Politicians, Plumbers & Plato

Does anyone say: “all plumbers are the same”; “you can’t trust any of them”; “plumbers are clueless”; “we don’t need them”?

Most likely, people will agree that we can’t build reliable houses without the input from a good plumber. And plumbers are certainly not all the same – some are dedicated experts, some are mostly helpful but difficult to get in an emergency, and some are actually con merchants.

The same is true of politicians.  It would be unwise to brush them all aside as equally incompetent or corrupt, when in fact how well (or badly) society functions depends on what politicians are in office.  The more we allow those who only care about enriching themselves or advancing fundamentalist causes to take power, the more we will suffer.  If we are to get better public services, more fairness in human relations, safer communities, a stronger economy, and real sustainability, we need to get more sensible, strategic, public-spirited politicians elected.

But what makes a good politician?  Plato misled generations into thinking the key qualification to be a political leader is to have the unquestionable ability to know what should be done for society. But there can be no such ability, because what should be done for society depends on a wide range of factors – including crucially the deliberative explorations by members of the society in question – that no individual can know without engaging with others on an ongoing basis.  

Only a dictator would claim to know what should be done irrespective of what others might have to say.  While Plato was fine with that so long as the dictator subscribes to Plato’s philosophy, history has taught us that we must guard against authoritarian rule at all times.

To tell what would make a good politician as opposed to a bad one, we should look to three qualities:

[1] Character of integrity

We want political leaders who are honest and respectful.  Many people who enter politics are kind and decent. But there are also those who are hypocrites, cheat in their private dealings, bully those who work for them, and couldn’t care less about those less fortunate than themselves. When we read about them in news reports, we must highlight who they are and the political party that gives them a home, and not slide into the absurd censure of “all politicians are dreadful”.

[2] Public-spirit

One’s career before turning to politics can tell us a lot about a person’s suitability for public office.  Some have dedicated themselves to helping others, through public service or a voluntary organisation.  Others have concentrated on making money through financial speculation or defending clients who try to get round the law for their personal gains. The former have shown consistently their concern with advancing the common good.  The latter type treat politics as a means to build influence and contacts to help their eventual return to their private career for money-making.

[3] Readiness to learn

Good politicians are well disposed to learn from others – be they experts in particular fields, colleagues with greater experience in certain policy areas, groups with serious concerns that have not been addressed, or the public in general about issues that affect their lives.  Unlike demagogues who would arrogantly pretend to have the answers when mired in ignorance, they would prioritise cooperative learning to guide their policy decisions.

There are other important skills such as resilience, persuasiveness, leadership that politicians ought to possess.  But these skills may be displayed by people who lack the three vital qualities we mentioned above, and without them we are more likely to get a manipulative authoritarian steering us to ever more disasters, than to receive sound political stewardship.

Politicians should not be backed on the basis of their photogenic smiles or clever jokes.  But like plumbers, they should be chosen for the qualities that really matter.

Third Encounter of a Closed Mind

People with a closed mind attach themselves to certain feelings and beliefs they have at a formative stage in their lives acquired, and henceforth refuse to reconsider them regardless of what may be presented to them.  Attempts to persuade them to think again are liable to be perceived as an attack on their very identity, and would most likely be pushed aside.

The first time we encounter such a closed mind, we may be struck with incredulity. How can anyone possibly think that others are more or less trustworthy depending on their skin tone? Can anyone seriously dismiss overwhelming scientific findings about climate change issues as one big hoax?  Why would anyone assume that countless families living in poverty and hunger must have only themselves to blame?  What would make someone believe they always know more about what God wants than anyone who holds a different view?

On a second occasion, bemusement may give way to anger.  We are now witnessing those with a closed mind backing politicians who want to make it easier to discriminate against people on the grounds or race or sexuality.  We hear them cheering policies that are unsustainable economically and calamitous environmentally.  We see them pressing for ever harsher treatment of those on low pay or in precarious employment.  We learn that in the name of ‘God’ they are rallying around laws to reduce women rights.

By the third time we encounter those with a closed mind, we may despairingly feel there is nothing more to do but to walk away.  What can we do with people who ignore facts, make groundless assumptions, and routinely condemn what they barely know anything about?  Well, there is one thing we could try.  This would be the path of empathic connection.  Instead of trying to prise open a closed mind, introduce it to the experiences of someone they can relate to – a friend of a friend, a neighbour of a relative – indirectly through recounting something that happened, or directly in getting to know a person.

The philosopher, Richard Rorty, once suggested that Heidegger might not have become a Nazi supporter if he had fallen in love with a Jewish woman.  Rorty’s point was that a mind firmly closed to consideration of relevant factors might just be prompted through emotional contact to engage with what was hitherto outside its own confines.  

Love can be powerful in bringing people together.  But often neighbourliness or friendly acquaintance might suffice to facilitate the understanding of new perspectives.  For example, it is well known that areas with lower levels of immigrant population have more negative views about immigration, whereas people who have more opportunities to live and work with immigrants are better disposed towards them [Note 1].

Meeting patients and their families who have had to deal with particular illnesses and treatment could work better than listening to lectures in changing the minds of people who had previously refused to accept any expert medical advice.  Becoming personally familiar with the struggles endured by a couple of overworked, underpaid parents and their hungry children could reveal problems that would otherwise be ignored if the case was covered in a formal report.  Getting to know people with diverse religious and secular beliefs could turn out to be the best antidote to self-righteous extremist views about what is ‘Right’ or ‘Wrong’ in the world.

It may not be easy to get people together when they are usually kept far apart.  But it is always possible [Note 2].  And while there is no guarantee it would work every time, empathic connection offers a tangible route to bring closed minds out into the open.  It’s worth a try.

--

Note 1: During the UK’s EU referendum, support for Brexit was generally higher in areas with lower migrant population, and lower in areas with higher migrant population.  People’s assumptions about immigrants tend to improve over time when they get to know more about them in their daily lives.

Note 2: It has been documented that in the First World War, British and German soldiers in opposing trenches made direct contact with each other over the Christmas period and celebrated by sharing food, singing and playing games together.  Alas, their superiors did not welcome this outbreak of fraternity and threatened to court martial anyone refusing to shoot at the enemy.