In the 3rd century BC, the Roman Empire was on its knees. Hannibal had smashed its armies, and Rome itself seemed within his grasp.
And yet, the Eternal City didn’t fall. Under General Quintus Maximus Fabius, the Romans abandoned their formerly aggressive strategy, instead shifting to hit-and-run attacks. Though Fabius was roundly criticised for this cautious approach, and was promptly dismissed by his compatriots as a “cunctator” or delayer, Hannibal’s supply lines were soon cut, and the Carthaginians ultimately forced to leave Italy.
It is a dramatic story, but hardly ancient history. Adopted by Beatrice and Sidney Webb in the late 19th century, the old general’s pragmatism was revived as “Fabianism” — a form of socialism, but one framed by economic gradualism and respect for tradition.
And if, to quote one historian, the Webbs’ ideas were “perfectly suited to British prejudices” in their own sepia-tinged world, what Fabius understood remains starkly relevant now. As Keir Starmer has shown — and Kamala Harris proved in her debate with Donald Trump — remaining level-headed wins debates and often elections. More than that, practical Fabianism can be a salve for some of modernity’s most tender wounds, especially when compared to the dreamy utopianism so common elsewhere in politics.
We are living in an age of dogma. That is clear right across the political spectrum, from the Left’s extreme approach to climate change and gender, to populist demonisation of immigrants and other outsiders.
The specifics, of course, are different. But like their ancient namesake, the original Fabians found themselves in a fraught political climate. Faced with a complacent establishment that despised socialism — and the growing popularity of radical politics, epitomised by a spate of anarchist attacks from New York to London — they were forced to thread a path between the two.
How did they manage this practice? In a word: moderation. Though embracing a range of progressive economic causes, advocating for a national health service as far back as 1911, the Fabians were equally careful not to forsake capitalism entirely. For the Webbs, small businesses were to retain their assets, even as the movement’s leaders were broadly conventional in their personal morality. No less important, the Fabians also made their peace with Britain’s ancient monarchy, even as they preferred a professional civil service to the revolutionary vanguard.
As late as the Nineties, these ideas were successfully practised by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, and even today most developed countries boast mixed economies and lively welfare states. All the same, recent years have seen caution and thoughtfulness replaced by emotion and zealotry, with disastrous results across a range of policy areas.
Consider climate change. While doubtless a major challenge, leading physicist Steve Koonin nonetheless suggests that current environmental policies are underpinned by implausibly catastrophic projections, including mass starvation and a huge rise in weather-related fatalities. To quote John Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics: “Climate science has metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudo-science.”
Prodded along by allies in the media — Associated Press and National Public Radio are two of the organisations to accept money from climate lobby groups — this extreme approach may yet prove harmful for regular people. Like Fabius’s opponents in the Senate, the climate lobby ignores inconvenient facts, instead preferring bold action, and a grim future encompassing smaller homes, less mobility, and worse diets.
Apart from anything else, the science underpinning the pessimists is decidedly shaky. For one thing, net zero is a fantasy that can likely never happen even in the medium term, particularly given the rising energy needs of developing countries. That’s before you consider an even more essential problem: physics. Renewables suffer from low power density, which means they require much more material to work. As even the CEO at Siemens Energy recently conceded, economic realities are starting to assert themselves, despite massive and continuing subsidies for wind and solar.
Beyond the scientific folly of climate-change extremism, this zero-sum approach is bound to be unpopular. A recent Gallup poll shows that just 3% of Americans consider climate change the most urgent problem facing the country. Besides, adaptations of various sorts, from better flood defences to clever agricultural practices, have helped reduce climate-related fatalities dramatically over the past century, despite a massive increase in global population and higher temperatures. Why, in short, don’t we try things that actually work?
To be clear, this is not to suggest we should dismiss climate change as fake — the planet really does seem to be getting warmer, albeit more slowly than climate lobbyists suggest. But rather than clinging mindlessly to performative, ineffective and fundamentally unsellable policies, a more Fabian approach would embrace hybrids as opposed to less desirable EVs, or else invest in economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels, notably hydro and nuclear power. Placing your faith in wind or solar seems like a fool’s errand — and a good way to lose money.
If climate change is one area that could do with a strong dose of Fabianism, our attitude to race is another. Once again, it is clear that the current radical approach, popular on both sides of the Atlantic, is doing more harm than good. Current “anti-racism” ideology requires schools, companies and governments to use racial metrics in hiring and spending. Yet this approach has proved a massive failure. After making steady progress in the Fifties and Sixties, the relative economic status of African-Americans has largely stalled compared within other groups, including Latinos. That is even as inner-city problems remain as intractable as ever. The primacy of racial identity politics is also socially counterproductive, as we can see in the ethnic rioting in the US in 2020, in Britain in 2024, and in France almost constantly.
It is understood, of course, that some on the Right are guilty of similar neuroses, especially when it comes to demographic replacement. But the multiracial reality of contemporary Western societies cannot be wished away. And besides, ideologues of both Right and Left miss a basic point: so-called “people of colour” are not monolithic, and often share little beyond not being white. That is apparent from the numbers, with the latest data from the US Census Bureau showing a wide disparity between different ethnic minorities. Korean-Americans, Indonesian-Americans, Taiwanese-Americans, and Filipino-Americans all report higher incomes than whites. Among immigrants from Africa, females apparently do better than their white counterparts already. That’s even as Asians now constitute perhaps a third of leading tech CEOs in the US.
To put it differently, might it not be best to adopt a Fabian approach to race — both in terms of level-headed pragmatism, and in class and upward mobility? Fabianism, for its part, would avoid a racialist approach to public policy, instead adopting a strategy of general societal uplift, one less likely to stir resentment among white majority populations. There’s evidence, moreover, that this can work in practice: Denmark’s policy of integrating immigrants into the labour market has arguably seen the Nordic country suffer less ethnic strife than neighbouring Sweden.
Success there is echoed by the advantages of Fabianism for immigration policy. Once again, the radicalism of Left and Right has caused problems. A massive wave of immigration, embraced by business and intellectual elites across Europe, has in turn energised Right-wing populists across the continent, even as native workers (especially those on low incomes) face rising competition for jobs, homes and social services. Spurred by record numbers of people crossing the border with Mexico, American attitudes to immigration have hardened too — roughly 60% of Americans, and a majority of Latinos, support mass deportations.
These realities lead some on the Right to favour cutting off immigration entirely. Yet it will be extremely hard for Western societies to thrive without it. That’s obvious demographically: across the OECD, the so-called “dependence ratio” (those aged 65 and over as a proportion of people aged 20-64) will hit 46% by 2050.
At any rate, a Fabian approach to these challenges would acknowledge these facts while rejecting open borders. Robust controls are crucial here, with countries from Australia to Canada prioritising high-skilled migration until liberal activists and big business encouraged them to change tack. To put it differently, a Fabian approach to immigration is not only possible. It has actually been proven to work in the recent past — and the sooner nations rediscover it, the better.
In the current environment, prospects for a Fabian revival may seem dim. Practicality is not a virtue much taught in universities these days, with the academy instead seeking to turn students into activists more than citizens. Social media tends to accelerate the ghettoisation of information too, meaning people get little exposure to ideas outside their presumed comfort zone. Then there are the challenges specific to Fabianism as an ideology: in an age of rampant inequality, to say nothing of general disgust for politics, can a softly-softly approach really succeed?
Perhaps not. Yet as Fabius so vividly proved, in difficult times societies need pragmatists not ideologues. One cannot expect either the current liberal oligarchy — nor Right-wing demagogues like Trump — to embrace such a rational response. But like Rome or the British socialists, success can only come by recognising political, economic, and social realities.
Today, in short, Fabianism provides an elegant route away from our current travails. Like the ancient Romans, we are past the point where dogma and vainglory can be afforded. In an increasingly divided, debilitated West, a shift towards greater realism therefore seems the healthiest alternative.
Disclaimer
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.
Source: UnHerd Read the original article here: https://unherd.com/