9 Comments

I'm wondering if you've thought about / written about Kennedy and his view of the role of culture in shaping politics. Do you think he advocates for something similar to what you do? As a populist leader, he would do well to do so.

Expand full comment

To be honest I don't know too much about RFK's views, though I have a mostly favourable view of what I do know. I think the broad answer to the question is that many people are saying things which resonate with certain aspects of what I've been attempting to describe, which is natural if, as I always claim, it is 'an archetype whose time has come'. But none of them brings the whole picture together. On with the book!!

Expand full comment

How did I miss the fantastic article before? So glad you mentioned it today in a repost.

Expand full comment

So am I! This was a relatively early piece when my subscriber list was relatively small, so I'm glad it has caught up with you, and also of your response to it!

Expand full comment

Tocqueville had some thoughts about direct democracy too, which should not be overlooked as a powerful tool at our disposal https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/weaponized-direct-democracy-the-kryptonite?utm_source=direct&r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Expand full comment

Thanks for the link. I have read it and will also reply over there. Here I want to say that if there wre a third set of institutions, sitting outside of both government and the corporate world, they could fulfil a dual role of holding both of those to account and ultimately having direct responsibilities far beyond that too. They might eventually be directly responsible for everything that is ‘cultural’, which includes for instance education, science, medicine, the media, even the means of exchange, and more. Our answer to those who declare that utopian or unrealistic is that it has already begun to happen, in home schooling, crypto, alternative media voluntarily funded by readers, the new medical networks being set up by those world-class scientists who were ostracised for challenging the propaganda of the past years, etc etc.

The role of government then is to define the legislative ‘rights framework’ through which itself, the corporate world and the emerging ‘cultural institutions’ interact.

A major benefit is that we may responsibilities eventually devolved away from government, a) government actually stands a chance is succeeding its remit – which it doesn’t at the moment because it’s too big (control the world and everything in it), and b) when it is time to vote, and the manifesto is only about a rights framework and not a manifesto for fixing education, and the economy, and obesity and the healthcare system, and culture, and all the other things which should be in the hands of the people. The big news in that, is then the people will stand a chance both of understanding what they are voting for, and holding the government to account on it.

Net result: we gradually get something like direct democracy in the running of the many cultural aspects of society, but we still vote for a legislative body to define the over-arching (and still I believe necessary), rights framework.

A hint, no more than that, at the broadly archetypal (natural) basis of this arrangement can be found here: https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-failed-mantra-of-the-french-revolution

And some thoughts on funding such cultural institutions here: https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-circular-economy

Expand full comment

Culture must lead. Just like at the end of the 1800s the culture changed from the Wild Wild West to “Cleanliness is next to Godliness”. And from that culture change came some of the best inventions of all time: running water, sewers, and trash removal.

We need a culture change now too. One that focuses on RESULTS MATTER MOST. Our policies should be based on results and be willing to change.

Also; we need to unify against corruption.

Our biggest issue is the corruption in our systems.

Expand full comment

I think the biggest issue is that while the only institutions we have are governmental and corporate commercial ones, and none in the hands of the people to hold those to account, corruption (and even more in legal than illegal forms) will be inevitable.

Expand full comment

Dear sir(s),

I don't think any of us writing Magna Carta believed it would still be the bedrock of our political system today, although they may chortle at how little understood it has become. I think it was in 'An Anatomy of Britain', by Anthony Sampson, that it says 'politics should be boring'. Indeed. I agree 100% the state should be about facilitating us all 'minding our own business'. It is as if there were a set of restauranteurs - the government should be ensuring (1) We are not all selling (poisoned) fish & chips. (2) they are not all owned by 'Macdonalds' (3) Chinese or Indian restaurants are not bullied and (4) frankly no-one needs a glass of wine in the cinema. Imho it must be a non-perfectionist liberalism.

No one group of us can possibly determine the Perfect government or rules. We have to use John Rawls* aspiration and 'pointing towards' the perfect good that means we can aspire to be a baker, a bin man, or (groan) a popstar. Why oh why anyone with a half-decent voice would want to be a popstar or racing driver is simply beyond me, but I'm with those who favour the dustmen. Perfectionist liberalism is an 'us and them', impossible in politics. As in UB40s 'I am the one in ten', possibly a wry singing of the 20% of us disabled and disadvantaged in the constituencies who are simply impossible to be represented, I would prefer a politician to spend his campaign money on free YouTube licences for a ghetto block than a set of pamphlets with 'Shiny Happy People'. There is literally a statistic that during an election there is always 20% of the populace that are simply ignored. The homeless? The UC desperates? The mental? Let alone the (unjustly) imprisoned.

*A Theory of Justice cover-to-cover is a tough read

'Political Philosophy' today is as much the culprit - the only reason to study Locke is to justify the genocide of the Americas, and don't even get me started on the 'cheap taxation' system of Nozick and his basketball players re-allocation of their coloured balls 'entreprenuerable profit. Most 'Billionaires' don't (and shouldn't) know how to spend their money. They should concentrate on investing

in the time-tested civil servants who do, and certainly not by impartisan bribery.

If Bezos or Musk are guilty of anything, it is simply failing to submit their taxes to *any* of the three governments - the aristocracy, the populace and the children. Yes, we do need a children's parliament, and Yes, Greta Thunberg and Licypriya Kangujam are two of the five Holy Mountains. They are the only ones left who can see the insanity that we have unconsciously submitted to and dug ourselves into. Stupidly eating imprisoned and incarcerated brothers and sisters whilst the date palms are ripe in Sainsbraitrose. Even Hollywood itself has forgotten that a $100 million remake of comic books is best addressed with anime. Not with a plethora of Jean Luc Picard salaries and a ray gun.

Reading wise, "Liberalism", by Domenicom Losurdo is well worth picking up, although a little long-winded towards the end, and watching some lectures from the late-great Professor Charles Mills - essential. For my own part, my Machiavelli is to astute and subtle Kautilya, the regency of good king Ashoka from our aryan brothers across the ocean. Zeus is Thor - the gay joke simply doesn't work.

x MH

Expand full comment