Harriet Gould: Why does philosophy play such a small part in modern politics?

Harriet Gould is Deputy Campaigns Manager for South Cambridgeshire

You don’t have to spend much time on social media these days before the corporate leadership algorithm finds you.

An eclectic range of people offering advice on how to be a good leader. You know the type of thing I mean: good leaders lead, bad leaders bully, and so on.

I sometimes attempt to translate their explanations into the political context, without much luck. I think that is because leadership inside the cosy, artificial framework of business is largely incomparable with the necessarily visceral type of leadership we hope to see in politics. The single commonality I can find is that the better a person understands something, the more likely they are to support it. A team, a workforce, the entire electorate… when we “get it”, more often than not, we go for it.

It works in reverse too: the better a person understands something, the more easily they can explain it.

Some weeks ago, I closed my TikTok app for the several-th time that day, and switched, on auto pilot, to WhatsApp. Scanning down reams of red dots, I clocked the Women2Win group chat; an invitation to “Margaret Thatcher’s Leadership Election Victory 50th Anniversary Celebration!”

Immediately after booking my place, I alerted various friends, including my mother, who – apart from flinching at my considering her a “friend” – booked immediately, too. She told me she’d like to ask “How Margaret Thatcher would have dealt with the pandemic?”. I scoffed dismissively down the phone, “How indulgent. We know what she’d have done”.

I obviously don’t know what she’d have done. None of us could possibly know.

However, it struck me that out of the Prime Ministers in my lifetime (Margaret Thatcher onwards) she’s the one whose pandemic strategy we’d be most likely to have a fair stab at being able to work out because all her chat, rhetoric and deep-dives were underpinned with consistent philosophy and principles.

She often said that these were the guiding stars on which Conservative policies were based and developed, and went so far as to say that Thatcherism existed long before she did.

Can you imagine her flirting with the possibility of mandatory vaccination? I think not.

And wholesale lockdowns? Doubtful.

Why? Because both are in direct conflict with fundamental Conservative cornerstones; freedom of choice and individual responsibility.

Still, it’s all conjecture but it did make me wonder why we hear so much less of the philosophical argument these days, from either major [arty (LDs are off the hook due to their clear allegiance to political expediency and convenience – more on that another time, perhaps).

So why is it that philosophy has a bit part at best in modern politics?

The question played on my mind. So, when Michael Portillo segued from his panel interview into audience questions, I piped up, noting that in my lifetime, people have stopped using the philosophical argument and did anyone have any idea as to why that might be now? The unspoken implication being, especially when the person we were all gathered in admiration of, was arguably one of the most successful in terms of actual outcomes. Thatcher explained what she was doing intricately and usually made reference to the philosophy or particular principle the policy derived from.

And we all agree – and what’s more, it is universally acknowledged beyond Conservative ranks that [insert love or hate her variation here] – Margaret Thatcher knew her mind, politics, principles and exactly how they would transform the fortunes of a flagging nation. She explained herself and people got it. So they went for it.

Yes, the world has changed since then.

Back then, prospective party leaders garnered support from the parliamentary party (who were the ones who chose the leader) by writing pamphlets rather than by accruing followers on “X”.

Can you imagine anyone scrolling on their phones while Margaret Thatcher was at the dispatch box?

Leaders of our day don’t have to worry about Brian Walden or Robin Day dissecting every detail of every decision, to be broadcast to a single mass audience. Things are different. But I’m not sure that explains why philosophical arguments can’t feature. I’ve heard the rationale; people have shorter attention spans.

I’m not so sure that’s right.

Remember when Margaret Thatcher said “people do understand and you’d better believe it”. I think this is the same and that if you say (or write) something worth consuming, people will indeed consume it, regardless of the attention span required. And wouldn’t a detailed breakdown with reference to the philosophical underpinning provide that appetising blend that would entice people to give a little more time to what was being said.

Other than forging a greater connection with the people who put you, as an elected politician, where you are in the first place, the greatest benefit, of explaining the fundamentals that lead us to the decisions we make is that those very people who put you there to serve the nation become more confident they can predict the type of policy you will implement in the future. They know “where you stand” even in difficult or challenging circumstances.

And, while volatility is the leading lady on the world stage today, wouldn’t we all appreciate the soothing salve of predictability that the philosophical argument contains.