Intolerance, the blame game & mob rule - we're all guilty!

Fellow blogger, Leann, has commented in recent days on the frustrations and concerns facing Americans in general, and herself in particular, following the Presidential election last week. (http://crazyworld-leann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/what-will-country-look-like-now.html). Leann is always worth reading -   pertinent, erudite and with a capacity to make her point in a matter of fact way. Although her blog is about America and Americans, with just a few minor alterations to the terminology virtually all of what she says would be equally valid in the UK.  But of all the points Leann makes one stood out for me above all others. It was a general observation:

“More and more I am realizing that the problems in this country have very little to do with who sits in the White House. The problems have to do with our "my way or the highway" attitudes. The lack of respect we have for our fellow human beings. Our lack of consideration for the people around us. It is evident from the way we drive, to the way we comment on someone’s Facebook page or the way we judge people we know nothing about based on "appearances."

I am sure that Leann’s analysis is true in this country too – the problems of the country (and their solutions) are, maybe, more to do with the country’s psyche and outlook than what politicians may do in terms of political policy. They may be more to do with the society that is being fostered than whether the Tory or Labour party  is in power. As I look around me at modern British society I find it very easy to become dispirited – in much the same way that Leann is a little frustrated  about her own society.

Leann's comments confirmed for me a nagging suspicion that I have had for some time - that there is something wrong with modern western society. Despite our wealth (and, yes, even allowing for the economic melt down we are still incredibly wealthy) and despite many, many  social, economic and moral improvements I feel that something is amiss. I can't help thinking about and agreeing with French political philosopher  Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) who said “In democracy we get the government we deserve".  The comment has a resonance today - as politicians and leaders of all persuasions seek power and  popularity they are an increasing reflection of the society which they represent. Leaders of all kinds - be they politicians, bankers, church leaders, newspaper editors or whatever reflect the society and society, I believe, reflects its leaders.

Just this week we have had a number of everyday examples – things that we take for granted within society but which say much about the sort of society we live in.

A Chelsea "fan" makes monkey gestures
at a black Manchester United player.
Despite anti-discrimination laws this
is still part of the national psyche. Extremist
political parties feed on it.

We have, I believe, become a society that is only superficially tolerant. We notionally, for example, at least subscribe to the premise that all people are equal and yet  we have to have legislation in place to “ensure” some measure of equality and acceptance of each other – be we white, black, man, woman, gay, straight, rich, poor or any other criteria that one wishes to mention. Examples of inherent discrimination are legion. And not confined to obvious racist or religious bigots. As I picked up my newspaper this morning I noticed the headline of the Daily Express which was piled at the side of the Guardians. “EU wants immigrants to take our jobs” screamed the large black letters – whether this is true or not I don’t know but  I was uncomfortable with the wording and  its implications – “When”, I wondered, “does this sort of thing become incitement to racial hatred”? Just this week I have read of the struggles that the new Archbishop of Canterbury can expect when he tries to address issues such as gay clergy or women bishops – issues which almost brought the current Archbishop -  Rowan Williams - to his knees. Williams a man who everyone - even his enemies - acknowledges is hugely able and “saintly” and yet the hard held beliefs (unashamed prejudice wrapped up as Christian belief?) appertaining in the Church of England mean that otherwise “good”, well meaning people, "Christians" are unable to grasp the moral imperatives that the notion of equality involves. Another example is the continuing racism saga on the football field – monkey chants from supporters towards black players, the foul mouthed and expletive filled racist comments that came from England captain John Terry (and others over a period) bear witness to the fact that we are not so tolerant as we like to think we are.  Or,  a couple of mornings ago I read of the concern and angst  in the gentle world of golf. It has been suggested that the powerful Royal & Ancient Golf Club should give its lady members equal rights. The Royal and Ancient, golf’s governing body is aghast  at such a thought! They argue that they are a private members club and as such do not need to subscribe to such rules. Hmmmmm? I wonder if “private members clubs” therefore exonerates all golfers from simple human decency and moral obligation. It seems to me to be a dubious argument.  Last summer Pat and I went to a wedding reception that was held in a local golf club. We had a lovely time in beautiful surroundings but half way through I went for a walk around the clubhouse and the grounds. Even to me, an old fashioned unreconstructed dinosaur, the patronising notices and signs highlighting institutional and overt gender discrimination against women members was quite obvious.

Today's Daily Express front page

And, of course, in another area, we have had in the UK for several weeks the media overkill and existential crisis at the BBC where the repercussions of the Jimmy Savile/child abuse scandal has been the headline story of every news broadcast. The whole issue has revealed much about the nature of British society – revenge, blame, envy (and other human characteristics that might be loosely be called “deadly sins”) – all of which have been heaped upon the former Director General of the BBC George Entwistle - a man who even his most strident detractors agree is sincere decent, humane, full of integrity, honourable.  He was simply, it is universally agreed, in the wrong place at the wrong time and "overwhelmed" by events – most of which were not of his making.  Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson got it just right when he portrayed Entwistle as the victim in a – “don’t shoot me, I’m only the messenger” cartoon! True, Entwistle made mistakes in trying to pick up the pieces of the debacle – an abuse situation that had allegedly been going on at the BBC and other revered national institutions such as hospitals for almost half a century.  And maybe, too, he should have done some things differently. Indeed, he admitted that.  But  still society’s mob shouts for blood. “He must be held to account” shouts the popular press (and indeed, to their shame do some organs of the broadsheet press). “He must not receive the inflated pay off he has received on his resignation” shout the mob. And  I sadly reflect, as I read of the mob hysteria directed at Entwistle, that I have been guilty throughout my life – as I suspect has everyone on the planet - of making mistakes and on many occasions doing the wrong thing. In thinking about this I'm reminded of a couple of quotes: Oscar Wilde famously said that "Experience is simply the name we give to our mistakes" and Einstein suggested that "Anyone who never made  a mistake, never tried anything new" I would go with both of those but think they might be a bit too cerebral for the howling mob to take on board! I would hope that when I lie in my box at the front of the crematorium whoever is leading the service will say of me what everyone says of George Entwistle – “Tony was good, decent, honourable, honest, sincere - and admitted his mistakes” – I’ll settle for that!

But, sadly, in our envious, culture of blame, society virtue and the ability to admit one's mistakes are not enough. Accountability, blame, envy, innate aggression, retribution, and yes, good old fashioned spite, rule much of our daily life. If we can’t get a job it’s because of the immigrants the Daily Express might scream. If our taxes go up its the fault of profligate politicians or those on final salary pensions or benefit cheats the Daily Telegraph will headline. We all need someone to blame. We all, it seems, need someone to envy. We all want our pound of flesh.

George Entwistle. Decent and honourable......
but forced to resign and reviled because
accountability also means blame
 and scapegoats 

Part of this, I have no doubt, is to do with finding someone else to shoulder the responsibility. In doing so we are removing the blame from ourselves. It's easy to blame the bankers for the economic mess - we conveniently forget that we all wanted those bigger houses, fridge freezers, cars, flat screen TVs and the rest of the bling and "must haves". So we gleefully grabbed the deals that bankers were offering and didn't ask the sensible questions like can we afford it or is this offer too good to be true (and in the long run it was!). It's easy to blame the teacher, the school or the influence of peers for your child's failure or involvement in drugs - and conveniently forget that you weren't there when he or she needed you! I am convinced that the "growth" in people wanting to send their children to fee paying schools is as much or more to do with off loading their parental responsibilities as it is giving the child the "best" education. "We've paid for this" says modern man "so we expect the school to do the business" - don't bother us with the other stuff like listening to Jimmy read or helping with homework and the rest - we are far too busy making money and gaining our own self fulfilment". Of course, the ultimate statement of this is packing your child off to boarding school - then your only responsibility is paying the fees each term - parent hood by proxy. As we have become wealthier and more self indulgent it is so easy to put one's responsibilities, and therefore one's expectations and subsequent  blame when things go wrong, onto others. We can increasingly pay to release us from our obligations - not just physical work but moral obligations. It is a fact of modern life, for example, that people will make cash donations to worthy charities but will not give of their time; local clubs and facilities such as young people's sports clubs, old people's support groups, school PTAs and the like can  often can raise cash far more easily than they can raise physical help. I often came across this in school: ask the parents to make a donation to buy books for the school and it would be successful but ask parents to turn up to help run a disco which was aimed at raising  money for school books and the response was very limited - the same view good hearted souls turned up each time - everyone else was too busy!  Increasingly, society loves others to shoulder the responsibility - and nothing gives it greater pleasure than to then shout, scream, complain and blame when they fall a little short or when, as with the financial crisis, we are all found with our proverbial "trousers down". Then, when that happens, like the naughty schoolboy caught misbehaving society tries to pass the buck: "It was him", we all shout (pointing at the George Entwistle); or "I did it because he told me to" we weep - and point at the evil banker who forced us to take out that unpayable mortgage! Blame is easy - accepting one's responsibility is hard!

And to add to this shifting of responsibility the feeling that all political parties and wider society has hit upon  a "buzz word" that encapsulates it all nicely – “accountability”. We have a society, a political and media bent upon "accountability" and "transparency" - all very laudable and good. It is a sound bite that every voter will vote for – and politicians know it! Who could disagree with such a manifestly obvious ”good thing”. And yet, a little further examination brings forth other considerations. Implicit in the word  is  the need for blame when things go wrong, for victims upon whom we can heap our ire. People, of course, need to be held to "account"  for their actions and their errors – no-one would dispute that.The problem for society and its leaders, however, is to somehow divorce the notion of the blame culture as a quick fix to all the world's problems - quick fixes never work. Each week I wince when I read of another government sponsored initiative to "name and shame" an under-performing school or hospital or civil servant or police force or local authority. Each time this happens it once again reinforces the notion of blame and retribution rather than building upon experience  learning from mistake or addressing the real problems of the person or bodies involved.  Forcing George Entwistle out of his job might make the mob feel better; the boil, as they see it, has been lanced, but it doesn't in any way address the real issues that may or may not appertain at the BBC or in wider society.  No, in the simplistic world of the mob and in contemporary Britain, we just need someone or something to  blame - no matter that like Entwistle they were just  "in the wrong place at the wrong time". George Entwistle,  the single parent mother who “cheats the benefit system” and boosts her income by doing a bit of bar work in the evening or the possessor of a final salary pension whose gold plated pension is almost seen to  taking food out of the mouths of babes are grist to the mill of people who envy, who want their pound of flesh and who want someone to be held to account, to blame for the ills of their own situation!

"Don't shoot me - I'm only the messenger" - but we did.

Mobs don't "do" quiet reasoning or reflection. They want the quick fix sound bite or the easily remembered mantra or simple idea to define their concerns and upon which to pin their ire. And in that respect George Entwistle was easy meat. A few years ago the UK was it seemed in danger of being eaten alive by rottweiller dogs, the a year or two later it was  wayward and evil children as the James Bulger affair that filled the news headlines. Since then we have had the breakdown of society as we know it with "broken Britain", the unmitigated evil of the bankers and finance houses of the world, world domination by the arch priest of evil Rupert Murdoch and a myriad of other scare stories and people upon which to vent our societies fears and spleen. But then the mob gets another victim and a new mantra - driven usually by the media and sadly by politicians and so we move on. Who will be next focus of the media mob - me, you, your husband, your wife, your child? Beware - mobs and the media do not discriminate - that takes thought and  mobs don't "do" thought. Good old decent, honest George Entwistle could never have suspected such vilification just a few weeks ago - if he can suffer then so can you and I. If you want any further evidence of this read items on Twitter, read the postings on newspaper web sites (yes even the Guardian's Comment is Free) - you will see plenty of evidence of vitriol, ire, blame, aggression and mob thinking. John Ruskin said over a hundred years ago: "Modern education has devoted itself to the teaching of impudence and now we complain that we can no longer control our mobs". One could very easily re-write Ruskin's commentary thus: "Modern politicians and media have devoted themselves to the preaching of  accountability and blame and now we complain that we can no longer control our digital mobs".

Another aspect is what I can only describe as the almost casual undercurrent of aggression that seems to run through so much of society and discourse today? Road rage, weekly examples of ordinary citizens being set upon in city centres,  aggressiveness at the supermarket check-out, pent up anger exploding on the football field or outside the football stadium – all minor things in themselves, not great crimes but at the same time feeding the culture of aggression and antagonism. Mix, aggression and antagonism into the equation of blame, envy and accountability and you have a volatile mix. Ghandi was very aware of the links between intolerance, blame and aggression. "Intolerance is a form of violence and an obstacle to the democratic spirit....anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding" he famously noted. Couldn't agree more - and I sense that intolerance and aggressive blame are eating away at the very foundations of our democratic society.

Let's blame and name and shame. It won't solve
any of the real problems but, boy, will it make us
feel superior and better in ourselves to know that
we've made someone else suffer.

There seems little quiet decency, honour, sincerity, humanity or compassion walking the streets of the UK today . George Entwistle must feel quite lonely to be a man who, all seem to agree, has  these qualities in abundance. He must also be a bit confused - he did his best, he made a few errors which he admits, everyone says what a good guy he is and how unlucky he was – and, all agree that the vast majority of the BBC's problems were not of his making – mostly, they occurred long before his "watch".  But the mob still want to hang, draw and quarter him.

Maybe things have always been like this. As I write this I am reminded of Oliver Cromwell – once Lord Protector of England. A man of the people who deposed the monarch (Charles 1) and in his short “reign” as Lord Protector of the country laid the foundations of many of our political, religious and social institutions, many of our now accepted freedoms and other underpinnings that still permeate our politics and society today. Maybe Cromwell went too far, maybe there were many things that he should have done differently but when he finally died of natural causes in 1658  he was buried with great reverence and ceremony in Westminster Abbey. But how quickly things can change! Just as George Entwistle who only a few weeks ago  was lauded as by far the best man for the BBC job so too with Cromwell. Three years after his death in 1661 and with Charles II restored as King, Cromwell’s body was exhumed and subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution. His rotting body was hanged in chains on public display. Later, it was thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685. On his death in 1658 the  “The Publick Intelligencer” said of Cromwell’s dying and burial:  “He died yesterday about four of the clocke in the afternoone.  I am not able to speake or write; this stroake is soe soare, soe unexpected, the providence of God in it soe stupendous, considering the person that is fallen … I can doe nothinge but put my mouthe in the dust, and say, It is the Lord; and though his wayes be not always knowne, yet they are always righteous, and wee must submit to his will.......having neglected an Earthly Crown, he should noe go to receive the Crown of Everlasting Life..........This daye I beheld a great multitude of people gathering together and thronging and pressing exceedingly.........” Only three years later Cromwell’s decapitated rotting corpse displayed to the baying mob and his head pierced on a spike until it rotted away. As I write this (and I am not particularly religious or a Christian devotee) the story sounds a lot like the first Easter when the crowds who had followed Jesus and listening to his every word as the Messiah suddenly shouted "crucify him" when Pontius Pilate gave them the choice of what should happen to Jesus. Hmmmmmm!

Cromwell's corpse is hung drawn and quartered -
the mob had their way, just as it did with George Entwistle

But despite  his contribution to England and the cause of democracy Cromwell's popular appeal was short lived.  The mob had moved on – the Restoration meant that a “hero” became a “zero” – revenge, hatred, envy, blame and the other deadly sins  had their day. Perhaps, poor old George Entwistle should reflect that little changes -  he has had his day, he has been unlucky, the crowd will soon forget. Today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip papers, another victim will be found. But on the way another life will have been ruined to sate the mob and our desire for blame so that we can all feel better. If someone else can be blamed when things go wrong then it cannot be our fault ........... can it?

It is a worrying trend. In a blog a couple of weeks ago I argued that as a society we are better off than we ever were and indeed perhaps more tolerant. We do not have the overt racism and sexism and class divisions of yesteryear. The words of the old hymn “All things bright and beautiful” have a quaint ring today when we sing “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate”. Today, we do not touch forelocks with the same frequency, “my money is as good as anyone’s” is a frequently heard comment, we do not lock up and hound homo-sexuals or execute criminals or treat women as “chattels or openly discriminate against people of a different colour. We have legislation that rightly discourages this sort of behaviour. Having said that we have also become a society that largely, it seems to me knows the price of everything and the value of nothing; we complain about the BBC at the moment in the same breath as saying "we pay our licence fee, we expect better"- but at the same time accept all sorts of drivel, biased reporting and mindless programmes from commercial stations and the Murdoch empire; paying our local council rates seems to give us the right to complain bitterly about every small problem within our local services - schools, hospitals, police;  we pay our taxes and this justifies vitriol  being poured upon those who benefit - the unemployed, the long term sick,  the single parent. Money blurs the edges of reasoned debate and tolerance it seems to me. But despite any “progress” that we might have made in society and despite the obvious improvements in wealth and well being, increasingly, I feel, that intolerance, revenge, envy, discrimination and the rest are still lurking safely  below the surface ready to leap up at the first opportunity – and all the time gnawing away at our society’s foundations. Edmund Burke reminded us that "By gnawing through a dike, even a rat may drown a nation" - and that is what intolerance, envy, self indulgence, money and the rest do. It is,in the long term, far more dangerous to the good of civilisation, democracy and society than a failed political policy or a man who made a few regretted and avoidable errors at the BBC. 

Against a back drop of such things I’m tempted to agree with Leann maybe politicians can  do little – maybe it doesn’t matter too much who is in the White House or at 10 Downing Street! It is the feelings at large in society that are the real drivers.

From a contemparary sketch -Cromwell's severed head -
the mob certainly had their scapegoat

Of course, even politicians admit there is a limit to how much they can do in the modern world. Globalisation means that every society and country is subject to the economic, social and cultural hurricanes that blow across the whole planet. The current economic ills of the world are not the responsibility or fault of one politician or one country; no matter how skilful and correct our politicians in London might be we will still be buffeted by what is happening in Europe of New York or Beijing – and so too will the people of those places. The internet is the single most powerful influence – what has been called the Arab Spring uprisings would not have occurred in the  same way even twenty years  ago without the power of the internet to drive them. So to that degree we are all victims of circumstance and we cannot hold politicians responsible for all the ills of a society, nor can we expect politicians to wave a magic policy wand and solve all our problems.
Having said that, however, politicians have to operate within  the society that they represent and it may be a sign of their failure that in the UK at least (and I suspect other developed countries) that politicians are viewed as the lowest of the low. This situation is bad for democracy – when the electorate have no faith in those elects – it encourages disengagement which feeds extremism.

Like many, I suspect, I receive jokes and humorous offerings from friends and acquaintances into my e-mail inbox. Of the offerings that I receive a very significant number are worryingly explicitly racist or sexist or have undertones of racism or sexism. And, equally worryingly, another significant percentage involve criticising our elected representatives. For example, this was a recent offering:

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the motorway near London. Nothing is moving. Suddenly, a policeman knocks on the car  window. The driver rolls down the window and asks, "What's going on?" 

The policeman replies that there is a vast security operation throughout London. "Terrorists” he explains  “have kidnapped the members of parliament in the House of Commons  and they're asking for a £100 million ransom! Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in petrol and set them on fire. The whole of London is shut down while we deal with this”. 

“That’s dreadful” says the motorist, “what can we do”?  

“Well”, replies the policeman “I’m  going from car to car collecting donations for the politicians."

"Good idea” says the motorist “How much is everyone giving?"

 "Roughly a gallon." Replies the policeman!!!!

All good knock about stuff and, of course, and in Britain at least there is a healthy history of satire poking fun and ire at the establishment – indeed it is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy (and for which, to a degree, we can thank Oliver Cromwell!). There is, sadly, of course, a down side. When a society loses faith, confidence and respect in those that govern it then the future of that society has a cloud over it. And for me this is an issue.

As I look around, it seems to me increasingly that those who hold positions of power and influence in society are increasingly losing respect. It is not confined to politicians – we have seen it with other groups (and Leanne alludes to this in her country) – bankers, celebrities, financial operators, sportsmen, teachers and the rest increasingly look shabby and worthy of criticism. Earlier this week I wrote, in a letter to the Guardian,  “George Entwistle has many laudable characteristics, everyone agrees – and as a bonus, he also admits his mistakes. Please can we have him as our Prime Minister now he has left the BBC – the last many incumbents of that high office seem lacking in his agreed qualities of honour, integrity, decency, sincerity, humanity!” I took no pride in writing this - it saddened me that in these cynical times even I, the most liberal, high minded person and forgiving person  on the planet, should smile at satirical jokes like that above or have such a negative view of our leaders!!!!! But seriously, that is the problem; intolerance and the blame culture spreads like a virus - silently, insidiously, fatally - to poison the minds of even good men and to weaken society. It takes away our ideals and pours cold water on our aspirations. It edges us towards extremes and false gods.

Obama's first inauguration -  a time for optimism. OK he might
have made mistakes - but so have we all. The main thing is
that he sends out the right messages about what it
 is (or should be) to be human.

It seems to me that increasingly the problem facing modern democracies may not be putting the right policy in place (important though that is) but in winning the hearts and minds of the electorate. Clearly these two issues are interdependent – successful policies will win hearts and minds. But there is more than this. It has to do much more with fostering the sort of qualities that poor old George Entwistle seemed to have but which were passed over by the madding crowd. It seems to me to be to do with those in power unashamedly displaying and promoting these characteristics. Every time a politician is found fiddling his expenses or reneges on a commitment, every time a banker is left open to criticism over his bonus, every time a teacher does not display the best to his or her pupils then as a society we become more cynical and  more accepting of the seamier side of life. Barak Obama, on his first inauguration four years ago, seemed to me (without reference to his policies) to represent the best we might hope for – decent, honest, honourable, humane .......... It hasn’t gone quite how he planned it – maybe his fault, maybe circumstances – but it seems to me that as he enters the second stage of his Presidency he could do the world no greater service than be some kind of beacon for what is best in the human spirit – sincerity, decency, humanity,  integrity, honour and the rest – and the ability to admit when he gets it wrong. Half a century ago, at his inauguration, John Kennedy came out with one the very greatest "sound bites" - which perhaps should be re-issued like an old pop record hit: "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" proclaimed JFK on  bright but bitter January day in 1961. He was right. In the intervening years the Kennedy magic has perhaps unravelled a little and all agree that part of his strength and appeal was his ability to project himself through the media. But this, for me, misses the point. In the end he projected a better more worthwhile vision, something to aspire to, high ideals, a brief glimpse of what the world might be. And a generation rose to it. It is an aspect of politics and leadership that I find ever more difficult to perceive in the modern world.

"Ask not what your country can
do for you but what you can do
for your country"

Obama, like all politicians, should never forget Edmund Burke's message in the eighteenth century "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  - being good men and setting the right standards of honesty, decency, humanity and the rest would seem, to me, to be a pretty useful start. It is implicit in Kennedy's proclamation.  Maybe political policies are secondary to this? Maybe I'm just an idealist - but, if I am, I would argue that we might just need more ideals to aspire to in our world.  For the rest of us lesser mortals we, too, have to change. For unless we ourselves are more decent, honourable, honest, caring, humane and all the other positive adjectives then society itself is on a downward spiral no matter who is in power. Not to do this would, it seems to me, confirm de Tocqueville's comment - "we get the leaders we deserve". 

Beware of destroying society.
When the values of Caligula
rotted Roman society the end
of the Empire was nigh!

In the late eighteenth century Alexander Tyler, Lord Woodhouselee, a Scottish lawyer and writer famously commented: "Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage". At about the same time Edmund Burke observed that: "When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators the instruments, not the guides, of the people." The truth of these two comments can be see. in a brief look at history. Great empires and societies of the past – Greece, Rome, Bourbon France, Imperial Russia and most of the rest eventually decline or crumble not because of military defeat or economic failure – the rot starts much earlier in the very fabric of that society and its basic values when leaders stop leading by example and when the society becomes bloated on its own self indulgences. In ancient Rome the Empire was on its way out when Emperors such as Caligula and Nero and their associated life styles set the pattern and the expectations and their  followers slowly, but insidiously and surely, changed a great culture built upon high ideals into one characterised with greed, envy, violence, dishonesty then it was all downhill. Once the rot set in the military defeats and  political and social failures followed suit.