The Great Divide

The great divide in politics—politics taken broadly to include any decision communally taken—is this. People who are honest and realistic about trade-offs vs people who will pretend there are no trade-offs.

Here as in other things, reading the medieval scholastics can teach you something about politics and even about the modern world. St Bernardino of Siena once preached about usury and tried to answer the pragmatic claim: “people need loans, and loans will not be given without interest, therefore we have to have usury.” Taking the objection seriously, he asked what kind of people need loans, and after running through the list found only two types who were morally justified: the really poor, and people in an emergency who needed quick cash. But, he said, the poor are only further impoverished by loans. They don’t need loans, they need alms. And as for people in emergencies, they too only impoverish themselves by borrowing at interest. They should bite the bullet and sell their property. It will be harder now but they will be better off in the long run than if they borrow at interest.

St Bernardino here is a perfect role model of a good politician, indeed of Prudence itself. A person who is ready to look candidly and realistically at trade-offs, not blink in the face of hard truth, and judge what will really be in anyone’s best interest.

And this is the great divide in politics. Because there are people who willing to pretend we can get away without any trade-offs at all.

And in every political debate isn’t there one side like this? I have my own list of examples but you could probably supply your own.

Once the great divide is stated one thing is obvious: in a modern democracy the dishonest side will always win. The person who raises objections and difficulties, who points out unhappy consequences — that person is tiring and depressing compared to the person who says we can have it all without paying for it. And the realistic person can (and nowadays will) always be smeared as a victim-blamer, ‘privileged’, mean, etc. The special device seems to be to claim that the realistic person wants people to suffer the trade-offs — as though St Augustine wanted unbaptised babies to go to hell. Also, we can always kick the can down the road —the consequences will come later so who cares; excessive government spending might bankrupt the country or destroy the currency but with luck we’ll be dead by then, etc.

Above all, most people do not know how anything actually works outside a very small range (myself included), and in ignorance wishful thinking will reign.

So I conclude that being honest, realistic, and discerning in this way, is, in worldly terms, hopeless.

But we must do it anyway.