Observations of an ex pat: Consequences

Sir Issac Newton was one smart cookie. And in my book his cleverest discovery-cum-pronouncement was Newton’s Third Law which is quite simply “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Sir Issac was writing from the viewpoint of a physicist. But the metaphysical philosophers were quick to apply the rules of the natural world to the philosophical and political realm, especially Newton’s contemporary John Locke who coined the phrase “unintended consequences.”

The ethics of consequentialism go back to 5th Century BC Chinese philosopher Mo Di. In the West, they were later picked up 100 years later by the Athenian Demosthenes. Basically both men argued that the consequences of one’s actions are the ultimate basis for political action and that the action should be based on the amount of good created by the consequence of that action.

Another way of putting it is that our political leaders have a responsibility to carefully examine every conceivable intended and unintended consequence of their thoughts, words and deeds before opening their mouths, despatching a tweet or issuing a military command.

Unfortunately there is scant evidence to indicate that most of today’s politicians are bothering to even consider the consequences of their actions beyond the publication of the next opinion poll, although sometimes their time horizon extends to the next election.

The two current best examples of consequential failure can be found in the Anglo-Saxon world on either side of the Atlantic. President Donald Trump is notorious for dashing off explosive tweets without giving a moment’s thoughts to the consequences. This week he has told the world that America is “locked and loaded” and that war against Iran is an option following the drone attack on Saudi oilfields. What are the possible consequences of such words—or ,if followed through—actions?

On the minus side a war with Iran would make the Afghanistan or Gulf War look like a walk in the park. There would be a probable retaliatory attack on Israel; total disruption of world oil supplies; possible Russian intervention on the side of Iran; a split with America’s allies in Europe and the possible break-up of NATO which would strengthen Russia’s position in Eastern Europe.

On the plus side, Trump will have shown that he is tough; that America’s Middle East allies can count on the US to come to their defence; an anti-American Jihadist-motivated Iran will, hopefully, be eliminated from the Middle East equation. The embarrassment of the 1979 US Embassy hostage crisis will finally be expunged. America, if it wins, will emerge as the supreme power in the Middle East able to dictate terms in the Arab-Israeli conflict and control the flow of oil.

It is now clear from David Cameron’s memoirs that he failed to think through the consequences of calling a referendum on continued British membership of the EU. He simply assumed that the vote would be remain. Assumptions are one of the most dangerous of political actions. Cameron failed to take into account the divisive nature of the debate and as a result his legacy and his country has been badly damaged.

The Leave campaign lied and cheated without any regard to the facts and certainly without any plan beyond winning the referendum campaign. It is now clear that the Brexiteers never had a clear workable plan for a negotiated withdraw from the European Union. No deal is the result of no plan.

The world is, of course, quite a bit different from the days of the Zhou Dynasty or the Athens of Demosthenes.  Both regimes existed at a time when communications moved at the speed of a slow horse. Information was communicated orally from a podium and extended as far as the speaker could be heard. The population of Athens was 300,000 but only 30,000 citizens could vote, and in China the politicians had only to worry about a handful of courtiers.

Today’s 24/7 interconnected world has multiplied the competing voices and ideas and the consequences of pursuing an ill-considered political path. Success in politics requires the ability to excel at three-dimension al chess on a constantly shifting board sitting atop a camel racing through a minefield during an Arabian sandstorm. The result is that the choices are not so much between good and evil, but between bad and worse. Which makes it more important that all options—plans A through Z—are carefully considered.

* American expat journalist Tom Arms is LDV's foreign affairs editor and Campaigns Chair for Wandsworth Lib Dems. His book “America: Made in Britain” was published on 15 October.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • You are being kind, the badly thought out and run referendum didn’t badly damage Cameron’s reputation, it totally trashed it. He will go down in the history books as the man who trashed the UK, some epitaph and one he is desperately and unsuccessfully trying to avoid. His fate is to be known as the worst PM ever, his only hope is Depeffle is worse, but being the second worst is no achievement.

  • Nonconformistradical 22nd Sep '19 - 10:11am

    “His fate is to be known as the worst PM ever, his only hope is Depeffle is worse, but being the second worst is no achievement.”

    Quite. Eton and Oxford should be ashamed of themselves.

  • nigel hunter 22nd Sep '19 - 12:06pm

    Does Eton and Oxford (plus others)have they got ‘charitable status)? If so it should be withdrawn.

  • Martin Land 23rd Sep '19 - 6:03am

    @ nigel hunter. Hopefully they would then collapse, releasing enough teachers into the state sector to teach you how to properly construct a sentence.

  • Bloody he’ll Martin, when did you join the grammar police. Nigel’s post was perfectly understandable and given some of the drivel ( all be it grammatically correct drivel) the Brexi’s and particularly the Lexi’s post what a pleasant change that made.

    Yes Eaton is a charity. I believe its charitable aim is to provide support for the idle Rich. It is very successful in getting them into jobs they are not fit for.

  • I am not sure about Newton. He is reputed to have spent a great deal of energy on building up his reputation. Whether every action has an equal an opposite reaction is a matter of debate. I prefer the view that we are all interconnected.
    However on the issue of elections we must recognise that contact with voters is all important. This means treating members as people for things to be discussed with – not resources to be ordered.

  • Peter Hirst 23rd Sep '19 - 4:42pm

    What if all public remarks were allowed a 24 hour cooling off period when they could be retracted, explained or modified. This would allow time for the implications to be considered, the truth to be verified and the speaker to reflect. This would work alongside our instant communications and legally would have weight though not in the court of public opinion.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Brad Barrows
    @Keith Legg I’m afraid “the reason why Scottish Lib Dems don’t presently have coalitions with the SNP is simply because of numbers” is not supported by...
  • Keith Legg
    @BradBarrows the reason why the Scottish Lib Dems don't presently have coalitions with the SNP is simply because of numbers. In 2007, we were in coalition i...
  • Michael Berwick-Gooding
    Michael Meadowcroft, Indeed, I am glad you have posted some comments in the comments section. I am disappointed that you don’t address all of my points. ...
  • Stewart
    We *now* know Fukuyama was wrong? I think we knew from the moment he published. Living proof that even an incredibly smart person can be a bit of a f-wit....
  • matt
    @Lorenzo Thank you for your comment, there is much sadness, but I am also angry and trying so very hard not to get bitter as I know that is not going to help...