The Rock, May 1999
In England Now
The Art of the Possible
“Politics”, wrote ‘Rab’ (later Lord) Butler in the preface to his 1971 book of that name, “is the Art of the Possible. That is what these pages show I have tried to achieve – not more – and that is what I have called this book.”
Never believe anybody who tells you that “Religion and Politics don't mix”. The two are continually mixing, acting with and reacting upon each other – and that is equally true of secular and "sacred" politicking.
Every religion has political consequences for the community in which it is professed and practised – even if, as Jehovah's Witnesses claim, they want nothing to do with that community. Their claim itself brings consequences both for the Witnesses and the rest of us.
Similarly, every political action reflects and impacts upon what we and others believe, even if it's the belief of the fool who says in his heart There is no God (Psalm 14:1).
For example, consider the commandment Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, which many people profess to believe in, but most of us fail to live by. That is the statement of a profoundly religious belief because it begs both the questions “Who says so?” and, even more insistently, “Who is my neighbour?"
Any politician who imagines that the government of his country can be grounded solely on this one principle soon comes in for a rude shock. Even if that country by and large professes just one particular religion, let alone three or four, public opinion may be sharply divided as to the definition of “?Neighbour”; whilst professed atheists find it hard to come up with a single logical reason why anyone should prefer a policy of “loving” their neighbour in preference, let us say, to “ignoring” (or “cheating”, or “persecuting) him.
We all know, of course, that some of the kindest people in the world claim that they are themselves atheists: but their kindness, wherever else it may come from, cannot rationally stem from the belief that “there is no God”.
So policies inevitably depend upon principled beliefs of one sort or another; but beliefs in themselves have political consequences whenever those who profess those beliefs practise (or fail to practise) what their religion prescribes for them.
Take the example of the Good Samaritan – a parable which Jesus told in answer to the politically highly-charged question “And who is my neighbour?”
The Priest, the Levite and the Good Samaritan each in his own way, by making the choice to "pass by on the the side" or to tend the wounds of their neighbour-victim, was taking a political action by his behaviour towards the Jew injured by the gang-attack, even if the implied belief behind that action was as much as to say "it's none of my business”.
Mind you, we can't be certain that the two who “passed by on the other side” were entirely lacking in concern. The Priest may have decided that his political duty under the circumstances consisted in bringing up the matter of increasing street-crime at the very next meeting of the Highways Safety Committee of which he was an outspoken and hard-working member; the Levite, on the other hand, knowing that because he didn't have the necessary medical know-how to be of immediate assistance, perhaps decided that he should go and look for someone who did. Unlike the Samaritan, he didn't have a ready-made first aid kit in his saddlebag (even though it was his dinner!). We mustn't be too hasty to judge from appearances!
So their action in “passing-by on the other side” may have been informed by no less a principled system of belief than that of the Good Samaritan who was "moved by compassion" and gave help where it was most immediately needed – a gesture which was just as political in nature than that of his two predecessors towards the wounded Jew on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho if considerably more useful in practice!
Prime Minister Tony Blair's government is beginning to learn this lesson the hard way. After nearly twenty years of relative powerlessness of being The-Labour-Party-in-Opposition it is now, as New-Labour-in-Power, having at one and the same time to produce policies which actually work and justify them morally. Rab Butler's dictum that Politics is the Art of the Possible is beginning to hit them where it hurts.
Predictably they are finding themselves not only having to adopt and adapt most of the policies of the previous regime which they defeated so spectacularly a couple of years ago – policies about which they were so unremittingly disdainful and critical when they were in opposition; worse than that, the very grounds on which they condemned these policies are now being used as their reason for justifing them now that they hold office.
Which is deeply vexing, of course for their opponents whose political clothes they have so deftly stolen.
Let us look at some examples:
Over the years what's called Disability and Incapacity Benefit, an award designed originally for those who were genuinely incapable of working, has degenerated a crying scandal. Why? Because it was inevitably and predictably just a matter of time before relatively healthy people discovered for themselves that it was only necessary for them to feel too sick to work, find a sympathetic doctor to sign the appropriate form, and they would then be able to claim this (quite generous) benefit ad infinitum.
As a result of this, says Dr Theodore Dalrymple (Sunday Telegraph 23 May, 1999) “?whilst the population grows ever healthier, the number of people claiming this benefit grows ever larger. Three million – more than double the number twenty years ago – now claim sickness payments of one kind or another from the Government. If medical progress continues at this rate, we shall soon all be too ill to work”
When the previous government tried to address this problem they were accused, by Blair et al. of being heartless towards the sick and needy. Now with the scandal getting worse by the day (and everyone knowing perfectly well what's going on) it is New Labour who are describing such undeserving beneficiaries as "scroungers" and "workshy".
Another example: When Michael Howard was Home Secretary he tried to crack down on crime, with the result that many more people were sent to prison. For this he was accused of being draconian, insensitive and failing to understand that poverty was the most immediate cause of crime. The fact that thousands of relatively poor people are law-abiding appeared to pass unnoticed by his critics, who maintained, furthermore that punishment, based on what someone's behaviour deserves, was claimed to be an outmoded concept, indistinguishable from vengeance, and having no place in a civilized society. Treatment was the appropriate remedy for wrongdoers.
But wait a moment! Look what's happened now. Some of the most ferocious sentences are being advocated by Howard's replacement, Jack Straw who even went so far as to suggest that amongst people who had served the legal sentence passed upon them by the judiciary some should remain captive in prison unless and until they had shown sufficient signs of contrition and amendment of life.
But unless someone misdeeds have merited his incarceration in the first place, what possible principle can be used to detain him indefinitely on the grounds that he may re-offend some time in the future?
Observe that those who advocate such measures are not suggesting, that such people are incapable of being reformed or of distinguishing between right or wrong. Special mental hospitals like Broadmoor and Rampton exist for that purpose. No, these are people whose sanity is not in question, but whose prolonged detention is being recommended on the grounds that certain people (who? one might ask) believe that they are likely to "do it again".
Since that applies, however, to a large proportion of the criminal fraternity, why not keep everyone in gaol indefinitely, regardless of the seriousness of their original offence? It would certainly reduce the rate of re-offending dramatically!
Here's a third example: In opposition, the Labour Party has traditionally been anti-war, anti-armed-conflict and in favour of seemingly endless negotiation even with those who have shown that their sincerity was not to be trusted.
What have we now? Why, Tony Blair leading the NATO hawks and demanding that no quarter should be given to Milosevic and the Serbs until they cease from "ethnically cleansing" (and presumably make suitable reparation to) the communities in Kosovo whom they have so ruthlessly and systematically been persecuting.
Tony Blair and (with less enthusiasm) Bill Clinton behave they have a moral remit to use NATO as an international policeman. Well, maybe they have: but it's far from clear where that authority comes from. Their policies in the Balkans seem as long on pragmatism as it is short on principle.
One could go on multiplying examples of this kind in many areas of public life in the United Kingdom today, but these would only serve to reinforce Rab Butler's contention that politics which is not grounded in reality is a lost cause.
There is, however something more which we need to remember: that morality is an essential part of reality.
It's at this point that those who have made a virtue of professing no particular religious belief are most vulnerable. For, as I said near the beginning of this piece, atheism finds it well-nigh impossible to say why people should behave one way rather than another.
It can appeal to their enlightened self-interest: "If you do that it may be bad for you”? – "Very well, then, I shall take care how I do it. Moderation in all things, you know.”?
It can appeal to the fear of punishment “If you do that you will be sent to prison”? – “Very well, then, I shall take care not to get caught”
Or it can appeal to our “better” nature. “How would you like it if someone else did it to you?” – “Thank you, but I don't intend to give them the opportunity!”?
Do you see where all this is getting us? You can go round and round in circles with verbs in the indicative "it is in your interest to...." "you would be well advised to..." "it will improve your life expectancy if you..." "society will be improved if everyone..." and never once arrive at a conclusion in the imperative: "Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not”. It is only those who believe in a just, all-seeing, all-righteous Deity (like Jews, Moslems and Christians believe in) who stand any chance of producing a coherent system of legislation.
It's true that these religions will not agree on every detail of that legal code. But the areas of their disagreement pale into insignificance beside the broad swathes of morality about which they are agreed, and are agreed because they believe in, and worship, the same God.
However reluctantly, we are forced back to the conclusion that politics is the art of the possible. But notice, politics is an art in the first place, not a science. Those who believe that it is their role to improve the world in which we live need first to acquire the skills of that art. That necessitates at the very beginning learning to recognize, and persuade others to recognize, the supernatural reality upon which all morality must ultimately be based.
And that reality, as St Thomas Aquinas asserted, is the Being whom we call God.