The mutual admiration society is in shock and fear. They appear like sheep in a circle turned inwards and trembling. The combined news of the Epstein and Mandelson scandals has opened Pandora’s box. It has let out the beast hidden before our eyes: ideology.
The fall of communism in Europe in 1991 was interpreted as the end of the far left and the far right in politics. The golden middle ground ('aurea mediocritas') was king. The liberal world order was the only winner. ‘Laissez faire’ was understood as ‘let us be rich’. Bizarrely, no one questioned it.
Most political positions represent five percent - ten percent of the voters. The greater percentages are due to circumstances, opportunity, or political offer.
During the Cold War, the extreme right and extreme left both criticized the rich, wealthy, and allegedly ‘immoral’ classes. Both advocated the curbing of oligarchic tendencies by awarding control or at least the supervision of the economy to the state. They would promote such an ideology by promising great public works: high speed trains, impressive bridges and roads, diplomatic support for individual enterprise abroad.
We watch this in today’s China. It has a command economy rooted in the Marxist criticism of bourgeois society. The state is all powerful. One of the most eccentric developments has been the European liberal centre admiring the command economy of China.
The mutual admiration society has intellectually eliminated itself and no longer has the mental structures to promote or criticise other systems or even simply points of view.
The Mandelson scandal in the United Kingdom has seen a parliamentary debate in which the old Cold War rhetoric appeared and went largely unnoticed. Jeremy Corbyn spoke of the ‘gilded classes’, as if it were fifty years ago. The Northern Ireland politicians—used to ideology, conflict, and debate—seized the opportunity to promote their points of view through legal process and proposals. Legal precision is typical of the political arena in a post-conflict environment. Legislation is the prosecution of diplomacy by other means.
The admission of systemic corruption may lead the public to witness a return to real debate. One forgets that the great periods of philosophical debate are historically uncertain and full of problems. Hegel’s description of Napoleon in 1807 as the ‘World Spirit on Horseback’ came from his seeing a foreign invader trampling on his homeland.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797) analysed the crisis of the United Kingdom with the Colonies in America and the British in India as well as the French Revolution. Without these mismanaged situations, he would never have written.
The future lies with the younger generations. They should be taught the history of philosophy at school from the age of 14. Starting with the rise of philosophy in Ancient Greece, they would learn that we already hold the seeds of a solution to each human crisis. It is useful to have examples to follow, to realise that we are not alone. We should not just admire those who agree with us but look forward to overcoming unexpected problems with innovative solutions. It would unleash creative forces within society.