Consumer Politics And The Death Of Idealism

We live in the age of consumer politics, where business and politics hold an inseparable power over our lives. In this time, have we come to a point where we have become tired of  both left and right politics? Through our realisation that neither wing has been able to implement change? Has power become stagnant and run out of ideas?

Recently I watched a series of documentaries by Adam Curtis called “All watched over by machines of love and grace” In it he describes how human beings have lost their profound ideological visions and now treat society as a process of maintenance. He believes this has been implemented by the computer age as those with power see people as statistics within a mechanical system. He believes that politics no longer holds profound, idealistic visions of the future but is instead pre-occupied with making the slightest changes to the present. In UK politics people have been saying for years how the Labour and Conservative parties have moved increasingly towards the centre; so Curtis's theory that we no longer idealise, but maintain, could probably be said for the government of my country at the very least.

I'm quite often called an idealist in political discussions. I would answer that Liberals (like I) believed in progressive ideals that broke against the past, and that conversely, Conservatives believed that we should return to societies' former glories. Now I'm finding it harder to define the difference. Modern Democracy is supposed to give a voice to the masses by offering voters a choice between two opposing ideas, yet when those ideas look so similar, what choice or power do any of us really have? Tony Blair's Labour Government moved to the right economically, by granting more power to the free enterprise of business, whilst offering a barely more libertarian alternative to the Conservative party. People traditionally think of politics as left and right, but most people attach their own prejudices to what those terms mean*. The fact that no one agrees on what it means to be left or right wing not only creates confusion, but it also reveals how easily it is to get the two confused. In reality each political wing must compromise beneath the umbrella of the financial markets. The role of politicians is just to manage within the framework of that economic system. With economics as the invisible hand and politics as the visible face these two form the basis of power in our world.


*(Take a brief look at the political compass if you want to understand how I'm describing left and right wing here)

I would argue that politics is now so interwoven with business that it has copied its tactics and now only appeals to the lowest common denominator of public interests. The introduction of the “petty politics” that focuses on the small scale desires of mass groups first bore fruit in John F. Kennedy’s presidency. History seems to have remembered Kennedy as an idealistic martyr who championed liberal ideals. But this idea of Kennedy doesn't do justice to the whole picture, and ignores the fact that Kennedy has been so fondly represented by the media because he was the first great PR politician. In the 1960 election with Richard Nixon, Kennedy gained strength because of how he came across in their first TV debate, even though Nixon had come off greater in the now fading medium of radio. From this point onwards Kennedy's attractiveness became a key factor in the run up to the election. Conversely Nixon was caught wiping sweat from his head, was fatigued from a knee infection and had suffered from drastic weight loss. Furthermore the grey backdrop blended in with his suit and quite literally made him fade into the background. Most notably for the first time, the public's aesthetic and superficial interests had a dramatic effect on the direction of power in American politics.

The adherence of those in power to the petty interest of the public is now a common and powerful tool for re-election. Bill Clinton's opinion polls plummeted in 1994 after the midterm election, causing him to dramatically change his PR campaign. On the advice of his political advisor Dick Morris, Clinton performed a series of televisual stunts in which he participated in the hobbies of the most common groups of Americans . Clinton's popularity changed drastically and he remains the President with the highest end-of-office approval rating since World War II. Tony Blair based many of his policies on a similar statistical reading of public desires borrowed from the market research techniques of business. The trend of target setting in the public sector was implemented because of the computational theory that human beings could have a purpose without ideology when they could reach mathematical goals. The mathematical and psychological tools of businesses have seeped into governmental policy as companies become more influential. It's fair to say that there are certain benefits from a corporate approach to the masses, as business exists to adapt to the demand of the consumer. But should we listen to our basic and primal consumer desires for comfort, luxury and a desire to feel self important when we govern ourselves? Regardless, it is through measuring and then listening to those desires that western politicians maintain their power. As a result a politician can now be elected in much the same way as someone chooses a product, and the results are similarly superficial to our happiness.

Rather than having politicians that argue for radical reforms and change and that hold a desire to target the roots of national or global problems, we are told quite without question that “One of the many insights that Cameron's team have borrowed from Tony Blair is that modern electoral politics is as much, if not more, about personality and tone as it is about the filigree detail of policy promises” In the age of consumer politics we now happily elect a leader that has declared that he's “not a deeply ideological person” and who states that he's “not ideologically attached to one single method” Yet it is in the best interests for both politics and business to have national debate over matters like fox hunting or free school meals, as even though they're worth discussing, they're not fundamentally going to change anything. Those that have the most power on our planet are politicians and businesses. It suits these interests to not question how the world is run too intensively as to do so would be to sabotage their own self interest, and acknowledge the possibility of losing that power.

Yet like water, when power is still it becomes stagnant. It is the global recognition of the lethargy of those in power in the face of profound problems that I believe the seed has been planted for the worldwide youth revolutions. So as the world sinks into a supposed time of crisis environmentally, economically and socially it might be best to ask not what left or right wing solutions can offer us now, but rather what we can do to analyse our relationship with power and to hold both it and ourselves accountable. Perhaps also, what we call Democracy is in reality - Consumer Politics. Yet as the cracks form worldwide in the old hierarchies of power in governments across the world, whole populations may panic about viable alternatives.

Our understanding of power has been the greatest cause of conflict throughout our history. So it is vital that we analyse it, so the powerful does not continue to misrepresent the powerless, and continue to experience retaliation in a cycle of suffering and conflict.  As it stands many of us understand power to be  possession and/or control over others, but surely absolute power requires or needs nothing? I feel we should first cast away this myth, as no matter what way you put it, limiting the quality of life of another will invariably come back to limit you. It is from a desire to have a great more than others that power becomes stagnant. Power then only serves its own interests rather than that of the whole, thus resisting movement and change, and in doing so setting into motion its inevitable opposition and demise. This is the stubborn process of every great empire, yet are we not witnessing the same again today?

Think of the earth like a cell. Our beautiful planet swims in an ocean of other cells all making up the endless expanse of the universe. Like a cell, the Earth has its own internal ecosystem and chemistry. Yet this organism has reached a crossroads in its existence. Lying latent is the potential to go forth and multiply and begin to understand the adventure outside of its own existence . But currently “cell Earth” is infected with a terminal cancer and is literally destroying itself. The world's religions are fighting over the grand questions on our existence, yet the irony is those questions could be addressed by our shared exploration of inner and outer space. Currently we are too busy destroying the cell to get onto the exciting business of looking beyond it! Now some may label my call for unification as idealist, but to me the alternative is just plain illogical. Currently we are a primitive culture because we behave as if we are separate tribes or "countries". Yet if any organism, be it a cell, an animal or the earth decided to think that way it would destroy itself. We need an evolution rather than a revolution, the only alternative is self induced extinction.

True power comes through our ability to liberate others, as it is through this that we liberate ourselves and become truly powerful. Those in power today guard it jealously and have resisted profound political or economical changes and thus the guarantee of dignity, opportunity and survival for all. So as the foundations of power crack ask yourself this question; will I continue to maintain this world and its relationship with power or do I want to live for something ideal? 


The age of Consumer Politics was the age of separation, where games of power over each other limited us from realising the bigger and more rewarding game out there . Let's rediscover our highest aspirations for ourselves and we will achieve more than we could ever imagine in this time of maintenance, in the age of unified ideals. Humanity has never acted as one organism, imagine what we could achieve if it did!