G.K. Chesterton was a little too unkind when he said, “When the real revolution happens, it won’t be mentioned in the newspapers.” It gets the occasional passing reference. But it is fair to claim a considerable gulf between what preoccupied the chattering classes at any given time and the subsequent lessons of history. This includes today regarding the desperately overstretched welfare state.
The Real Story Behind the Headlines
I’m not saying nobody in France in 1787 mentioned hunger in the countryside. Nor do I deny that The Australian just observed that “With its comfortable parliamentary majority and a federal opposition depleted and in disarray, the Albanese government’s 2026 budget baulked the critical challenges of budget repair, productivity revival and setting the foundations to grow the economy.” But I am saying the verbiage within and surrounding, say, the latest Canadian federal fiscal update is stunningly complacent and preoccupied with partisanship and hollow promises when the real story is Stein’s Law: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”
Borrowing for Bread and Circuses
Like borrowing to fund bread and circuses. And, to be sure, boutique conceits of politicians about changing the weather and the economy, including a “Sovereign Wealth Fund” full of IOUs so Mark Carney can leverage the transformative catalytics and hand favoured firms cash. But what will puzzle and enrage historians is endless fussing about the cleverness of his plans and lack of attention to their reckless denial of reality.
It was different 40 years ago. Ronald Reagan’s efforts to eliminate the deficit failed nearly as badly as Brian Mulroney’s. But both men really did want to. In the 1990s, Jean Chrétien and Ralph Klein applied a tight tourniquet, briefly. Even Justin Trudeau claimed, perhaps sincerely, he would balance the budget. These guys have given up, and we’ve let them.
A Broader Trend Across the West
It’s not this politician or that one, or one feckless jurisdiction. The Economist recently asked “Is Britain ungovernable?” and lamented “what Sir Keir’s failure says about the hope for centrist politics in Europe.” Especially since, “Keir won a stonking majority in the 2024 general election. Voters put their faith in him — and we at The Economist endorsed him — because he offered a welcome change after years of Conservative ineptitude and tumult.”
They would not, back in the day, have mistaken Starmer’s vapid flimflam for “welcome change.” They used to employ adults now, alas, in short supply despite our aging demographic. As that item continued, “have social democracies Europe-wide become ungovernable? Caught between low growth, high taxes and borrowing and the demand for more public spending, exhausted centrists seem incapable of bringing about change or seeing off the populist challenge from the right and the left.” Exhausted centrists don’t seem to be trying very hard, so I’m not sure what wore them out. But I know what didn’t.
