Structure vs character in politics

BBC1’s The Last Post depicts a group of mostly decent men upholding what many of you regard as an unjust system, of colonial rule. This illustrates an important and under-appreciated point - that the justice or not of social systems is not reducible to, or wholly explicable by, the character of its actors. Social structures are emergent. Or to put the point more trivially obviously, good men can do bad things, and bad ones good things.

To take just two of countless historical examples, Lyndon Johnson did more than most men to advance the cause of racial equality, despite using language that would today disqualify him from politics. And Otto von Bismarck did not create one of Europe’s first welfare states because he was a soft-hearted liberal*.

The classical economists saw this point clearly. Smith famously wrote that “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” And Marx wrote that the quality of working conditions “does not, indeed, depend on the good or ill will of the individual capitalist.” Smith thought markets caused greedy men to serve others. Marx thought they caused good men to exploit others. But both agreed that market outcomes weren’t reducible to individuals’ characters.

Instead, what matters are incentives and selection mechanisms. This is true not just of markets, but of organizations and political structures. If we have the right such mechanisms, then bad men can do good things. If we have the wrong ones, good ones will do bad things.

Which brings me to two more recent developments. Simon points out that Article 50 negotiations are going badly in part because the media did not facilitate a rational assessment of the UK’s bargaining position. This is an example of how political structures select (or at least filter) against good policy-making.

And then we have the fuss over Jared O’Mara. Phil makes a good point when he notes that words are not the only form of sexism and that in their actions the Tories are structurally sexist:

Who do they think suffer disproportionately from their Parliamentary votes to cut to social security, their cuts to the NHS, their real terms cuts to public sector wages?

This would be true even if each individual Tory MP were not personally sexist (which of course isn’t the case).

Now, there’s a danger here. It’s easy for Labour to downplay individual displays of sexism, homophobia or anti-Semitism in the belief that the party is structurally a force for equality. There might be an element of self-regard and wishful thinking here: organized labour has not, historically, been wholly untainted by sexism and racism.

Nevertheless, the point remains. We shouldn’t look only at individual politicians’ characters but at political structures. Do these promote justice (or efficiency or liberty) or impede it? Do they select for or against good conduct? Ideally, structures would be so selective of good behaviour that individual character would not matter at all.

In this sense, though, we have a paradox. Let’s suppose, arguendo, that Tories concerns about O’Mara’s language and conduct are sincere and well-founded in fact. What does this tell us about our political structures?

It says that MPs are not selected (by their parties and electorates) to be of good character. And it says that bad character matters because the incentives that MPs face do not rule out future poor conduct - that sexist boors have undue influence. 

But this, of course, means that those Tories are making a leftist point – that our social and political structures do not select against sexism and homophobia and might instead help to sustain it. And they might well be right.

* One of the world’s first welfare states was created by Genghis Khan, which reinforces my point.

Comments

[MikeofYork]

Dunno, it seems to me that this idea of purging people for saying something off colour was something originated by the left.

Most of us on the right would recognise we all sometimes say stupid things, especially when caught off guard, young, in the flush of emotion (exuberance, anger, in the heat of a sporting contest whatever), drunk or out of some bullshit male bravado where men (especially young men) say things to impress the tribe without necessarily meaning it.

We on the right don't think these episodes should be career ending, unless they are part of a wider pattern of behaviour.

Young O'Mara is seeing his side of politics getting its come-uppance.

[Patrick Kirk]

As MikeOfYork says, its funny to see the self-righteous left eating its own young. Its as if they think that a perfect human is possible and that anyone who falls short is unfit to serve. Sad.

[TickyW]

@MikeOfYork

Many on the Left would entirely agree with your point. A person's career should not be damaged because of what they say. It's their deeds that matter, not their words.

[Chris S]

Part of that point is true, the other side of this is that there are plenty on the right who don't believe such episodes should be career ending even if they are part of a wider pattern of behaviour.

See also Boris Johnson.

[Kate Eliys]

very nice...!

[Gary]

So we seem to have conceded that the main spending departments institutionally favour women. OK. And real-term funding cuts are sexist. OK

So my question is this - is this an argument without limits? Why shouldn't 100% of UK GDP be given over to helping women (via NHS and WS), and what are the non-sexist arguments for NHS + WS spend <100% of GDP?

[Blissex]

«conceded that the main spending departments institutionally favour women. OK.»

This is a "disparate" impact argument... Anyhow I think that it is widely known that around 2/3 of the costs of the welfare state are paid by men and 2/3 of the benefits are given to women, and that this is a socialization of the old tradition that husbands pay for their wives living costs and sons pay for their mother's old age, largely extended to women who don't have husbands or sons.

There are feminists who argue that all taxes should be paid only by men and all social benefits should go only to women, because it is inhumane for victims of rape, abuse, discrimination to be punished twice with taxation, and that it is monstrous that public funds be used to benefit those responsible, as perpetrators or objective accomplices, for rape, abuse, discrimination against women.

«And real-term funding cuts are sexist. OK»

Well increases in the pension age for example are not sexist: they mostly hit shorter lived people (that is men).

[Peter]

I've read that O'Mara wasn't properly vetted before he was chosen for the seat as it was initially assumed he wouldn't have much of a chance of winning and given it was a snap election there likely wasn't much time to do so anyway.

Nonetheless, I and many others on the left don't think that his unpleasant words from fifteen words ago when he was in his early twenties should disqualify him from office. A lot of otherwise decent people would be disqualified from office if so. However, with the accusations of his very recent sexist behaviour Labour are right to take away the whip.

The shameless hypocrisy of the Tories though is utterly galling if unsurprising, using the matter as a stick to beat Labour with. If O'Mara's behaviour was so unacceptable (and his alleged recent behaviour is) then there are a large number of Tory MPs who deserve a similar fate. Boris Johnson for his repeated disgraceful and at times racist behaviour (at least O'Mara has apologised for his indiscretions) and David Davis for his treatment of Diane Abbot (and also just for being an incompetent buffoon). And what on Earth is Philip Davies still doing in Parliament?! As ever, the Tories are a disgrace.

[Gary]

@Peter but that wasn't his first GE contest. So who vetted him the first time when there was no such rush?

[gastro george]

Is anybody on the left defending O'Mara? If the case is proved he should go. But then so should others, like Gove and Kinnock.

[Peter]

@Gary ah, sorry, I wasn't aware of that or really know how the Labour party does these things. I guess it's possible they just have fairly lax vetting procedures so more of this kind of doxxing for politicians is likely. I imagine they'll be a lot more careful next time - although a possible disturbing consequence would be many potentially decent candidates either being dismissed or not putting themselves forwards in the first place in future. Our representatives may become even less representative of the population as a result...

[Gary]

@Blissex So is your argument that we parse elements of the WS into sexist vs non-sexist and fund accordingly?

[Kaleberg]

In one of her mysteries, Sarah Caudwell once argued that character didn't exist. People just did things. In my experience, she is not exactly correct. Character does exist, but it's more about weighting the dice.

Also, I don't buy that Genghis Khan apology. If you read The Secret History of the Mongols, the official chronicles of the khanate, tribes weren't exactly assimilated. The usual rule was to kill all the men and any of the boys taller than the height of a wagon wheel. His mom, however, would adopt one of the boys to raise as her own. (I'm basing this on the translation by Paul Kahn - no relation).