The transcript of the interview can be found HERE.
The interview becomes even more interesting when you read responses to it, like
-
- THIS ONE, in The Independent, or
- THIS EXTREMELY CRITICAL ONE in the Huffington Post
I have to admit that I really don't like Russell Brand, I have never found him any funny. And you might find his style offensive and weird, but in this interview I find him basically correct. You do NOT need to be a conspiracy theorist to agree that many of the MAIN issues of today are grotesquely ignored in today's "business as usual"-politics.
You do for example have to be relatively blind or ignorant not to accept as a fact that the world is facing environmental changes of enormous proportions. The world might not go under, but the effects on nature might have huge consequences in a world that is densely populated. Huge waves of refugees from affected areas are predicted, as well as an escalation of new wars as a result of floods, draughts and famine. The cosst of these problems might overshadow the last economical crises we already have been through. A good start to read about this problem might be THIS ARTICLE. And still, this issue was barely touched upon during the last presidential election in USA. and one can only imagine Russell Brand's answer to that: Politics has become more about placating the electorate and becoming re-elected than about dealing with real issues. Think about it - this is a question that might negatively effect the whole population of the whole globe in the most dire ways, and it is not even an important topic in the American presidential elections. It is absurd, isn't it?
Not that it is an American problem exclusively - This issue was also barely touched upon in the last elections in Norway: One party - the relatively new Green Party - dared to say that the environmental question would force us to rethink all our political priorities - that all other things would have to be subordinated to and coordinated with this: How do we solve the single most important question humankind is facing - global warming. They dared to acknowledge that it would require a new way of thinking - not business as usual - and that if most probably would require at least short term sacrifices for most of us. It definitely was a victory that they now have one representative in the parliament, but it should have been much more! And besides from the compulsory "we will fight for the environment"-words, few other parties dared to spend air time on really focusing on this problem.
Another question that Brand brings up is the absurd wealth inequality in the world. Just to get an idea about what he really is talking about, you should have a look at this UNBELIEVABLE video about wealth distribution in USA:
The numbers presented in this video - how so few people control such an enormous part of our wealth - is mind-blowingly unbelievable.
Another number that is worth looking at is this: According to the web site The Borgen Project, the cost of eliminating world hunger is estimated to be 30 billion dollars per year. It is not the job of USA alone to do that, of course, but let us pick an American number to put things in perspective: USA spent $737 BILLION dollars in military defence in 2012. That is about 25 times the money needed to end hunger on a global scale!
Now, as I see it, there are two scare things about this, besides from these issues themselves. The most scary issue is that these issues are not on top of the priority list of every single political discussion we have, nationally and globally. The second scary thing is that any person bringing this up is in danger of being labelled - a dreamer, an utopian, a non-realist or maybe even a hippie (let's get back to that later....).
The issues are simply so fundamental, so overwhelming and so scary that very few want to touch them. "We the voters" might not want to touch them because they are too big for us to handle, and it is so easy to focus on the smaller issues that affect us in our daily lives. We do see the trees, but we do not see the forest.
Do we agree on this? The three things mentioned above are - if not the most important things we face - at least among the most important issues humankind is facing. And we do not do - by FAR - enough to bring them to light or to deal with them. We should be able to agree on this, right?
So, who is to blame? We are all! The politicians - or the political system - is most definitely to blame. They are put there to govern us, to deal with and handle problems, and for different reasons they are not! They are too occupied with being re-elected, to nervous of alienating voters by scaring them with too big issues, too affected by economical pressure groups. But the voters are also to blame - for not wanting to deal with the big issues, for not daring to take the big leaps, for sticking to the political parties that we are used to. And we are guilty of not holding our politicians responsible. It is hard to do that, because we know that the reason they have acted irresponsibly is very often because we ignored the same things as they do. For them to be responsible, we have to be, and that is tough: First of all you have to admit a certain guilt. Second of all, you have to pay. And we rather want to pay a little bit later....
So what is Russell Brand doing? He is pointing out these main issues. He is pointing out that with regards to these main issues, voting in the current political system seems to be futile. And he points out that there is a need for a revolution.
And you know what - he is effin' RIGHT!! He is right in so many ways.
The word revolution is a scary word to use, because it leads out thoughts to so many earlier, horrifying events. But there will be a revolution in the sense that at we at some point will have to dramatically change the way we are dealing with some problems. If not anything else, climate change will make sure of that. If we postpone the revolution, it will his us even harder at some point!
He is correct in pointing out that he - as a citizen - has a full right to raise these questions. As he says - he should be allowed to point out problems and demand changes without being responsible for presenting the solution to all these problems - without devising a "global, utopian system". The way Brand uses the words "global, utopian system" in a rather dismissive way, also makes me believe that he is not utopian. He is calling for practical change, not some kind of a communist-style, blue-eyed utopian change. But considering the size of the problems we are facing, these practical changes will have to of such a scope that YES, it will amount to a revolution.
The thought that the interviewer is airing that Brand has no right to raise these issues because he has never voted, is also completely absurd. Anyone that has studied political science and politics knows that a democratic system is based on a lot more than votes. You might say that in an ideal situation everyone should vote, but a system where everyone votes but besides from that refrains from political and social interaction and criticism is very, VERY far away from a being a well-functioning democratic system. First of all, a democratic system needs engagement, and Russell Brand is showing more engagement than many people who vote! Also, I don't see that he is saying absolutely that you shouldn't vote. He says that you should vote when there is something really important to vote for!
- "I say when there is a genuine alternative, a genuine option, then vote for that."
And he is right, isn't he. He is right because he is also calling for action. Just not voting, just waiting for an alternative, is a hopeless act. But if you in the meantime fight for that genuine alternative - if just by talking about the need for it - then you are still socially and politically active, and then you have the right to have your voice, your opinion, and then you have the right to be listened to!
And I cannot not mention the hack-piece in Huffington post. It is on article among many, but it is so interesting because it seems so typical.
It labels Brand as a hippie. You don't have to go further back than to the Norwegian elections in October to see how politicians focusing on environmental problems were derogatively described as people in sandals and knitted sweaters.
The article points out that Russell doesn't offer any solution. Sure, you should have a certain level of knowledge about whatever you want to discuss, but to claim that you have no right to talk about or criticise something unless you have the complete solution is utter stupidity.
And then there is the claim that Russell only has "simple answers to complex questions." More than anything else, that one reminds me of the Permanent Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby in the amazing TV-series Yes, Minister, and how one of his ways of avoiding doing anything would be to underline that "this is a really complex question."
Brand does not have any simple answers. He has a simple, but deadly important request:
"Complex question? Face it!!"
So, to sum up my rant... Russell Brand's interview has gone viral. He might sound pompous, but that does not change the fact that he points to issues that are huge, and that - compared to how important they are - are basically neglected by the political system!
Russell Brand has not changed the world at all! It is up to everyone to chip in and to do their little part to make the revolution that has to come. We need the hippie, we need the voters, we need those who do not vote but who hand out leaflets, we need the dreamers, we need the scientists and technicians that can find practical solutions. And we need the politicians that dare to stand up and talk about the big stuff!!
