Friday, October 25, 2013

Brand's No Revolutionary

The video currently making the rounds across the internet is that of Jeremy Paxman interviewing Russell Brand about his position as guest editor of the New Statesman. Almost invariably on social media, it is annotated with a comment supporting Brand’s arguments against democracy. Gawker even suggested Brand may have started a revolution in its headline. But Brand’s half-realized arguments about his political apathy illustrate why he could never start a revolution amongst the people he claims to represent.



Paxman begins by asking who is Brand to be editing a political magazine, to which Brand replies: “I suppose like a person who’s being politely asked by an attractive woman. I don’t know what the typical criteria is [sic]. I don’t know many people that [sic] edit political magazines.” Now Brand is a comedian, so obviously we expect some humour in his responses, but he barely defends the position he’s accepted, reducing his acceptance to a quasi-sexual favour. And to start out by saying that he does not know the typical criteria to be the editor of a political magazine (because a degree in English and an interest in politics seems so far-fetched a concept) sets the stage for his subsequent arguments: half-informed and lacking common sense.

Brand does not vote. And when asked how he can comment on politics when he doesn’t exercise this democratic right, Brand replies: “I don’t get my authority from this pre-existing paradigm that only serves a few people. I look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity.”

Democracy serves everyone, but only if everyone performs one fundamental act: they vote. The authority of politicians and in turn other authority figures (judges, police officers, teachers) depends upon the fact that members of a society are aware of their own personal belief systems, seek out a leader to further their goals and vote for them. Brand’s spouting of revolution and alternative systems mean nothing if he or others are unwilling to put them into action. And the democratic right to vote is one of the simplest ways to tell the system how you want it run.

Brand is disillusioned with the way British society works, implying that a utopian system shouldn’t “destroy the planet,” “create massive economic disparity” and “ignore the needs of the people.” But when asked what alternate system we could have, he flippantly answers “Well I’ve not invented it yet!” Later in the interview he dodges another point blank question by Paxman: “I’m asking you what it [the revolution] will be like” to which Brand responds: “I think what it won’t be like is…” and then just lists again his grievances with the current system. You can complain all you want, but nothing will change until you take that first step of filling out a ballot.

After Brand advances his position that corporations should be taxed, Paxman asks: “Who would levy these taxes?” to which Brand answers: “I think we need a centralized administrative system.” Ummm, like a government? Brand then gets angry that Paxman would dare to ask him these logistical questions in an interview when all he is calling for is change. (And if I had the space, I would trot out a flurry of examples of people who effected change – it takes both an idea and a means to bring about the change.) Brand also attempts to imply that facetiousness is just as valuable as seriousness – and that we won’t solve world problems with seriousness or facetiousness. Again reverting to humour when there is no viable alternative because he hasn’t actually thought of one.

Brand’s political views are actually quite similar to mine: redistribution of wealth through taxation (and higher tax rates for corporations), responsibility of energy companies and taking care of the underclass. But the fundamental difference, and why I am so disillusioned with everyone lauding this interview, is how completely uninterested he is in making any real and lasting change to British society. He crows about societal inequities and references a woman he just spoke to who’s been “fucked over by the aristocrats,” but is completely unwilling to do anything about it in any practical terms. He says he is trying to change the current system but offers absolutely nothing in tangible proposals or tactics to remedy the current system which he eviscerates so vehemently (and with such big, alliterative words!).

The only point where Brand has a valid argument is when he references the underclass who are as apathetic as he and don’t bother to vote: “Well I was busy being a drug addict [when Brand was 18] because I come from the kind of social conditions that are exacerbated by an indifferent system that really just administrates for large corporations and ignores the population that it was voted in to serve.” He’s right. There is a whole segment of society who, for a variety of socio-economic and psychological reasons, cannot be arsed to vote. And this is where Brand really fails.

He has a chance to really effect change: he knows what it’s like to live in those social conditions. He knows what it’s like to be a drug addict. He knows what it’s like to be apathetic towards the current system because it isn’t serving him. But he is now in a position to support a political candidate who is willing to do the work to effect change in Britain. Maybe Brand doesn’t want to get his hands dirty and reassess the way social programs are administered or how taxes are levied or how government funds are distributed. But he has very real power, gained from within the system he criticizes, to influence the voting habits and political leanings of a great number of people in Britain.

“I’m not voting out of apathy, I’m not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion,” he says. This is not acceptable. Not from someone like Brand who accepts the position of editor for a political magazine, espouses clear political views on a national television program and has the profile and audience to actually start a revolution. Brand says: “When there is a genuine alternative, a genuine option, then vote for that.” So he clearly supports democracy, just isn’t willing to work towards that genuine alternative.

At the end of the interview, Brand just becomes whiney – wondering why Paxman made a career of grilling politicians but then has a go at Brand because doesn’t like politicians. Of course he’s having a go: a real journalist holds his or her interview subject to account, asking uncomfortable questions of the subject. And they certainly won’t accept a call for a revolution from someone whose arsenal is filled only with facetiousness and suggestions of what not to do.