I tweeted last night, to the consternation of some, that David Miliband is one the the nicest blokes I've met. I did so for three reasons, other than that it's true.
First, to counter a couple of common cognitive biases. One is a form of the halo effect - the idea that because someone has bad politics, he is a bad person. This is just wrong. Sometimes (often) bad people do good things, and good ones bad things. The other is a form of outcome bias. Peter Oborne describes David as "greedy", but he never struck me as that at all. Just because someome is rich does not mean they are greedy. They might instead be just lucky, in the right place at the right time.
Secondly, and relatedly, I want to counter a common conception of politics, especially on the left. It's what I've called the Bonnie Tyler syndrome, of holding out for a hero - the idea that our political objectives can be achieved if only we could be governed by the right people. But this is not true. It ignores the power of capitalism to perpetuate itself, for example because it generates ideologies that favour inequality, and because capitalists' control over investment decisions gives them control over the economy. And it ignores the fact that even quite senior politicians have less influence than is attributed to them; as I've said, office doesn't just corrupt, it enslaves.
We pay too much attention to the character of politicians, and not enough to the power structures and ideologies that constrain them.
Remember - David did have radicalish instincts. In 1994, for example, he described inequality as "shocking" and pointed out that "capitalist economies contain basic inequalities of power."
Thirdly, I did not mean "nice" entirely as a compliment. One fault of agreeable people is their tendency to trust others too much, perhaps because they wrongly project their own decency onto them. I fear this tendency led David to become too trusting of Blair.
The message of David's career, then, is that good instincts, decency and intelligence are not enough for a politician to change society. It is an old joke that Ralph Miliband thought that socialism couldn't be achieved by parliamentary means, and his sons are proving him right. But there's an element of truth in this.
Maybe too "nice"? To the extent that he didn't really seem to have any whiff of an ideology about him. And his "agreeability" then led him to please upwards instead of downwards?
Either way, not a set of attributes that would lead anywhere else than policies that cosy up to existing power. So not really a recommendation.
Posted by: gastro george | March 28, 2013 at 04:39 PM
Perhaps his resignation manifests his despair at the latest abandonment by Labour of its principles, that is, its support for the recent enactment of retrospective sanctions legislation.
I can't say I blame David. I struggle to see why I should support and vote Labour at the next election.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 28, 2013 at 06:39 PM
Chris, when he was being 'one the the nicest blokes' you've met, was he also excusing torture and lying about rendition?
Posted by: ... | March 29, 2013 at 12:08 AM
Re 29 March:
I have heard Milliband condemn the torture and murder in Syria yes. Does Stop the War movement include the war in Syria, or does the movement have nothing to offer the rest of us on that?
Posted by: Michael | April 02, 2013 at 02:21 PM
According to some sources (Ok, the Daily Mail) he was paid around £125,000 a year as a Director of Sunderland. Perhaps he has become more of a diamond rather than a 4-4-2 man.
Nice people are more self aware
Posted by: oldcobbler | April 02, 2013 at 07:19 PM
Nice people don't go to to the high court 3 times to suppress knowledge of complicity with torture.
Posted by: nick j | April 03, 2013 at 07:57 PM
i like it
Posted by: link | April 06, 2013 at 05:34 PM