Held Hostage: The Clash of Idealism and Realism

The past week has seen much occur, most notably the Chancellor’s Budget for a recovery from Covid, the ongoing Salmond-Sturgeon debacle, and the Oprah-Harry-Meghan interview. All have seen a clash of idealism and realism, in which institutions, parties and public figures have tussled over truth and what the future should look like. Yet these numerous incidents have also revealed how many in our commentariat, in our political nation have been held hostage by an idealism which makes them reluctant or averse to the demands of realism. Some believe that some principles are timeless, inflexible and should prevail over whatever fluctuations and vicissitudes dominate the moment. We saw this with the Budget raising taxes, this from the historic party of low taxes. Yet we also saw that this was a direct clash with another, even older economic liberal shibboleth: sound finance.

Our world today is forever in turmoil, it seems. Perhaps the 24/7 news cycle conspires to present us with a thousand and one problems, and little purview of solutions. But the Budget and the varied responses to it show something deeper, a part of the political malaise which has overcome our country for quite some time: how a deep and inflexible attachment to certain principles overrides and clouds our collective vision of reality. Pragmatism and compromise become dirty words, seen as ‘selling out’ or a convenient replacement for a lack of depth or conviction. While economists argue about the merits of monetarism or fiscal expansionism, conservatives and other political tribes alike look to the size of the state, or the rate of taxation, above the need for sound finance.

When we refer to managed decline, has this been concurrent with our prioritisation of the ideal over the real? Have we preferred the darkness of perfectionism to the light of ‘the possible’ realities before us? After all, the sorry Brexit crisis saga began with bombast and high-flown rhetoric and ended with a whimper and a collective apathy for what had been a bevvy of promises by numerous politicians. What in December 2019 was believed to be economically destructive and insane, became the height of sanity and truth in March 2021. Of course, the years differ; of course, a week is a long time in politics; of course, that was then, and this is now. But is the malaise something deeper? Has the attractiveness of winning in the 24/7 news cycle made us less inclined to soberly consider the long-term future? If claims of pork-barrel politics are true, are we really thinking ahead beyond the present day, or simply until the next election?

With Salmond and Sturgeon, we’ve seen the ugly mix of amorality, internal feuds, and untrustworthy national institutions at play. The crisis is bad enough for a constituent and equal member of the UK to have its political integrity so sullied, what would the result be if this had been the case for an independent Scotland? To be derided on the world stage as a ‘banana republic without the bananas’ or as a ‘one-party state’. We’ve heard it time and time again, but sometimes the oldest mantras have the deepest truths: that Britain deserves better than this. The ideals of Scottish independence, of ‘whatever it takes’ and ‘at any cost’ have seemingly triumphed over the morality of sexual abuse, the corrupt whiff of abuse of power, the stinking cesspit fervour of party and faction before country.

The cause of Scottish independence seems greater than moral truth. Where the cause of separatism merits more than the welfare of the people whom one was elected to serve; how money is better spent on damages against former politicians who should know better, than on the under-funded mental health services, housing projects, and schools provisions of those who should be the first and last thing public servants should think of: the people themselves. How has it come to be that the ideal of Scottish independence has obscured the reality of political apathy, corrupted morals, and administrative ineptitude? Party before country is a distinctly unpatriotic and indeed un-conservative thing to do. Our leaders are elected not to forget the public until the next election, but to hold power as a trust for their constituents: all of them. This nineteen-year old gets it, so why can’t mature leaders with long careers behind them get this?

But lest we ourselves become complacent, let us remind ourselves that the decay of morals which afflicts long-serving governments is not far from the boundaries of Westminster, or of London. Everyone will have their opinion of the Harry and Meghan interview. I shall not contribute much on this ongoing and personal affair, but I shall say this alone. Duty is a constant in our life, it is the embodiment of self-sacrifice and service to others in neglect of self. It is not easy, it is not comfortable, often it can feel immediately unrewarding. But we should, as a generation and as a nation, be careful not to dismiss or denigrate the patient, silent duty which many hold to as a lodestar of their life. The carer who works the longer hours, unpaid, to ensure the best standards of care for their patient. The teacher who offers additional tuition or assistance to their pupils and pupils’ families. The family who treat children’s friends and neighbours as one of their own. The humble parishioner who lives out daily their religious faith in the numerous unspoken acts of generosity to those who most choose to ignore and efface from their world-view.

All these nameless individuals do not act alone, they act as part of institutions. Institutions are people, but more than that, they are greater and bigger than people. It is easy to see them as faceless, remote, forbearing. But institutions require us to play our part, often unnoticed or in deference to those at its top – be it a business, a military regiment, or indeed a large organisation. In our quest to be freer individuals, ‘speaking our truths’, let us also realise that the ideal of atomistic individualism and unfettered liberty is one which will continually come up against the harsh grains of reality. No man is an island unto himself. No institution is beyond reproach. But no institution deserves unthinking damnation and vilification. And conservatives should know this, and so endeavour to know better. And act better. Because, when the time of trial strikes, it is indeed these very institutions whom we run to, in our hour of need. Not individuals, not celebrities, not even YouTube. But the institutions which we place our faith in in dire days, and, in times of affluent sunshine, undeservingly our cynical dismissal and cheap disparagement.

Our lives are never easy, perhaps they never were meant to be. But in this clash of the ideal and the real, something as old as the hills, we see how dogmatic attachment to certain shibboleths disorients our world-view. Low taxes before sound finance. The success or integrity of a cause before the success and integrity of our morals and of people. The unfettered liberty of being ‘me’, ‘I’, and ‘alone’, over that of the order and communal liberty of our long-standing institutions. In our rush to assert principle and conviction, let us have a little humility to rise above the egoistic nitty-gritty, and see the bigger picture. After all, to be knowingly held hostage is a situation surely irrational for all.

Darian Murray-Griffiths is a first year reading History and Politics at Christ Church.