Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas : ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK. / Hopkin, Jonathan; Rosamond, Ben.

In: New Political Economy, Vol. 23, No. 6, 2018, p. 641-655.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Hopkin, J & Rosamond, B 2018, 'Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK', New Political Economy, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 641-655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2017.1373757

APA

Hopkin, J., & Rosamond, B. (2018). Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK. New Political Economy, 23(6), 641-655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2017.1373757

Vancouver

Hopkin J, Rosamond B. Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK. New Political Economy. 2018;23(6):641-655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2017.1373757

Author

Hopkin, Jonathan ; Rosamond, Ben. / Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas : ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK. In: New Political Economy. 2018 ; Vol. 23, No. 6. pp. 641-655.

Bibtex

@article{862146d3a852496482995b0e1f7a60f0,
title = "Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: {\textquoteleft}Deficit Fetishism{\textquoteright} in the UK",
abstract = "Debates about economic policy in Britain have been dominated by claims that sovereign debt problems are due to loose fiscal policy and excessive spending rather than volatile capital flows and flawed monetary policy. There are strong grounds for believing that these stories are largely nonsense, yet they inform policy and are widely believed among mass publics, and have proved almost impossible to refute in everyday political discourse. The answer to this puzzle, we suggest, is that such claims are better thought of as bullshit (as conceptualised by Harry Frankfurt 2005) rather than outright falsehoods: in other words, as speech acts that are indifferent to the truth and proceed without effective concern for the veracity of the claim in question. In this paper, we examine the characteristics of political bullshit applied to economic policy debates since the financial crisis, and seek to explain its hold on the popular imagination. We assess what makes some particular brands of bullshit more successful than others, and argue that in a world of competing realities as well as competing theories, the power of rhetoric is more likely to settle an argument than evidence and logic.",
keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, bullshit, discourse, fiscal policy, financial crisis, post-truth",
author = "Jonathan Hopkin and Ben Rosamond",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1080/13563467.2017.1373757",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "641--655",
journal = "New Political Economy",
issn = "1356-3467",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas

T2 - ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK

AU - Hopkin, Jonathan

AU - Rosamond, Ben

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Debates about economic policy in Britain have been dominated by claims that sovereign debt problems are due to loose fiscal policy and excessive spending rather than volatile capital flows and flawed monetary policy. There are strong grounds for believing that these stories are largely nonsense, yet they inform policy and are widely believed among mass publics, and have proved almost impossible to refute in everyday political discourse. The answer to this puzzle, we suggest, is that such claims are better thought of as bullshit (as conceptualised by Harry Frankfurt 2005) rather than outright falsehoods: in other words, as speech acts that are indifferent to the truth and proceed without effective concern for the veracity of the claim in question. In this paper, we examine the characteristics of political bullshit applied to economic policy debates since the financial crisis, and seek to explain its hold on the popular imagination. We assess what makes some particular brands of bullshit more successful than others, and argue that in a world of competing realities as well as competing theories, the power of rhetoric is more likely to settle an argument than evidence and logic.

AB - Debates about economic policy in Britain have been dominated by claims that sovereign debt problems are due to loose fiscal policy and excessive spending rather than volatile capital flows and flawed monetary policy. There are strong grounds for believing that these stories are largely nonsense, yet they inform policy and are widely believed among mass publics, and have proved almost impossible to refute in everyday political discourse. The answer to this puzzle, we suggest, is that such claims are better thought of as bullshit (as conceptualised by Harry Frankfurt 2005) rather than outright falsehoods: in other words, as speech acts that are indifferent to the truth and proceed without effective concern for the veracity of the claim in question. In this paper, we examine the characteristics of political bullshit applied to economic policy debates since the financial crisis, and seek to explain its hold on the popular imagination. We assess what makes some particular brands of bullshit more successful than others, and argue that in a world of competing realities as well as competing theories, the power of rhetoric is more likely to settle an argument than evidence and logic.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - bullshit

KW - discourse

KW - fiscal policy

KW - financial crisis

KW - post-truth

U2 - 10.1080/13563467.2017.1373757

DO - 10.1080/13563467.2017.1373757

M3 - Journal article

VL - 23

SP - 641

EP - 655

JO - New Political Economy

JF - New Political Economy

SN - 1356-3467

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 182484563