Cable: alienation & power

The Cognitive Dissonance Society, formerly known as the Lib Dems, offers us another case study. Vince Cable says he might not vote for higher tuition fees, even though he’s the minister responsible for drafting the legislation.
Although this is freakish behaviour for a minister, it is perfectly common in other jobs. Tens of thousands of people have to do jobs that clash with their beliefs: middle managers or junior army officers implementing the dubious strategies of their superiors; policemen upholding laws they don’t personally support; civil servants enacting government policies; journalists writing what they know to be vacuous crap; MPs voting on three-line whips; and so on. 
Why, then, shouldn’t government ministers have to endure alienated labour like millions of others?
There are, I think, good reasons to welcome this.
For one thing, Cable is at least intelligent enough to realize Berlin’s truth, that values collide. There’s a trade-off between personal integrity and solidarity with one’s colleagues on the one hand, and, well, whatever values motivate higher tuition fees on the other.
Also, if Cable’s behaviour catches on, it could radically alter politics. For years, managerialist politics has focused largely upon the revelation of character, in the belief that this predicts how the candidate will behave in office. Cable, though, is breaking the connection. If more ministers act like him, we’ll be unable to infer their policy actions from their character. Politics will, then, have to become de-personalized.
But if personality becomes less important, something else will become more important. That something was highlighted by Richard Sennett in his The Fall of Public Man:

The obsession with persons at the expense of more impersonal social relations is like a filter which discolours our rational understanding of society; it obscures the continuing importance of class in industrial society.

Cable’s actions highlight this. A prospective student might wonder: if tuition fees are such a bad idea that you’ll not even vote for them, why should I pay them?
The answer lies in one word: power. Although Cable has much less power than his position suggests - another example of how office enslaves its occupants - he has sufficient power to be able to afford to indulge his “conscience.” Students do not have this luxury. 

Comments

[Autonomous Mind]

Allow me to juxtapose myself as St Vince of Cable and explain the position:

'I don't believe in what I am doing and I don't support the policy. But I do want to keep this rather attractive job and the trappings of power that come with it. Therefore I'm going to impose this policy on you but continue acting in my own interests at the same time. Power is more important than principle and besides, it doesn't affect me.'

Seriously Chris, if you think this is a positive development in British politics you must have hit your head on something hard.

De-personalising politics is one thing, eradicating what remains of principle inside this insipid political class is another. This cements the worst elements of managerialism in the political sphere just as we should be breaking free of it.

[pablopatito]

By abstaining he's still breaking his pledge to vote against the policy, so he may as well vote in favour.

I do this all the time at work. I implement policies that people hate, and tell them I agree with them but am forced by my bosses. Unfortunately, this policy doesn't prevent me from hating myself.

[Matthew]

He is prepared to implement it though, it's just in his capacity as an MP he's not going to vote for it.

[chris]

Sorry Autonomous,I should have been clearer. A big reason why I welcome Cable's move is precisely that it exposes politics as being purely a power game, without principle.

[Autonomous Mind]

Sorry Chris, you're quite right. Perhaps I should take more time when reading... I shall return to Mind Towers and reflect on my lack of speed reading prowess.

[David Jones]

"Cable, though, is breaking the connection. If more ministers act like him, we’ll be unable to infer their policy actions from their character."

By this - do you mean that although candidates and ministers may appear to have principled and trustworthy characters, they are all as likely as each other to shamelessly break signed, solemn campaign pledges once in office?

But how does this help - since it means we cannot even use manifestos or policy pledges as a guide to behaviour in power?

[Glenn]

Cable has been the big disappointment. Great at being a mouthpiece in the credit crunch and recession, but really he has no credible policies for economic growth beyond the usual free market credo of smaller government and leave it to the market - of which I am yet to find a shining example of success. And despite the rhetoric he's done sweet FA about reforming the city.

I'm hoping he never comes back from Russia.