The ghost of Lech Kaczynski

You may have seen me live-blogging the second leaders debate for Reuters, but after a couple of days to think about it, there's one issue that I'm still thinking through. As expected both Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown chose to highlight the Conservative Parties alliance with various "right wing" groups in the European Union. Nick Clegg used the term "nutters" (exposing a pretty ironic absence of toleration for a supposedly "liberal" politician). In what I thought was one of the most effective comments of the debate, David Cameron (having remained silent the first few times this was mentioned), said something a long the lines of

I notice you both praised and admired the late President of Poland after his death, so we'll hear no more of that thank you

Indeed The Economist's obituary of Lech Kaczynski says the following:

Such gaffes and inexperience made Mr Kaczynski easy to lampoon. So did his socially conservative views. As mayor he banned gay parades in Warsaw. His stance was mainstream in Catholic Poland but shocked secular European opinion. Hostile journalists at home and abroad enjoyed ridiculing him.

My understanding is that the one of the charges being levied at the Tories is that they're in a coalition with a bunch of homophobes. But the reason why Kaczynski was a homophobe was not because of a secular-based arbitrary discrimination (of the type most prevalent in the UK), but because he's a Catholic!! Didn't anybody else see the irony in Brown and Clegg on the one hand portraying themselves as sympathetic to Catholic views (when talking about the Pope), but then dismissing anyone that would share such views as "nutters"?

This isn't intended to be a defense of the Tories - I developed my political consciousness in Liverpool, remember. According to "votematch" the Lib Dems are closer in policy terms to me than any other party (although I find this hard to believe).

I am one of the few people who is politically engaged but completely apathetic. Indeed just for the record there are two reasons why I won't bother to vote:

1. My vote won't make a difference - even though in 2005 there were just 0.3 percentage points difference between Labour and the Tories, that translates into several hundred votes (probably). If I had the decisive vote, I might bother to do so. But I wont.
2. I don't feel I possess sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision - I believe I understand a bit about the economy (and all 3 parties are advocating very different policies to those I'd support), and I am aware of most issues in a broad sense. But whilst, for example, I would like the NHS to be privatised and for a withdrawal of troops, I appreciate that I lack a real understanding of these issues. I am confident of the philosophical basis of my beliefs, but lack the practical basis to assert myself strongly

You might be thinking, "thank god you don't vote Anthony, it's only because libertarians tend not to get politically involved that the country isn't in a worse state than it already is". Perhaps, but even my biggest critics would acknowledge that I'm more politically informed than the median voter (?) I which case you might say to me (as is often the case) "you might not understanding everything but that's democracy! The people who *do* vote will probably know less than you, so you need to balance them out by voting". If this is the case, then I've demonstrated my point: democratic engagement is pollution. Most of the public tend to be hopelessly ignorant about politics. They certainly are about the economy. But once we've established this empirical regularity, surely the solution should be to raise the costs of voting? To stop encouraging morons to "get out there and vote for votings sake"?

Or maybe we should just go with the guy with the nice tie.

Comments

[Quinn]

I think some of this is a little unfair. Whilst agreeing that referring to any group as "nutters" isn't laudable, I think your charge of hypocrisy against Clegg and Brown doesn't stick. It's hardly surprising that neither of them decided to publicly stick the boot into Lech Kaczynski right after he'd died, that's just manners; but that doesn't mean they can't stand by specific criticisms they also had of him. And all three leaders agreed that the Pope should be allowed to visit the country while at the same time criticising specific things that he and the Catholic Church have done. I think it is perfectly valid to criticise someone for being homophobic, and that Catholicism is no defence.

On the more broader point I'd reckon that I'm more politically informed than the median voter, but I don't think my vote is more important than anyone else's, even a BNP voter's; I don't really like this "balancing out" idea as it sounds uncomfortably elitist. In another context people talk about the "wisdom of crowds", but in any crowd there must be a fair few idiots, and intelligent people can easily come to what in hindsight is clearly the wrong conclusion. That said I also don't agree with trying to "get the vote out" or making voting easier; it's easy enough to vote already if you want to and not voting can be as positive an action as voting. For example, I *will* be voting in this election, but it will be more of an anti-Tory vote than a pro-Lib Dem vote.

That reminds me, I'm off now to cheer on a Man United victory. Funny old world.

[aje]

I just wonder whether Nick Clegg think's that Lech Kaczynski is a nutter. I guess that's the point of the post.

Also, don't forget that Wisdom of Crowds is constrained by the type of situation. As Derren Brown demonstrated it doesn't always apply...