In Gaza, as on many urgent questions, we are watching a cohort of Western leaders do things that don’t seem to serve any purpose, besides voicing their own shallow instincts.
They are not cynical or unconscionable as much as they are #grotesque, which is harder to explain. 🧵
The US, for example, has adopted a radical line that could cost Biden many votes, while doing little to help Israel, absent achievable goals.
Meanwhile, Germany, the UK, or France, are bizarrely tearing at their social cohesion in ways that can only profit the far-right.
That is also why resignation is so has-been. When politics become an incoherent succession of “definite” views, there is no standard to hold them up to.
All this poses the question of a whole new cast of mainstream politicians who are highly educated, energetic, ambitious, arguably genuine even...
...and nonetheless shallow and impulsive, to the point where it becomes difficult to articulate what exactly they stand for.
Much of this has to do with the fact that most of our leaders belong to no particular structure .
They embody no ideology as such, beyond the malleable conventional wisdom that has currency in such circles as the World Economic Forum. Theirs are shades of greyish thinking.
They don’t really belong to a party either, except nominally.
To the extent they ride to power on the backs of an existing party, they proceed to ruling as charismatic leaders, whose individual journey counts more than their party’s long-term program or prospects.
Moreover, they usually didn’t grow out of (or entertain respect for) the apparatus of state.
In fact, they tend to do away with much of its expertise, relying on a coterie of advisors, consultants, and pollsters, as well as their innate, apparently boundless self-confidence.
Few even have any meaningful life experience, making their biographies exceptionally bland.
Increasingly, what distinguishes mainstream leaders is an uneventful background of privilege, leading smoothly into the cozy, unimaginative world of jet-setting #elites.
When you think of it, there is a template for this type of leader: #Tony_Blair.
In hindsight, for all the reasons above, he appears almost like the spiritual father of Macron, Sunak, Cameron, Blinken, Obama, and co. He remains the inspired, incorrigible opportunist in chief.
It would be a mistake, though, to assume that such leaders represent nothing.
Quite the contrary, many of their views are representative of the #zeitgeist. That is part of the #grotesque: They often say things that any odd bod may say in private, in a cafe or a pub.
That is because they represent, above all, a perfected form of individualism: A #leader is nothing but another person reacting, instinctively, in the moment.
Their views have no reason to fit into or develop a system. If proven wrong, so be it. Don’t we all make mistakes?
That is also why resignation is so has-been. When politics become an incoherent succession of “definite” views, there is no standard to hold them up to.
In turn, lack of accountability only reinforces the dis-inhibited nature of politics.
So, welcome back, Cameron!
Perhaps the most disturbing part of this analysis is that it erases much of the distinction between mainstream politicians and the populists they claim to fight.
Populism amounts to little more than expressing the zeitgeist. And populists, if anything, do it better.