Thread by @AndrewPRLevi

The politics & geopolitics of Mary Jane - a tweeted treatise

A.A. Milne knew a thing or two about children & adult failings. And was the creator of political metaphors. Here, Mary Jane & her dinner.

If you have ten minutes & a hot brew (or rice pudding), settle in.

A 🧵. /1.

Mary Jane was throwing a tantrum. The grown-ups couldn’t understand why. She’d been given lovely rice pudding. Children always adore rice pudding. How could Mary Jane be unhappy? So (far more wittily & lyrically) goes A.A. Milne’s whole poem. /2.

The solution stares the reader in the face. How we laugh at the adults, so uncomprehending of their failure to understand their own, obvious error.

How uncomfortable we (or some of us, at least) feel, recognising the description of inadequacies we share. /3.

As parents. As friends & colleagues. As members of our wider society.

“Ah”, I hear you cry, racing ahead of my ponderous analysis, “so you’re setting yourself up as part of an elite - a fallible one, to be sure - patronisingly seeing unsatisfied voters … /4.

… as tantrum-throwing toddlers who, if only you offered them what they wanted, would calm down & let you get on with the important business of running things of their behalf”.

Good try. Understandable. But no.

Let’s take a closer look. /5.

Who’s throwing the tantrum?

The UK & Brexit - US/Trump, & many other examples - are instructive.

Since I’m writing this from Brexitania, let’s consider that.

Michael Gove’s infamous 2016 “we’ve had enough of experts” interview with Faisal Islam; … /6.

… Dominic Cummings’ aggressive, erratic, nonsensical, interminable blogs; David Frost’s furious railing against the Johnson Brexit he & his boss themselves insisted on & rammed through with minimal scrutiny.

To name but a few notable examples. /7.

gov.uk/government/spe…

These people are (in Cummings’ case were) the grown-ups. No point claiming otherwise. A PM, two cabinet ministers, & a PM’s chief advisor. You don’t get more grown-up, among government roles. Nor more grown-up than government in the vital functions of running of the country. /8.

Now, of course, you’re way ahead of me again.

It’s the grown-ups who are throwing tantrums. Not, on the whole, those who depend on them to get the most important things right.

Indeed.

The millions of Mary Janes divide into three groups.

Terrified.

Joyful.

Bemused. /9.

The terrified know what’s happening is wrong, didn’t vote for it, never would, & feel powerless in the face of advancing disaster.

The joyful love both the nastiness & the chaos. They’d always choose the former & delight in the latter.

The bemused are … floating voters. /10.

Reminder: this isn’t primarily about Brexit. We’re seeing this phenomenon in many places around the world. Leaders throwing tantrums. Populations - complicit or not - at their mercy. Why? /11.

The terrified aren’t driving it. Obviously.

Nor are the joyful. They are who they are. Always have been. Likely always will be.

Which leaves the bemused. Sorry folks, if you self-identify with them: it’s you. Toddlers letting nanny get away with throwing a massive tantrum. /12.

But let’s be fair.

The bemused are strongly affected by external circumstances. When times feel good, they’re not sufficiently wound-up over politics to vote for amoral tantrum-throwers. It feels safer, better even, to go for more reassuring types. /13.

Often with a good dose of nastiness stirred into the mix, for sure. But something approximating to democratic leaders, upholding constitutionality, the rule of law, competent & honest administration, more or less respecting the validity of opposing views & parties. /14.

When times feel uncertain, or dangerous, many of the bemused care little for decency, rules, even competence. As long as something, anything, makes them feel safer. If others suffer, they look away, saying “the world’s a tough place: difficult choices must be made”. /15

Under such circumstances tantrum-throwers fit well a leadership style which appeals to many of the bemused. So long as the vicious, emotional frothing is cocooned in a simulacrum of reason, insight & camaraderie. The Gove interview mentioned above is an excellent example. /16.

Unlike Mary Jane, these operatives typically throw controlled, extended tantrums, designed for maximum effect over the usually lengthy periods required to achieve political outcomes. /17.

Some, like Mary Jane, powerfully feel the emotion which gives rise to the tantrum but, unlike the little girl, they’ve learned techniques of control. For others, the tantrum itself is fake: a cynical exercise in exploiting a situation for personal or narrow group advantage. /18.

The bemused, for the most part, can’t tell the difference. Who can blame them? Expert liars are, by definition, good at their craft. A category of experts the country could definitely do without. /19.

Social & political scientists will say this is all too one-dimensional. I’ve been describing a spectrum from “liberal” to “authoritarian”, via “undecided”. But views are more complex, multi-dimensional (social v economic liberalism, for example). That’s true. In safe times. /20.

In turbulent times, the reptilian brain (either literally, or at least in external effect), which permanently dominates the political decision making of the joyful (authoritarians), takes over the more susceptible of the bemused (don’t knows). Nuance, & decency, are ditched. /21.

And a plurality or even a majority can, apparently suddenly, form around an agenda fundamentally antithetical to a more or less liberal, more or less decent, constitutional order. That’s what happened on 23 June 2016 in the United Kingdom. Brexit day. /22.

The most striking feature of the UK’s EU referendum was that those voting Leave overwhelmingly also supported the reintroduction of the death penalty. Regardless of economic or social status, educational level, geographic location, party preference, gender, age … /23.

For those voting Remain, the reverse applied, again regardless of other factors.

Correlation is, of course, not causation. Nonetheless, what might this tell us? /24.

Think of a country split equally between authoritarians, liberals & undecideds. Assume the authoritarians & the liberals won’t switch. That means, in a two-way competition, for the authoritarians to gain a majority, half the undecideds (1/6th of people) have to support them. /25.

In more complex circumstances, including the UK’s ‘first past the post’ voting, & the US system, it only requires a plurality.

And, of course, the population isn’t divided into neat thirds. /26.

Still, the basic point remains: if you’re undecided enough not to support decency when the going gets tough, you’re helping hand power to the tantrum-throwers.

And the going has got tough. /27.

Overall, we’re wealthier than ever.

But relative erosion of the domination of the world economy & security by the US & its alliance has increasingly led to serious instabilities, disruptions & confrontations. The effects of climate change are also more & more apparent. /28.

These, beyond direct emotional effects of global news coverage, are felt in changes to economy & society. As are impacts of the very technological developments (innovations, spread of technologies & energy availability) which give rise to the shifting power relationships. /29.

The world’s dangerous. More so than any time since A.A. Milne wrote “Mary Jane”. Maybe ever.

Tantrum-throwing manipulators make things (far) worse. So do those who vote for them. A small fraction of people can make the difference.

If you’re undecided, time to decide. /30. End

P.S. If this all seems reminiscent of Clinton’s ‘triangulation’, Blair’s ‘third way’ & Schröder’s ‘neue Mitte’, that’s because it is. However, back then, though the stakes were high the urgent need to prevent complete constitutional collapse was absent. Or far less clear to most.

P.P.S. The above ‘tweeted treatise’ describes varied democracies, 🇬🇧 , 🇺🇸, 🇩🇪 … The same applies in principle to authoritarian & totalitarian states. But, given the leaderships’ brutality & control, opposition is … difficult. An excellent reason for acting before it’s too late.

P.P.P.S. In the unlikely event anyone’s got this far & their reaction’s “but Dominic Cummings talks a lot of sense”, hear this: I don’t say his blogs/ outpourings are “nonsensical” because I don’t understand them. I describe them that way precisely because I do. And they are.