I gather that some fat bloke who always refers to himself in the third person has suggested that Gordon Brown might be ‘bonkers’. Right-thinking people have condemned this.
My complaint is different. It’s that, to paraphrase Niels Bohr, Brown is not “bonkers” enough.
Take first the jibe that Brown is “faintly autistic”. The National Autism Society says that one symptom of Aspergers is a love of routine. But this is just what politics should be: the routine application of simple rules of law, and the routine delivery of public services.
As Alfred North Whitehead said, “Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them” – that is, by the application of routines. By contrast, one complaint I have about Brown is that he is insufficiently concerned with routine, but flits from headline to headline and from one ad hoc intervention to another.
Also, there’s some evidence that people who are slightly depressed have better cognitive functioning than what are absurdly called “normal” people. In particular, they are less prone to the illusion of control and to the optimism bias.
And extremely depressed people are too (pdf) pessimistic (pdf).
And these are good things in politicians. A policy-maker who recognized that he couldn’t always (or often) be on top of events, and who knew that grand projects often end in failure would favour much more limited government than we have. Regrettably, however, Brown does not display these useful symptoms of depression.
So, perhaps, everyone – except Tom in this superb post – has got it wrong. The problem isn’t that Brown is bonkers. It’s that our political system not only expects its politicians to be always in control, but thinks it normal when they appear to be.
If we define mental illness in Szaszian terms - as merely a deviation from the consensus – then there should be a little more of it.
Tweet |
You couldn’t let it lie could you? Yesterday Sunny was pedaling the Brown is completely sane line – and today, Brown’s a little bit bonkers but ‘not bonkers enough’.
One could speculate that you are enjoying the debate about the PM’s mental state as much as the Tory trolls. If you weren’t, you would find something less salacious to write about. You defend his obvious behavioural anomolies while secretly enjoying the spectacle of Brown’s self destruction.
On a separate note, my comments on Sunny’s post yesterday were deleted (I assume for in some way infringing your comments policy). However, you post starts with a rather infantile insult directed at Fawkes as ‘some fat bloke’.
Deleting comments from Tory trolls and stifling debate is one thing but indulging in petty name calling and deleting comments from those that do likewise is the behaviour of vapid, vanity bloggers with sixth form intellect and little regard for fairness, journalistic integrity or liberal values.
Just my 2 cents – feel free to delete this if you disagree.
I am not sure why a Liberal site would want to run right wing nut talking points. If you want to have a debate about whether The Labour Party should sack Brown and replace him with someone else, fine, but ‘Browns is a loony ‘ thread does no one but the Tory party any good.
How about a tread on Cameron saying that Bush is ‘intelligent. ‘ Now that is mad.
Sally – Well, Tim Montgomerie at ConservativeHome is already trying that. I’m just shocked that no one has called him bonkers yet.
On a separate note, my comments on Sunny’s post yesterday were deleted
That was because it was related to some trolls, left and right wing.
Nothing must be allowed to put Sunny’s peerage in jeopardy!
[...] Re: I don’t get it MadMazza wrote: > Mind you Golden Brown could be strangled quite easily! ;o) > " Brown isn’t bonkers enough" https://liberalconspiracy.org/200…onkers-enough/ [...]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
26 Comments 5 Comments 42 Comments 15 Comments 5 Comments 15 Comments 47 Comments 41 Comments 34 Comments 19 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » Mulligrubs posted on I know how let down Libdems must feel » ukliberty posted on What if Superdrug lived up to its name? » Hopi Sen posted on Why Labour was right to reject Bob's drug policy » Patrick Kingsley posted on 49 universities are or were under occupation » Dominic posted on 49 universities are or were under occupation » KB Player posted on John Pilger shames himself by attacking feminists over Julian Assange » Wendy Maddox posted on Consumer confidence falls to a 20-month low » Vladimir posted on What if Superdrug lived up to its name? » Rachel posted on 49 universities are or were under occupation » ad posted on Ten myths about housing benefit reforms in London » sally posted on John Pilger shames himself by attacking feminists over Julian Assange » G.O. posted on Why Labour was right to reject Bob's drug policy » Lysander Spooner posted on Media laps up Muslims Against Crusades stunt » Patrick Kingsley posted on 49 universities are or were under occupation » Charlieman posted on John Pilger shames himself by attacking feminists over Julian Assange |