If I were Rishi Sunak, I would resign immediately. I say this not only because I disapprove of his politics, but out of a selfless devotion to his well-being. Here is a man with billions in the bank who is about to spend the next few years slaving away in a cramped London office trying to resolve problems of breath-taking intractability, only to provoke the hatred of half the nation. Why not take the money and run?
The obvious answer — that he has never shrunk from a challenge, feels a keen sense of responsibility to the country and wishes to serve its people — is the kind of thing that politicians read off autocues. It is like declaring that there are brighter days ahead, that actions speak louder than words, or that we should stop brooding over the past (including what happened 10 days ago) and look to the future. If Sunak could best serve the nation by working as an anonymous official in a dingy back room in Basildon, would he do so? I’m not convinced.
[su_membership_ad]
Our new Prime Minister is in Downing Street chiefly because he is hungry for power, like most of the place’s previous inhabitants. It’s not that Sunak is power-mad, but that power can itself be a form of madness. What sane human being would prefer supervising the decline of an increasingly inconsiderable offshore island to permanently sunbathing in the Cayman Islands? Boris Johnson’s cronies spouted similar guff when they claimed that in withdrawing from the contest he was putting the country before himself. They were talking about our most resplendent example of a Hobbesian man, powered purely by self-interest. Johnson is no more likely to put the nation before himself than he is to glue himself to the M6.
Perhaps Sunak believes that he can unify the country. Almost everyone is in favour of unity, just as almost everyone is in favour of freedom, happiness, nurses, chocolate truffles and Billy Connolly. Nobody casts a vote for the Disunity Party. But one should be wary of what almost everybody approves of. Unity is not a virtue in itself, as the German people learnt to their cost when the Nazis came to power. Plato disapproved of tragedy because it enhanced our sense of the individual’s apartness, thus undermining the cohesion of the state. Unity means trying to weld conflicting interests together — but in whose interests?
There is something fundamentally dishonest about the call to drop your differences and rally around a leader. Either the differences are real, in which case they won’t just disappear; or if they can be dropped as easily as that, they probably weren’t worth much in the first place. It’s not as though one is dealing simply with minor shades of difference. If politics is to be more than a game, it must engage interests which go all the way down, to the point where they form part of one’s identity. And you can’t abandon these just because you’re doing badly in the polls. You can say you do, of course, but that’s different. It’s a matter of biting your tongue, not changing your heart.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="More from this author " author="Terry Eagleton "]https://staging.unherd.com/2022/10/how-powerful-is-liz-truss/[/su_unherd_related]
Behind the idea of discarding your interests overnight lies a particular view of human beings. On this theory, interests are really external to the self. You can shop around among them as in a boutique, trying on one after another. There’s the little red Marxist number, the sky-blue Tory one, the saffron Buddhist robe, the scruffy black leather existentialist jacket and so on. You don’t have to commit yourself to any of them for good. Sinéad O’Connor tried on the Catholic priest outfit for a few weeks before throwing it out, while Madonna has been through the entire shop more times than anyone can count. A few weeks ago, there were Tory politicians who were fervent Trussites in the morning, ardent Johnsonians around lunchtime and devout Sunakians in the evening.
There is, however, a problem with all this. If you survey a range of commitments like a rack of shirts, what motivates you to choose one rather than the other? On a classical liberal view, the self is an impartial, disinterested entity; but if this is so, then there is no reason why you should go for the sky-blue Tory outfit than the Buddhist robe. You would simply be paralysed, incapable of choosing, unless you already had interests which inclined you towards certain interests. It is in this sense that interests go all the way down. They are not like a row of hats; they are matters for which people will occasionally fight and die.
Is all we have, then, a Darwinian clash of competing interests? Not quite. Fortunately, we have rationality as well. In fact, we need rationality to discover what our interests are, as well as to promote them. You can’t acquire your beliefs without reasoning about how things stand with the world, and you can’t put them into practice without reasoning either. There’s no point in cutting taxes if everyone has been wiped out by nuclear war and you simply haven’t noticed. Reason, however, can question our interests and desires as well as advance them. It isn’t rational to wish to return to a past society in which life was entirely free of antagonism, since there wasn’t one.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="Suggested reading " author="Thomas Fazi "]https://staging.unherd.com/2022/10/rishi-has-set-himself-up-to-fail/[/su_unherd_related]
People sometimes ask why politicians can’t stop squabbling among themselves and get together. A lot of Conservative MPs are asking this right now, less because they find squabbling distasteful than because they fear it might lose them the next election. But conflict is inevitable. Some Tories are going to be centrist or pragmatic, while others will be more doctrinaire. “Doctrinaire” or “ideological” are words one uses of other people’s beliefs, not of one’s own. My views are moderate, while his are extreme.
But it isn’t just that political types are temperamentally given to in-fighting. Nor is it true, as liberals tend to suspect, that conflict should always be seen negatively. How can women vanquish sexism without arguing and taking action against it, and why is it usually men who find their talk a little too strident? Not only are conflicts here to stay, but in a number of cases one party is going to have to win and the other is going to have to lose. This, too, is hardly music to liberal ears. But the fact is that either the racists triumph or their adversaries do. Otherwise, we will have to settle for a moderate, pragmatic, commonsensical brand of racism.
The great organ of unity is supposed to be the state. Yet there are those who have suspected that this togetherness is a little lopsided, suiting the interests of some more than others. There are even thinkers who have claimed that the state exists to protect private property (I have in mind Cicero, who argued just this, as well of course as Karl Marx). There are also forms of solidarity which flourish only because everyone has an enemy in common. In any case, it’s hard to reconcile unity with diversity. One image of this resolution has been, of all things, the work of art. From Aristotle to our own day, one of the most entrenched aesthetic dogmas has been that the work of art forms an integral whole, with no spare parts or loose ends. For centuries, nobody thought of questioning this assumption. Then, in the early 20th century, a revolutionary new form of art broke out with the Futurists, Dadaists, Surrealists and others, which saw no reason why the art-work shouldn’t be marked by dissonance, asymmetry and contradiction. Such an art, after all, was truer to the experience of the bloodiest century on record than unity and harmony, terms which were increasingly the stock-in-trade of despots standing on balconies haranguing the masses.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="More from this author " author="Terry Eagleton "]https://staging.unherd.com/2022/07/should-politicians-have-character/[/su_unherd_related]
All the same, we have a horror of fragmentation. We have only to see something in pieces — a vase, a social order, a piece of fiction — to feel an overpowering desire to put it together again. It is an impulse which probably runs deeper than politics. For the Austrian psychoanalyst Melanie Klein, it stems from the relationship between mother and infant. The infant, in Klein’s view, has a murderous desire to pound the mother’s breast to pieces, but then, stricken by guilt, tries to reassemble it in imaginary form.
This kind of stuff doesn’t go down well with the English, who prefer common sense to the unconscious. Austrian babies may behave like this, but English ones certainly don’t. It’s also hard to see Rishi Sunak appealing to it any time soon. But psychoanalysis has much to say about how the idea of the unified, autonomous self is a myth, and the same might be said about the unified, autonomous state. In recent times, the name for the latter in Britain has been Brexit. It took the surreal farce of Liz Truss’s brief reign to remind us that there is no such thing as an independent nation-state other than in the fantasises of Farage — that the sovereign power on this planet is not the state but the market, and that in the end it is the market which decides who sits in No. 10, who will grow fat and who will go hungry.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI’m not sure what is really the point of this article, but I’ll just take issue with the final flourish that ‘there is no such thing as an independent nation-state other than in the fantasies of Farage.’ This is a fundamental misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the concept of sovereignty. Of course, all countries are constrained by their size, geography, history and economic situation, but they are still sovereign and independent if they can set, re-set and reverse their own policies and laws. They are democratic if they do so with some accountability accepted by their population. Having to duck and weave to respond to current world circumstances is not the same as surrendering policy and lawmaking to an external, unaccountable supranational institution. I’m sure Nigel Farage would understand the difference. And if a country doesn’t want to borrow vast amounts of money, it won’t be beholden to the markets.
Eagleton is a Marxist – and therefore a dyed-in-the-wool elitist (‘vanguard of the proletariat’ etc). The concept of the nation state is a little too pluralist for his tastes.
Great post btw – I hope Eagleton reads it. He might learn something new..
What Eagleton is unaware of is that the UK is an independent sovereign state, but not a nation. All ‘nations’ are founded on ethnic and religious bigotry. The UK isn’t.
Your last sentence is the most important one.
Just to clarify: It is misrepresentation. We all know it, parfticularly Eagleton..
…very well said. Lost me at “supervising the decline of an increasingly inconsiderable offshore island”…is by all objective measures rather silly in respect of a Country which is still a nuclear power, on the Security Council, G7, Five-eyes, leading European NATO power etc…still in the top ten percent of all the 200 or so UN member-states by most measures of success despite being pretty small in area, population and resources…still apparently being expected to show up at the COP-27 nonsense…and most important of all, still being the biggest stone in the Czar’s shoe…
…a fully paid-up left-wing declinist, who presumably thinks the only place that really matters is the Celestial Emperor Xi’s Middle Kingdom…and possibly sleepy Joe’s USA. Although I’m guessing he’ll write them off after the mid-terms…
Everyone is driven by greed and ambition except ME. No-one cares about humanity/ the planet / the working class except ME. Nobody knows the truth about anything except ME.
Academics, eh?
‘‘Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”
(GBS.)
“And those who can’t teach, teach teachers”(My Dad, who was a teacher)
especially at MBA business schools!!!
“In any case, it’s hard to reconcile unity with diversity.”
How can anyone with a ounce of intelligence come to this conclusion? The United Kingdom is a textbook case of exactly that. No qualifications for residence based on wealth, religion, ethnic origin. Yes we have state characteristics – a Monarch (effectively powerless), a state religion (Protestantism), Received Pronunciation (due for a return I’d say) and so on. Yet the UK is a riot of different religions, and different dialects (none proscribed), and anti-monarchists are not persecuted, unlike the freedom-loving people in Eagleton’s ‘Marxist’ hellholes that he presumably finds so desirable.
I am not sure that the UK is in a state of unity but I agree it IS diverse & I am also not sure that is all to the good.
Crikey, was this article previously published in Marxism Today?
Not visited Unherd for a few months, it used have well balanced articles written by people who weren’t frothing at the mouth Tory-haters…has it been taken over at all? Just had a shufti about at some articles and this site appears to have gone leftard…shame, I used to think it was fairly good site.
I think the idea of Unherd is to allow voices that are shut out of the mainstream media to be heard. On that basis, Marxist ideas belong here, along with the many other diverse ideas that are represented.
Agreed! It is crucial that all views are aired, as long as the comments on them are NOT censored
Eagleton’s motivated reasoning contianed no surprises or insights. I look forward to his analysis of the Labour Party’s divisions and Starmer.
One reason for lack of unity in a political party is that the discussion takes place at too superficial a level. There are endless debates around policies, but, since a given policy hides some basic values and assumptions, we should be looking at these first.
When people discuss basic things like ‘What is the role of the state?’, it is easier to find broad agreement. This agreement on principles can then be used to derive policy which has wider agreement.
“there is no such thing as an independent nation-state“. I guess Eagleton wonders why Ukraine is making such a fuss about it!
All drivel from a Marxist who has been wrong about the big questions all his life.
If the country is in trouble and a multi millionaire ex banker can’t fix it, try Amazon, Google or Tesla would be my advice. Delivery, if not immediate then within a day or two or, if it goes flat plug it in overnight while you sleep. Can’t be difficult, easy payments, ignore or send it back if it doesn’t work.
The same wretched trope as all “liberals”. “… There is no such thing as an independent nation-state …”
It’s rubbish. The (only) reason we are “at the mercy of the markets” is because 25 years of “liberal progressive” government borrowing has put our country into that position.
If this fool’s “progressive” pals hadn’t hocked our country, we could tell those markets to take a hike.
Spot the false dichotomy! “Either the differences are real, in which case they won’t just disappear; or if they can be dropped as easily as that, they probably weren’t worth much in the first place.”
Those are not the only options! If one family member gives up their desire to visit the beach in favour of a family day in the forest, that doesn’t mean the beach-desire was shallow.
Is the market a unified, autonomous state, or not? It’s certainly unified in objectives, perhaps ideology and certainly autonomous.