“Victims petrify politicians”, writes “Bagehot” in the Economist. (Alternative link here.) “They are apex stakeholders. Normal rules for decisions—risk, cost, proportionality—are thrown away when they are involved. What if a headline suggests ministers snubbed victims? Write the cheque. Civil servants, always cautious, become cowards. Campaigners know this. The unedifying spectacle of a grieving parent wheeled in front of cameras to push a particular policy, whether limits on smartphones or ninja swords, has become a political trump card.”
“Has become”? One of my few criticisms of this admirably unaccommodating article is that it talks as if this development were new. That voters and hence governments cannot bear to disagree with a victim was already old news in the days when the cheques being written really were cheques. It was an established political pattern in 2001 when I wrote a piece for the Libertarian Alliance about the reaction to the gun massacre at Dunblane.
. . . nowadays we give the bereaved parents at Dunblane, the survivors of rail crashes, and similar groups both the license to say anything due to the distraught and the intellectual consideration due to experts. They can’t have both. Not because I’m too mean to give it to them, but because the two are logically incompatible. The press and public have handed power to those least able to exercise it well.
(Alternative link here.)
Bagehot continues:
Trade-offs are ignored when victims campaign. Martyn’s law, named after a victim of a suicide-bombing at a concert in Manchester in 2017, requires any venue that can hold more than 200 people to have an anti-terror plan, even if it is a village hall. It is likely to cost businesses about £170m ($225m) a year to comply and bring about £2m of benefits, mainly from lower crime. A careful balancing of interests is close to impossible if a victim’s mother is involved. “This would not have happened without your campaigning,” said Sir Keir at a meeting with Martyn’s mother, rightly.
The word “rightly” is not here a term of praise. “Martyn’s Law”, like nearly every law named after a victim, is a bad law that should never have been passed. But the blame for it should not fall on Martyn’s mother. God knows she never wanted to be labelled “Victim’s Mother” on the chyron. She never wanted to be in a position such that her opinions on measures to take against terrorism were of interest to anyone. She never sought to be a lawmaker; never claimed she would be any good at it. The man who should be blamed did.
The thing about these laws is that they are monuments to people’s grief rather than being useful. No doubt their heard words from the grief of this mother, and whose heart does not go out to her after than outrageous tragedy, and we decide let’s have “Martyn’s Law”. The purpose is to have a law, a memorial, and what gets poured into it is almost irrelevant. And of course that means the civil servants pour whatever is their priority into the law, so in many ways this is the worst, the government exploiting the victims to advance their own causes.
Every so often one of the parents from the Sandy Hook school massacre is on an advert advocating for some entirely useless gun control law. I have such mixed feelings about it since I feel so much compassion for the pain of the person, but I almost feel they are exploiting their children’s suffering to make a political point, so I am simultaneously mad at them.
Something I have noticed over the years having known a fair number of people who have lost loved ones. The initial pain is overwhelming, but then they redirect their energy into the funeral arrangements, contacting family and engaging with all the “our deepest sympathies” and all the “I made you this casserole” that engulf them. And then the funeral is over, and it is only at that point, all alone in their grief, that the fullness of it hits them. I have always made it a policy with people in my life who have lost loved ones to rather focus my support on them after the funeral rather than all the brouhaha before.
But this is a similar thing — it is trying to take something so utterly senseless as the murder of children, and imbue it with some sort of meaning. In part to try to deal with facing the gaping maw of the utter capriciousness of life, but also, I fear, in part as a distraction to avoid the overwhelm of the grief they must face after the distractions are put away.
And it just seems to me so vile, so horrible, that politicians would take advantage of people at their lowest to advance themselves. And then have the audacity to call this “compassion”.
But I’m sure I don’t need to tell anybody here that politicians are, generally speaking, scum.
Long ago, I was low-level staff for a MN guy. He was pushing a new law that was triggered by something bad that had happened to someone.
His staff chief said, let’s call it Sammi’s Law! Great heartstring tug!
Boss said no, it’ll pass or fail on its merits.
There are SOME pols who are more than decent. Two that I worked for, I’d rank amongst the best of humans. So, just sayin’.
Yes. North Carolina has passed a law named for Iryna Zarutska. Now I think Zarutska was an innocent victim, and her murder was a monstrous crime for which retribution is needed. But the fact that a law has been named for her makes me think that it will almost certainly be a bad law.
Of course, there are some victims who are the wrong sort of victims, and they never get laws – good or bad – named after them; indeed the already existing laws are for some reason rarely – and reluctantly – enforced in those cases.
@bobby b
There are SOME pols who are more than decent. Two that I worked for, I’d rank amongst the best of humans. So, just sayin’.
I agree, which is why I added the qualifier. However, they are rare birds indeed. And I think the reason is that the process by which we select politicians, through working the corrupt systems of the party, selling out to donors, taking advantage of voters with false and misleading promises, is a natural filtering mechanism to make sure all the decent people who want to do that job don’t have a chance. They have the great disadvantage of having principles they believe in, believe in decency and fair play, try to be honest and straightforward, and don’t have the killer “its me or I’ll burn the place down” instinct that seem to be necessary to succeed in politics.
And it is why I think you find a larger percentage of decent politicians at lower levels where they haven’t been filtered out, or people who jump in at the top for various reasons — two obvious examples being Trump and Vance (and FWIW, Obama — he was certainly a principled politician, even though his principles were terrible.)
It is a rare person who can wrestle in the mud and come out clean. Our political selection process is designed to favor scumbags, perhaps because it was designed by a previous generation of scumbags.
I may be in a minority here and if half of what is being reported about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is true then he was and remains a loathsome individual.
Nonetheless I am uncomfortable at the degree to which the largely unsubstantiated memoirs of his late and likely deeply troubled “victim”, a seventeen year-old masseuse who’s parents were allegedly more than happy to facilitate her participation in potentially illegal activities under New York law and who copped what should have been a life-changing payout, have been seized upon by media on both sides of the pond. Ours anxious to play their part in diverting attention from serious governmental shortcomings at home, theirs to perpetuate the perception that he is the only one of Epstein’s numerous chums worthy of consideration and condemnation. Otherwise it’s “La La La, I can’t hear you”.
The only positive is that the surprisingly cold-blooded action taken by HRH, or more likely his heir, should finally make it clear to Harry & Megs that it would be prudent to belatedly STFU.
@John
I may be in a minority here and if half of what is being reported about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is true then he was and remains a loathsome individual.
But I think you can put a full stop there. Of course just because he has been accused of some terrible crime does not mean he is guilty of it. But the purpose of titles like “Prince” and “Duke of York” are to allow him to serve the royal family and through them the needs of the nation. Obviously that wasn’t always the truth, but insofar the Royal family has a function in modern Britain it is along those lines — advocating non political causes, representing the nation, PR, tourism. But none of these things are possible when there is even a whiff of a scandal of this magnitude hanging over his head. Which is to say, he cannot do the job associated with the titles, and so quite rightly should not have them. If he were utterly vindicated and the taint of scandal removed then perhaps he could be restored, but this seems extremely unlikely.
Although guilt by association should not be considered, your choice of friends surely does reflect on your character, and even if Andrew did nothing actually illegal, he did show shockingly poor judgement in his choice of associations, and when the whole underpinning of the royal establishment is one of wholesome example, as it has become latterly, that sort of terrible judgement cannot be countenanced.
So just because you aren’t found legally guilty of a crime your poor choices can lead to consequences and it is long past the time they he should have these sorts of honourifics stripped.
Now as you say all of the above applies to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, so why they still have their title is entirely beyond me. We were told it required an act of Parliament. Well, apparently that is not true.
BTW, a side note, something I have never quite understood. Andrew is accused of having sex with Giuffre when she was 17. But the age of consent in New York, where this allegedly took place, is 17. So, assuming she consented, whatever consent means in that kind of situation, I actually don’t fully understand what crime he is accused of, gross and vile though it might be.
I can not stand the Economist magazine (and it is a magazine – that is physical reality).
In this week’s issue there were several articles about Mr Mamdani – the bizarre mixture of socialism and Islam (specifically Shia “12er” Islam) who looks likely to complete the destruction of New York City – but every article contained absurd swipes at President Trump. Even facing the destruction of New York City the Economist magazine could not free itself from its Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). And if Ted Cruz, rather than Donald Trump, had been the candidate in 2016 the Economist would have had endless absurd swipes at him as well (it would have developed Cruz Derangement Syndrome – CDS) – it has been supporting far leftists for President (such as John Kerry in 2004 then the Senator with the most Collectivist voting record, and Barack Obama, yes Barack Obama – that Collectivist abomination, in 2008) for a long time.
As for this particular article – yes it is correct that adding more regulations to event venues is not going to solve anything. And is just adding costs with no benefits.
But observe what “Bagehot” (named after the dreadful Walter Bagehot – a supporter of bailouts for bankers in the 19th century, and also someone who in his “classic” work, “The English Constitution”, said that everyone should “concede whatever it is safe to concede” to the statists – thus Mr Bagehot helped sign the death warrant of liberty, of limited government, in the United Kingdom, as a policy of “conceding” or APPEASEMENT is intellectual and political suicide) does NOT mention.
“Bagehot” does not mention a certain religion and its war of 14 centuries against the West (and against other areas of the world – basically its war against everyone who is not part of it) – but neither does any establishment source, which makes their pretending to care about the victims of terrorist attacks sickening and utterly fake.
The spirit of “let in everyone” was summed up by the poem on the Statute of Liberty.
All about the millions “yearning to breath free” – however, the multitudes of immigrants in New York City are NOT yearning to “breath free” – they are “yerning” to plunder and destroy – and that is what they are likely to do.
Sadly Emma Lazarus’ (the poet who wrote the Statue of Liberty verse) grasp of immigration policy was about as sound as her grasp of economics – the lady was a Georgist, a follower of Henry George (someone far more popular among Democrats than Republicans – showing there was something wrong with the Democratic Party even in the 19th century) who wanted all economic benefit from land and natural resources taxed away (in the name of “the people”).
“Ah but he supported free trade”.
Henry George, Emma Lazarus, and so on, wanted to tax away land and natural resources – that policy is vastly more destructive than a tariff.
If the choice is between Georgism and a tariff – then pick the tariff.
Still, to be fair, 19th century immigration was very different from post 1960s public services and government benefits immigration – so perhaps Emma Lazarus had a point (but NOT on her Georgism).
Not that we have many advantages, but as a Brit I’m glad we don’t have this whole Ellis island pro-immigration mythology to contend with. It hasn’t stopped certain opportunists from trying to construct the idea that Britain was built by immigrants, but I don’t think anyone outside demented intellectuals and leftists believe it. Whereas the nation of immigrants mentality is much more engrained in the US.
To be even handed I should mention President Bush’s speech on Islam a few days after 9/11 – a speech made at the Islamic center in Washington.
This speech was intellectual, and moral, surrender (the best one can say was that whoever wrote the speech was utterly ignorant and deeply stupid – if not, then they were dishonest to an extreme degree) – it meant that the “war on terror” was lost before it started.
So it is not just Democrats who are useless – or worse.
Yes Martin – although it is untrue even for the United States.
The overwhelming majority of people who made the United States the number one economic power on Earth (which it became by about 1890 – long before most people think it did) had been in America for several generations, they were not immigrants. There are a few exceptions, such as the Scots immigrant Andrew Carnegie, but only a few – and most of these immigrants came from the same culture as other Americans, they were not from alien cultures.
The one thing I agree with “Teddy” Roosevelt on is his opposition to what we now call “Diversity and Inclusion” – meaning people who came to America, but did NOT support American principles (he insisted they become “100% Americans” or be kicked out). It was ironic that this lack of support for American principles was seen in President Roosevelt himself – with his Napoleon complex and his contempt for the limited government Constitution of the United States (but there we go), as well as his support for lynching – the only leading Republican to support lynching (of, for example, Italians accused of being in the Mafia – accused, not convicted of anything).
Theodore Roosevelt was right about culture (he would have deported Mr Mamdani so fast his feet would not have touched the ground – and his supporters as well) – but wrong about political principles, he was a Julius Caesar rather than a Cicero.
If Senator Conkling had lived, the “rich boy” Theodore Roosevelt would never have taken over the New York State Republican Party and many bad things would have been averted – but Roscoe Conkling decided to walk home (several miles) in a violent storm, he was soaked and freezing cold, became ill and died.
On such incidents does history turn.
Maybe things have changed. I had two serial internships back in high school, each with a different US Senator from MN. (This was back in my ultra-progressive days!) Each at one time was our VP.
Both were supremely decent, moral, charitable, honest guys. My impression was that, back then, the filtering occurred to get rid of people who were NOT that way.
Now, you may be right. But my past experience probably keeps me too hopeful.
bobby b – that would be Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale.
Both of them of them may have been good, but deeply misguided, people – but their actions paved the way for many evil people. For example, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions – and good men opening the city gates leads to an invasion of evil men.
President Trump is threatening military intervention in Nigeria against “the terrorists” who are murdering Christians.
It appears that nothing has been learned from more than 20 years of failure in Afghanistan and other places – Western leaders still think the problem is a small group of “terrorists” who have “distorted and twisted” Islam.
Whether it is President Bush or President Trump, or King Charles III or Pope Leo XIV (and on and on) – there appears to be a total failure to understand, and a total failure to learn.