There’s a small section in John Steinbeck’s novel
East of Eden where he discusses how people in Salinas, California used to think about the future. He
writes “The whole valley, the whole West was that way. It was a time when the
past had lost its sweetness and sap” (Ch. 15.i). When the 19th century turned
into the 20th, these people in the West started to look forward, anticipating
the inevitable progress towards which the American dream was leading. They
might not know quite when this heaven on earth would arrive but they had hope
and faith that it would. It didn’t matter that the dream had not yet been fulfilled, it mattered only that they were tending towards it. Maybe it would even be
fulfilled in their own lifetime. “And people found happiness in the future
according to their present lack” (Ch. 15.i).
I found this passage by chance in a novel I was
reading by chance. I’d just watched again the James Dean film for the first
time in years and wanted to see what the book was like. Something struck me
when I read these sentences and I spent a few days thinking about why they had
caught my attention.
I remember reading about how the SNP organised the
independence campaign. They were taught by some American political guru that
they must banish all negativity. Alex, Nicola and co. played some sort of game
where they had a collection of balls and had to give away one each time they
said anything that was not positive. They learned their lesson. I may have
mangled the story, but the essence of it is true.
There’s something about these political gurus that I
despise. They’ve turned politics into a game which attempts to manipulate the
result using human psychology. It turns politics into a sport where what
matters is my team winning. But politics must have a purpose beyond mere
winning. Otherwise, it becomes a game not worth playing. What matters in the end
is not whether Republicans or Democrats win, but how the country is run. The
political guru is paid to make his party win even if that were bad for the country,
just as a lawyer frequently is paid to get his client off even if he is guilty.
This has nothing to do with justice and nothing at all to do with truth.
In Scotland we were faced with a debate about the
future of our country. No more important decision can be made than breaking up
a nation state that has withstood so much throughout the course of its history.
The result should not be influenced by political trickery. Let us banish all
gurus, especially those who couldn’t care less about Scotland so long as they
are paid. The future of Scotland should not be determined by balls as if it
were some sort of lottery. It’s not about creating a populist mood. It’s not
about manipulating psychology. Rather, it’s about decisions that will affect all of our lives in ways we can hardly guess at. Let us at least be a little serious
about how we decide such questions. Let us focus on issues of substance. If
what I say is true, it ought to matter not one little bit if some people find
it negative. Truth sometimes is negative and it is simply childish to try to
avoid it as if reality dare not impede the dreams of nationalists.
But this is not where we are in Scotland. Nothing
must interfere with our dreams. What Steinbeck showed in his novel is the power
of hope, the power of the idea that life will get better, maybe not for me, but
for those who come after me. This is compelling particularly for those who lack
something now. Most importantly, the mere idea that the future will be better
makes these people happier now, just because they hope that in time their dream
will come to pass. The anticipation can sometimes even be better than the thing
anticipated. Who has not looked forward to a trip, only to be disappointed with
the reality? As long as the goal is in the future, reality need not impede the
dream. This was the power of the SNP campaign. All they had to do was present
people with hope and this hope made those, especially with a present lack,
happier. The problem with this method of campaigning, however, is that it doesn’t
depend on truth and is immune to counter argument.
People in California over a hundred years ago dreamt
of how untold riches would come to the valley of Salinas. They thought of how
progress would end all the hardships they had to endure at present. Anyone
pointing out difficulties was just being negative. Such comments were wholly
unwelcome, even un-American as they went counter to the American dream.
This is our problem in countering the dreams put
forward by the SNP. For those caught up in the dream, any counter argument is
just being negative. Moreover, the dream simply depends on faith in the future.
It cannot be disproved, because the proof that would counter it does not exist,
or exists only in a future that may or may not unfold. We therefore have faith
based politics. Nothing I can say can disprove a claim about the future. After
all, the future is not and can be anything I dream it to be.
The problem however, with the politics of hope is
that it does eventually collide with reality. The SNP have put forward a vision
of an independent Scotland. They have turned a proportion of the Scottish
electorate into those who look forward to this with hope. They see every
counter argument as just talking down Scotland. Wha’s like us, we can make the
future of Scotland anything we choose it to be. They think anyone who doesn’t
share their dream is ultimately un-Scottish. But if Scotland did become
independent, the dream would in the end face a reality. At this point the
counter arguments would be proved true or not as the case may be. But by that
point it would, of course, be too late. This is the power of the SNP’s argument.
It doesn’t matter if the dream they put forward does not turn out as they describe.
There may be disappointments, but independence is a one way street and there
would be no going back. Their hope does not need to have any relationship to
truth, for their dream is only independence. It matters not one little bit to
them what an independent Scotland would be like just so long as it was
independent.
There is something seductive about the idea of
inevitable progress. Steinbeck’s Salinas valley did get richer and the standard
of living did rise. But then anywhere that has free markets and doesn’t do
something politically or economically stupid will see a gradual rise in the standard of living. Anyone who can remember the 1960s and 1970s realises that we
are incomparably better off now than we were then. But clearly this is not the
hope that Scottish nationalists seek. If they were only interested in the
gradual rising of living standards, they would be content to stay in the UK.
Here is where they begin to side with people like Mr Corbyn in presenting a
vision of the future that is rather more Utopian.
The Scottish nationalist vision just like the vision
of the Corbynites is of a society that is fair, without inequality that never
goes to war and where socialism brings something close to heaven on earth. People
find happiness in this idea according to their present lack. This is why it is
so difficult to counter. It’s an ideal. Even Tony Blair did not join the Labour
Party to become a Blairite. He joined because he hoped one day to bring about
the socialist paradise that he dreamed of when he was a youth. Why is it that
people who disagreed with Corbyn let him into the contest in the first place?
The reason is that although they disagree with him, they wish that what he says
was true. The problem with the pragmatists who oppose Corbyn is that they can
all remember when they agreed with him and would like to agree with him now.
But neither Scotland, nor England is going to become
a socialist paradise even if some people try the experiment. The reason is quite
simple. Although it would be nice if we were all content to live in a socialist
paradise, we never will because it would be necessary to change human nature to do so.
Free markets bring prosperity, precisely because of all the nasty things that
socialism strives to remove. It is inequality that drives progress. The future does not always see hopes fulfilled. Progress
is not always inevitable. Many parts of the world were far worse by the mid
part of the 20th century than they had been at the beginning.
The hope that is put forward by both Nicola Sturgeon
and Jeremy Corbyn is quite seductive and it is very difficult to counter, but
it is worth remembering that more unhappiness has been caused by Utopian dreams
than almost anything else in history. These dreams will eventually come up
against reality. It may be impossible for us who do not dwell in the land of
Nod East of Eden to counter those who do, but their dream world is liable to
turn into a nightmare. But for the present, there is no waking them up, because
hope is a greater soporific even than morphia.
