Sunday 5 July 2015

Leaving Things Alone

Looking at the headlines in the last month from the mayhem in the Middle East to the never-ending Greek tragi-comedy, it's interesting that the proposed solution to every problem is government activism. Without the exception of the Conservatives' bill banning every psychoactive substance apart from alcohol and tobacco, the reaction from left and right is to ask for someone in authority to do more. Yet even lovers of the hyperactive state can see that banning everything that might conceivably give you a buzz is very unlikely to do any good. Judging by the comments section in the Mail Online, the majority suggested it might be a better idea to consider de-criminalising softer drugs like cannabis. It's a strange world where the Mail readers think a Tory government is overdoing it on law and order.

You might think that the miserable experience of drug prohibition with 100,000s of murders in South America, trillions wasted in law enforcement throughout the West, the preventable overdoses and lives blighted by a criminalised addiction, would make a Conservative administration think twice before passing such a law. But no they did it anyway. One definition of madness is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result, apart from drug policy it seems. The law-makers have passed a law, motivated largely by concerns that narcotics make people behave in irrational and self-destructive ways. I would use the metaphor of pot and kettle, but everyone has chrome these days and no one uses the singular of pot. So the updated saying should be, the Dualit  toaster calling the Dualit kettle shiny.

Hyperactivity or the appearance of 'doing something' is the order of the day, despite overwhelming evidence banning narcotics does not work and alternative, less interventionist approaches like Portugal's work better. And if you're wondering what do I mean by 'better: lower rates of drug use, theft, violence, overdose and associated disease. Unless you are Peter Hitchens, who wants to lock up the ten percent of the UK population that use controlled substances, this by any reasonable definition is an improvement.

Why then if most of us are sceptical of this kind of government activism on account of its total failure to produce positive results, do we think that pushing for more government intervention elsewhere is a good idea? Governments have pretty full in-trays as it is and have a lousy track record when it comes to delivering results. Nonetheless, whatever the problem, whether it's the Greek debt crisis, healthcare, schools or immigration, everyone pushes for more laws, more regulation, more action! No matter how many billions spent by the state, how many laws passed, initiatives launched, wars either real or metaphorical, the outcomes tend to disappoint. Like Oliver Twist or the binge eater opening the fridge at midnight, we always want more.

Foreign policy is the best or rather worst example of government hyperactivity. If the West had just minded its own business in the Middle East, you could argue this benighted region would be better off. It could hardly be doing worse. Again, there are few voices suggesting caution or humility. In Syria and Iraq more bombing with smarter bombs might work when a full scale invasion failed, apparently. There was a particularly stupid article in the Spectator that suggested ISIL could be defeated by hiring mercenaries, citing the experience in West Africa when a handful of hoodlums were put to flight by paid soldiers. How exactly you would persuade any hired gun to go into combat against a ruthless, disciplined force with an estimated 30,000  troops, heavy weapons, suicide bombers and a reputation for brutality that makes Genghis Khan seem like a lentil-eating Green is not explained. I imagine mercenaries, like the rest of us, plan to make it retirement and don't have a death-wish, which is a problem when your opponents do.

Lacking from the debates about these crises is an alternative view, which used to have many more supporters in the West: classical liberalism. As philosophies go, it is a rather shy and retiring one, which was easily crowded out by those who saw the state as the answer to every problem. You see those kind of liberals, which confusingly have little to do with those who call themselves liberals today, thought of the state as a necessary evil or a more voluntary contract between individuals. They were wary of state power, believing that government had a greater propensity to screw things up than to get it right. Foreign interventions of any kind should be conducted with caution; wars fought only in self defence. Big government and over-active politicians, they believed were dangerous to individual freedoms and long-term  prosperity. This didn't mean that classical liberals thought you government should do nothing, they just were wary and cautious; mindful of our capacity to make situations worse, no matter how well-intentioned a policy might be. It was a mindset that counselled leaving things alone, unless you were sure you could improve the situation.

As you might expect, this sort of ideology doesn't see people waving placards in the street or getting emotional. No one marches on Whitehall with a banner saying 'Let sleeping dogs lie', 'It's probably not worth it' and 'If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it'. U2 won't organise a charity concert in support of the cause, although that's probably a good thing. It's not sexy and in the battle of minds, politicians like to feel important and must be seen to be 'doing something'.

Sadly there are few supporters of leaving things alone as the wisest course of action. I am reminded of my experience with a head of comedy at the BBC, who practised an enlightened form of benign neglect, a rarity in Auntie's realm of busy bureaucrats. He let producers do their job, he avoided pointless meetings and preferred not to interfere unless something went wrong or you needed his help. During his tenure, the department produced a string of hit shows that not been equalled before or since. Maybe doing nothing isn't laziness, maybe it's wisdom.

Take the example of Greece. Before it joined the Euro, it was doing fine. True, Greeks didn't pay much tax, there was widespread corruption and it was a lot less efficient place than Germany. But it sort of worked. Prior to locking their currency into the EMU, the precursor to the Euro, the Greek government like the Italians and the Spanish, would let the drachma devalue to restore competitiveness. They could have tried awarding government contracts on merit, rather than the size of the bribe or whether it was your uncle making the bid and saved some money. They could have paid more tax. By world standards Greece was not powerhouse, it wasn't a basket case either. It muddled along and it had lovely scenery.  Classical liberalism would say Greece is not that broken, no compelling need to fix it (sort of the general motto in most people's approaches to DIY.)

Unfortunately for the Greek people, their politicians and the Eurocrats could not leave well alone. They wanted their name in history books and on memorials. In one sense they have got their wish. Future historians of the period will most likely describe the creation of the Euro as a catastrophe, on a par with a major war for the destruction of wealth especially for nations such as Greece. These do-gooders will be immortalised, just not in the way they hoped. If all you care about is being famous or rather infamous, then their wish was granted. But I doubt they will want their names reviled in the coming decades as arrogant, foolish meddlers. The drachma worked well enough for Greece; the grand scheme to replace it with the Euro has wrecked their economy, blighted a generation of youth to unemployment and saddled the country with hideous levels of debt.

So perhaps there is a general lesson to be learned, a form of small 'c' conservatism which has little do with Cameron's party. The Conservative party ought to be the party of smaller government and less activism, unless of course it involves pensioners. If you are a UK pensioner, David Cameron practises socialism that would make Ed Miliband happy - subsidies for buy to let, benefits that outrun inflation and a host of freebies. You don't need to worry about your children's inheritance, should you go into care. The state will pick nearly all the tab irrespective of your wealth. And what is the outcome of this hyperactivity - chronic deficits, a savage housing crisis and zero earnings growth for those under twenty-five.

The lesson that politicians refused to learn is that the small 'c' conservative or classical liberal concept of doing less, is not doing nothing. In fact by reducing its to do list to essentials, government stands a better chance of actually succeeding in its core aims, which is helping people get on with their lives. You can't help wondering with the state of Europe and the Middle East today, it's a shame more politicians didn't take longer holidays to work on their golf swings or just lounge on the beach. If they won't embrace the philosophy of classical liberalism, then what about distracting them with the modern obsession for self-expression. In the 19th century, Disraeli when serving as PM, had time to write novels. We should encourage our political classes to skip official meetings and try creative writing classes, pottery workshops or learning how to make their own furniture and be fulsome in our praise. The more vampire novels, salt cellars and occasional tables they produce, the less harm they can do in the real world.