...as I say, not as I do

This summer has seen the rise of an interesting new political trend: politicians talking about problems they either can't or won't do anything about. This has seeped into both social and economic issues, thanks to the perceived crisis in both. The credit crunch, escalating energy prices, the values of young people, eating habits, lads mags and so much else are now fair game for politicians seeking to assert their authority. The Conservative Party has been particularly adventurous in naming the various sources of Britain's malaise, scarcely any of which are possible objects of policy intervention. This all represents a new spin on 'libertarian paternalism', but rather than nudging people to change their behaviour for the better, this rhetorical version simply points out how nice it would be if they did.

In the past, there would have been two reasons for caution in such areas. Firstly, there would have been a fear of over-promising and under-delivering. By bringing an issue into the bounds of political debate, a politician risks getting saddled with responsibility for it. If it is something that cannot be acted upon, such as Nuts magazine or the cost of food, then it would be best not to comment. Associated with this, as far as moral issues were concerned, was the danger of hypocrisy, should a Party's own conduct be found wanting as occurred around the time of John Major's 'back to basics' rhetoric. This fear of a disconnect between language and action seems to have abated recently. Perhaps the trick is to find problems that are so far outside of the limits of policy, that nobody could possibly expect a government solution.

Secondly, there would have been the contrasting fear of under-promising and over-delivering. If, for instance, a socialist or French politician murmurred about the inequities of the free market, then this might be the thin end of a statist wedge leading to protectionism and subsidy. Even today, suspending market mechanisms is not quite in the realm of what politicians can't do, but it is certainly in the realm of what they won't do. In Britain in 2008, it is only because we have complete faith in the neo-liberal, non-interventionist virtues of our leaders that they are permitted to join in the whinge about Wall Street and prices.

Over the course of 2008, it's become apparent that we now expect something rather odd from our leaders. We want to know that, a la Clinton, they feel our pain. But were they to initiate real action, we might well start to feel rather uneasy. If Michael Gove were to do something about Nuts and Zoo, this would make us as morally anxious as it would economically were Alastair Darling were to really do something about the credit crunch.

For readers of Michel Foucault, and his British followers in particular, this represents an interesting inversion of what is meant by liberalism. For Foucault, the liberal state speaks the language of freedom, but employs covert disciplinary interventions to make this freedom manageable. Westminster politics currently does the reverse. We allow our leaders to speak the language of discipline and state action, but only because we are safe in the knowledge that they could scarcely begin to deal with our misdemeanours and problems, even if they wanted to.