Whatever the economic consequencesby Oliver Letwin / March 20, 2017 / Leave a comment
Most professions have fairly obvious aims. Medics aim at curing patients; pilots, at reaching destinations safely; generals, at winning wars.
What makes politics so difficult is that politicians aren’t, or at least shouldn’t be, in this sense mono-teleological. Their job is, rather, to balance off one kind of result against another.
Even within a single kind of valuable social result—say, achieving prosperity or preserving liberty—there are bound to be difficult tensions between the short-term and long-term consequences arising from a given political action; and when it comes to tensions between two or more different kinds of valuable result—say, between maximising prosperity and maximising liberty—the political going really gets tough.
Never is this truer than when a nation comes face to face with fundamental change. Unlike in the ordinary run of elections, during which politicians (and the journalists who are parasitic upon them) can at least pretend that “the issues” are self-defining, once the nature of the state and its fundamental relationships to other states are up for discussion no one involved in the debate can ignore the tensions between differing, valid concerns.