As a student of history with a longstanding preoccupation with politics, the relevance of the subjects covered by this blog to my own concerns is obvious. I have chosen to expose some current 'conventional wisdoms' (to use J. K. Galbraith's phrase), or conventional idiocies or delusions, such as 'Global Britain' or 'following the science, ' or the belief that Britain is not racist. It has also sought to question some conventional assumptions, those, for example, which seek to use economic criteria to establish the importance of the arts ; or which unconsciously underestimate the sheer political depravity of Trump, Bolsonaro and Johnson. More generally, I seek to examine the complex connections between ideology, culture and politics. I try to point to possible historical perspectives on these problems. An example of an attempt to tease out these connections is my blogpost on the sartorial preferences of male politicians and special advisers. This subject is often (or always) ignored by conventional political commentators ; it does not follow, however, that it is not worthy of examination. Clothes matter ; people wear them for a variety of purposes ; and those in political life are more aware than most of the performative aspects of apparel.
Although I argue from an obvious political perspective, my aim is principally not to argue for particular causes, but to provoke thought. I hope that while there are many things that arouse my concern, or even anger, my tone is not hectoring, or 'contrarian' for the sake of it. I seek to establish a conversation with my readers.
Although I am aware of the influences of the essays and journalism (though not the political views) of H. L. Mencken, of George Orwell (particularly his essay, 'Politics and the English Language') and of the historian E. P. Thompson (particularly the essays in the volume, 'Writing by candlelight') on my work, because I have read them in the past, I am not comparing my work to theirs. I do, however, hope to follow their example in repudiating and ridiculing all kinds of jargon, cliche, obfuscation and cant. If you desire to think clearly, you have to write clearly. That does not mean avoiding 'long words' ; it does mean using the resources and nuances of the English language as much as my abilities allow. The language is a common resource. Unfortunately, that means that too many people think that they are free to abuse it (think of managerial speak, the cliches of politicians, the overuse of such empty terms as 'sustainability' and 'resilience'). However, language is itself very 'resilient', and has a way of coming back to bite, in unexpected ways.