be friends with their kids and tolerant or permissive of independence, critical thought and discussion, rather than more authoritarian or controlling as their own parents' generation tended to be.

I suspect this has at least two broad implications for all of our society's public and private institutions. First, while other research shows there has been a decline to low levels of trust in our institutions, this may be driven by and limited to Gen X'ers, as a result of the previous generations' tendency to trust in or tolerate institutions, regardless of how badly they perform. Secondly, Gen Y may be free of the emotionally reactive element of Gen X's attitude to institutions, but very focused on what those institutions stand for - what they promise - and whether those institutions 'work' or perform accordingly.

So if you thought the internet and Web 2.0 marked a revolution in personalisation, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The Weakness Of Postive Thinking

As an avowed pragmatist, I've been savouring Barbara Ehrenreich's Smile or Die, about the tyranny of positive thinking.

Barbara traces the rise of 'positive thinking' out of the misery of Calvinist soul-searching amongst people deemed non-productive by that religious movement, through 'christian science' to popular psychology and self-help books, to academic psychology and, finally, to major corporations, banks and other institutions, where critical thinkers tend to be ritually sacrificed as having a "negative attitude". Barbara patiently explains why "positive thinking" will not of itself produce a desired outcome, and how it has proved positively harmful to suppress critical thought and to avoid addressing genuine doubt and 'negative' sentiment. She also helpfully points out that 'positive' does not equate to 'good', and 'negative' does not equate to 'bad'.

All of which will seem trite to anyone who hasn't seen Up in the Air, or been subjected to the ramblings of a 'success coach' or 'motivational speaker', like Tony Robbins, or had a colleague earnestly suggest you read "Who Moved My Cheese".

Of course it's helpful to approach life positively. Committing to a particular goal is certainly enormously helpful - if not critical - to achieving it. But it is not determinative of the outcome. Similarly, to imagine or envisage a successful performance in a given scenario will contribute to your confidence when the time for performance arrives, and that should help you perform better. But that's only one factor that contributes to your performance, not the 'cause' of your success.

Otherwise, the world would be governed by repressive dictatorships that command optimism. And Kim Jong-il really would be able to control the weather with his mood.

Instead, we do our best to figure out and cope with all the variables likely to significantly affect a scenario, including all the 'bad things' that might happen, as well as the fact that the world is random and heavily influenced by surprise events, or "Black Swans". Approaching that process proactively and positively is also clearly going to be helpful but, again, not of itself determinative of success.

Ultimately, Barbara questions the effect of positive thinking on 'happiness', and it's easy to see that adherence to positive thinking does not end well - the inevitable result of suppressing and repressing all 'negative' news, thoughts and emotions. Barbara cites the Lehman Brothers top brass, Dick Fuld and Joe Gregory, who may have made plenty of money eschewing analysis and 'going with their guts', but eventually the blew the bank. Joe Stalin, too, was big on 'optimism' and a little hard on 'defeatist' critics and others who didn't 'get with the programme', and doubtless Kim Jong-il constantly curses the 'naysayers' for the under-performance of his 'optimistic' regime.

And let's not forget, among the long list of victims, all the angry and confused positive-thinkers out there who hot-desked, travelled incessantly, ignored their friends and family, slept with their Blackberries and generally drank the corporate Kool-Aid, only to discover they were surplus to requirements.

I hope they don't get fooled again.

Here's Jon Stewart's interview with Barbara on the Daily Show.