Wednesday 9 November 2011
|
|
Wednesday 9 November 2011 |
By Daniel Finkelstein
From the moment I heard about it, which was, what, 20 years ago, something like that, I was captivated by Jim Pinkerton's idea of the "New Paradigm".Jim was working for the first President Bush back then and he was in despair. He thought the President was coasting, and perhaps coasting to defeat. So he began to develop an alternative way of looking at politics, one that the President could use to shape his agenda. And he called it the "New Paradigm".
I took an interest from the beginning for two reasons. The first is that I have always been a sign-on-the-dotted-line man for political campaigns involving incomprehensible words with a silent "g" in them taken out of books by Thomas Kuhn. The second is that I could see that Pinkerton was right.
In 1990 the first stage of the market revolution was over but it wasn't obvious what came next. Pinkerton argued that empowerment came next, and choice, and welfare reform. The State wouldn't disappear but it would have to adapt to social and economic change.
So I followed what then happened with interest. Pinkerton got together with the Democrat Elaine Kaymarck and they formed a bipartisan group called the New Paradigm Society. And before long Bill Clinton picked up the group's ideas and used them in a speech offering voters a New Covenant (no Kuhn, no silent "g", but the same thrust). It helped to power him to victory. Thoughts meant to aid President Bush instead helped to sink him. And Kaymarck went to work for Vice-President Al Gore on reinventing government.
I have been thinking about the New Paradigm Society because I think we are at a similar moment now, a moment when the political parties are going to fight for ownership of a new political idea with a great deal of power. And either could win.
Here's how the idea appeared in Ed Miliband's party conference speech: "The banking crisis, MPs' expenses, journalists hacking phones. From them all a something-for-nothing culture ... you know what your values are ... reward linked to effort.
Something for something."
And here's how the same thought appeared in David Cameron's speech: "Real fairness isn't just about what the State spends. It's about the link between what you put in and what you get out ... Under Labour they got something for nothing. With us they'll only get something if they give something."
The idea that underpinned both speeches was simple. Our demand for fairness is not a concept developed by philosophers, it is an observation made by scientists. The basis of human (and indeed, all animal) co-operation is reciprocation. You do something for me, I do something for you in return. We have evolved as beings who insist that others return our favours, that we get something for something.
And we get angry when we feel we are being deceived. There has been a lot of talk about public sympathy for the so-called "spirit of St Paul's". The idea is that voters share the protesters' fury that a small group of bankers and chief executives seem to be paying themselves vast salaries out of all proportion to their contribution to the community.
This is quite true. The fury is there. But it isn't just about rich people. It is about anyone who gets something out without putting in the same amount.
The feeling is not, therefore, a sort of new rising left-wing revolution against capitalism. That's a misunderstanding. It is one part of the same populist anger that is commonly expressed about criminals, welfare fraudsters and bogus asylum seekers.
This demand for fairness is always there, but it becomes particularly strong when resources are scarce, as they are now. And it was a big part of the mood for change at the last general election.
One of the things voters meant when they said that it was time for a change was that they (the decent hard-working people, and everyone thinks they are one of those) believed they were putting in much more than they were getting out and that this had to stop. They feel that the rewards that should be theirs are being given to others who don't work as hard, and that the State gives them a bad deal, taking their tax and giving them poor services in return. Mr Cameron has to show that he knows that this is what he was elected to deal with. And Mr Miliband has to show that he can respond.
The power of the "no more something for nothing" message is obvious. Unfortunately, so are the political problems that come with it.
We have evolved to co-operate, but also to cheat. Humans want, if they can, to see if they can get more out than they put in. And they want to stop others doing the same. As a result we have also evolved a strong aversion to cheating and a strong sense that we are being cheated. The demand for fairness may, therefore, be impossible to satisfy. The instinct that tells us that things are not fair may be as strong as the instinct to co-operate, and as ingrained.
This provides Mr Cameron with a serious difficulty. The very nature of our idea of fairness may mean that his policy response won't seem fair enough. And the demand for fairness will persist even if it isn't reasonable.
As a Conservative, Mr Cameron also has the problem that he has to tackle unfair reward at the top, something voters think he doesn't want to do, and which is tricky to achieve. But his big advantage is that when asked which party they most associate with tackling the something-for-nothing culture, voters overwhelmingly name the Tories.
That is the challenge for Mr Miliband. This weekend he associated himself with the St Paul's protesters, swapping Tony Blair's big tent for a campsite of small ones. He will not win the fairness battle by doing this, any more than by dividing companies into producers and predators.
The issue of power and rewards for top people is important but only a part of fairness, a part where Labour is already relatively strong. It is on crime, welfare fraud, the deal for taxpayers and immigration, the other big fairness issues, that Mr Miliband needs to concentrate. To win on fairness he will have to get far tougher on these issues, and talk about little else. And this is something that runs counter to his instincts.
But if he is willing to do it, the prize is certainly worthwhile, as it is for Mr Cameron. If either of them doubt it, just ask Bill Clinton and the members of the New Paradigm Society.