On Dominic Cummings
Having watched the UK Channel 4 Drama, Brexit: The Uncivil War, I feel I know Dominic Cummings very well. In fact, Benedict Cumberbatch’s portrayal of Cummings was so convincing that I am happy to accept it as as the real thing. I’d go so far as to say that I honestly can’t imagine Cummings doing himself any better.
This is made all the more persuasive by the fact that Cumberbatch is identified in the public imagination with Sherlock Holmes. So the character we all saw leaning against a door frame in 10 Downing Street on the first day of Boris Johnson’s premiership was none other than the legendary resident of 221b Baker Street, invited to apply his legendary genius and sharp eye for detail to the task of getting Brexit done. The illusion is one colluded in by the media, admiring colleagues and quite possibly by Cummings himself — Benedict Cumberbatch being — it has to be said — a very attractive and impressive individual.
You might view all this this as little more than whimsy, but it is worth noting that Dominic Cummings is already being referred to as a genius — and not only by his political associates.
What is undoubtedly true is that the genius stereotype, namely that of an individual blessed (or cursed) with great insights while simultaneously lonely, self-conscious and socially inhibited, appears to hold a fascination for many people.
Of course the aura of genius surrounding Cummings was greatly strengthened when, against all the odds, he engineered the British electorate into voting to leave the EU — an outcome that left even the politicians fronting the Vote Leave campaign shocked and disoriented. If such a mind could be persuaded to apply itself to the mundane matter of delivering Brexit — so the thinking goes — we might hope to put the whole nightmare behind us.
For those wishing to find out more about what Dominic Cummings thinks, he has conveniently published a blog and a long paper: Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities in which he explores many of the ideas that interest him. The first thing that has to be said about this material is that there is an awful lot of it. The paper, written in 2013, incomplete and running to 237 pages, reads like a mash-up of current trends in scientific, technological and sociological thinking.
The range of topics is huge — the following being a partial list: pure mathematics, the standard model of particle physics, complexity, emergence, self-organisation, chaos theory, synthetic biology, energy policies, game theory, space exploration, computer science, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, digital fabrication, modeling and simulation, genetics, biological engineering, education, virtual reality, augmented reality, economics, politics, psychology and philosophy. He has clearly done an immense amount of reading across a vast expanse of contemporary theory and the end result is something resembling a trophy cabinet, calculated both to impress and intimidate. This is not to denigrate Cummings’ understanding of these topics. I have ventured into this jungle on a number of occasions and it is a rich source of ideas, some of which I am already familiar with — others that are new and intriguing. At the same time, there is something faintly disconcerting about the sheer magnitude of material and the unstructured manner of its presentation.
Reading Cummings brings to mind a trope frequently encountered in thrillers: you know, the one where the protagonist discovers the lair of the serial killer (who incidentally is never at home) only to find the walls covered from floor to ceiling with mysterious photographs, diagrams, calculations etc. and marking the moment when the true, horrifying extent of the other’s insanity becomes suddenly and undeniably apparent. Now I am not suggesting for a moment that Dominic Cummings is an evil genius any more than I am ready to acknowledge him as a genius plain and simple. All the same, David Cameron’s characterisation of Cummings as a ‘career psychopath’ has a peculiar resonance.
There is a serious point however and it is this: amongst all Cummings’ exposition of ideas, technologies etc. there is no trace of a guiding ethic, no acknowledged beliefs or principles. His thoughts are almost exclusively confined to the applicability of sophisticated techniques to the fulfilment of given ends. In a very real sense, Cummings has weaponised the fruits of his researches and appears willing to put them at the disposal of interests whose aims are only too explicit. For his part, he demands only two things:
1. That the stated goal is susceptible to an engineering approach and
2. That he is given sufficient scope and freedom of action to promise a successful outcome.
There is an unspoken assumption behind his thinking however, namely that problems in the social domain: education, politics, the economy and so on are, in essence, no different from the more complex areas of the physical sciences such as weather-forecasting, turbulence and the dynamics of many-body gravitational systems; and that while the available formal models might be somewhat limited, there is nothing in the social domain that is impervious to successful manipulation by a sufficiently sophisticated intelligence. The ends justify the means so the saying goes, but in Cummings’ case one suspects it is the other way round, namely that The effectiveness of the means, validates the end.
The technocentric approach adopted by Cummings is at its weakest when applied to the economy. At various points in his paper, Cummings rejects Marxist theory, largely on the grounds of its identification in the popular imagination with discredited practices such as Soviet central planning. But there is a deeper principle traceable to Marx that explains how actions pursued for seemingly rational ends frequently give rise to contradictory outcomes that, in their turn, threaten to undermine the very goals originally embarked upon. By way of an example, consider how the core principles underpinning the free-market capitalist economy appear fundamentally incompatible with its sustained evolution. For while individual businesses and corporations might seek to maximise profits through reducing wages and increasing the productivity of individual workers, the higher-level effect is to reduce consumer spending power and to threaten the very profitability identified as a key goal. As we know from recent history, this problem was addressed by means of a vast increase in the availability of credit and there is no need to describe what this course of action subsequently led to.
When it comes to running the economy, if it were simply a matter of making periodic, fine adjustments to the model, things might not be so bad. This, after all, is how many intractable engineering problems such as aerodynamic simulation are addressed. The characteristics of events like the crash of 2008 are of an entirely different nature however, being catastrophic in the extent and magnitude of their effects and bringing about significant social and individual demoralisation as well as increasing the risk of political instability.
As far as Dominic Cummings recent appointment is concerned, his stated mission is to deliver Brexit by any means necessary. Given the undoubted challenge that this represents it should come as no surprise that one of the conditions of Cummings’ acceptance is that he should have a veto over the appointment of ministerial aides. Never having been a member of a political party himself, he makes no secret of his disdain for politicians, describing former Brexit secretary, David Davis as ’Thick as mince, lazy as a toad and vain as Narcissus’, Ian Duncan Smith as ‘incompetent’ and ERG members as ‘useful idiots’. It seems likely that he will control ministers (on Boris Johnson’s behalf) with ruthless efficiency — transforming the principle of collective responsibility into something more like cowed obedience. One has the sense that there is no way back for ministers now. If they want to keep their jobs they have no alternative but to drink the Kool-Aid and try to come up to speed on at least a few of the funky new topics that make up the Cummings currency.
Both Dominic Cummings and his master, Boris Johnson could be accurately described as exceptional — neither is cut from the common cloth. The extent to which their very different characters intermesh suggests a game plan in which Boris works parliament, the media and the crowd whilst Cummings runs the back room operation. Boris, it is fair to say, is a self-assured communicator with a significant capacity for charm and buffoonery calculated to win support in the most unlikely quarters. However, as is tacitly acknowledged on all sides, beneath the bumbling there is a complete lack of substance and no trace of belief, moral or political principle. Not that this matters much, as there are others with perfectly clear agendas of their own whom he is prepared to serve, in exchange for the trappings of power.
The thing I am not fully convinced about however is the importance of the Brexit project. It is more likely, I imagine, that the real mission to which Dominic Cummings has been invited to apply himself is to ensure Boris Johnson enjoys a long premiership, during which he can make his mark on history alongside Churchill or Margaret Thatcher.
As far as Cummings himself is concerned, I have come to the conclusion that, while his interest in mathematics, science and technology is undoubtedly fascinating, to attempt to criticise him with reference to these ideas would be pointless. It is not a matter of debating truth or falsehood but of confronting a closed, self-referential system. It would be like trying to have a sensible discussion with someone who believes that shape-shifting lizards are taking over the earth — you’re never going to win.
No — in assessing Cummings’ contribution to the future of our country I prefer to adopt an altogether older, time-hallowed principle: by their fruits you will know them.
