I feel bad about criticising Zack Polanski and the Green Party on the grounds of realism. I feel dirty.
The charge of being unrealistic, or naive, or immature, after all, is often hypocritically employed in defence of an illegitimate consensus. From the Iraq War to the long series of lockdowns that marked the pandemic era, many policies which have been promoted as the sensible, grown-up, realistic choice have been preposterous and wrong.
Keir Starmer and his government were welcomed into power as the “grown-up” alternative to farcical Tories and militant Corbynites. Fewer than eighteen months on, Britain is enduring grim scandal-heavy decline. So, one should be careful before criticising candidates as “unrealistic” as if the status quo is sensible.
It is also the case that a charge of being “unrealistic” can be a limp one inasmuch as it accepts that the ends are desirable even if the means are ill-considered. I do not oppose communism and fascism for being “unrealistic”, for example, but for being evil. So, to be clear, I think Polanski’s support for breaking up Great Britain — with all its heritage, and in defiance of the popular will — is small-minded and presumptuous. I think that his support for defining Britain (whatever he means by Britain) by mass migration is ahistorical and oikophobic. I think his support for children being given puberty blockers is grotesque.
But an accusation can be valid in one context and invalid in another — and two sins can be committed at the same time. A lot of Zack Polanski and the Green Party’s aims are unrealistic. I’m not sure “naive” is an apt description. Arrogant seems better. Their ideas seem to be premised on the assumption that everybody else has missed the wildly obvious. They have the air of someone asking a poor person if they have considered being rich.
For Polanski and the Greens, Britain must “denuclearise”. What about regimes like Vladimir Putin’s (or China’s, or North Korea’s)? “I want to see everyone denuclearise,” says Polanski, “Including Vladimir Putin.”
Let’s take a time out here and admit that Polanski is not wrong that nuclear weapons are horrifying — indiscriminate mass killers that could end civilisation within days. A world without them is desirable. But would unilateral disarmament lead to multilateral disarmament? What would Polanski do to encourage Putin to give up his nuclear weapons? Ask him nicely?
“I don’t think we should laugh at peace,” sniffs Polanski. Well, I don’t think we should laugh at feeding starving kids but if someone recommended feeding starving kids fairy dust that would be kind of funny.
“You could have laughed at Nelson Mandela negotiating with the ANC,” Polanski claims. I assume Polanski means the National Party rather than the ANC (Mandela was representing the ANC). Still, what is more serious than a slip of the tongue is Polanski’s apparent obliviousness to the fact that while force is not always essential in world affairs, you always need leverage. Apartheid was not brought down because the National Party was convinced that it was wrong. It was brought down because of domestic strikes and protests and international sanctions and boycotts. Putin has faced a lot of sanctions and boycotts. Have they achieved the desired results?
Sure, diplomacy is great. Negotiation? Wonderful! But what does Polanski think it actually involves?
“I don’t think we should find peace and diplomacy ridiculous,” declares Polanski (again, who said we should?), “We should never leave the negotiating table.” Sure, diplomacy is great. Negotiation? Wonderful! But what does Polanski think it actually involves? It does not mean saying, “Oh, please denuclearise! I’ll be your friend!” It involves incentives. It involves carrots and sticks. What are you offering and what are you threatening? You can’t offer much to a rival if it is not backed up with the threat of force because he can take it himself. You certainly can’t threaten much. As for never leaving the negotiating table, well — what are you actually trying to accomplish there? Polanski appears to be implying that negotiation is a constant process which never actually arrives at conclusions. You just talk and talk for the sake of talking.
Polanski is in the Guardian this morning complaining about attacks on his appearance. Jeremy Clarkson and Quentin Letts have been insulting his teeth. Well, I have some sympathy with Mr Polanski here — not just because I have terrible teeth myself but because it’s a rude thing to focus on. (Plus, one can’t help wondering if Clarkson and Letts own mirrors …) But if I was Mr Polanski I would be hoping that commentators launch personal attacks. It is a lot less wounding than focusing on his policies.
The world of the Green Party appears to be a world without trade-offs. Renewables will fuel the UK without the need for nuclear power. Billionaires will prop up a massive increase in state expenditure without relocating. Vladimir Putin will voluntarily disarm. Sure, I sound like an asshole in sneering at this at a time when people have been starved of optimism. But you can be as optimistic as you like about a hot day in November and it isn’t going to come.
