From Free Life No 40, September 2002

Dispatches From A Dying Country:
Reflections on Modern England
Sean Gabb,
with a Foreword by Chris R. Tame
The Hampden Press, London, 2001, 222pp, £10.00 (pbk)
ISBN 0 9541032 0 3.

Editor's Note: This is the only review so far received of my book. The fact that it is a pretty damning one does not deter me from publishing it, though I had hoped for someone, somewhere, to write something more flattering. I thanks Mr Dykes for his very thorough review, and hope that it will not damage further sales of the book!

Sean Gabb's Dispatches is a reproduction in book form of 32 essays previously published by him on the Internet as Free Life Commentaries, plus two Editorials from this magazine of which he has been Editor since reviving it about ten years ago.

The book falls into the category of political journalism. It is about trends and personalities in contemporary politics and about the advisability, or consequences, of political acts. Since Sean is a noted Libertarian commentator ('notorious', his opponents might say), his book is spirited Libertarian political journalism. As such, it provides less energetic fellow thinkers with spiritual comfort and thought-provoking speculation, as well as accurate, acerbic and enjoyable debunking of gun laws, video censorship, encryption bans, enforced metrication, European union and other such horrors. The essays are mostly quite short, so Dispatches makes good bedtime reading; sending one off with a 'yess!' or a 'yeah!' and a sense of gratitude and relief that somebody out there is putting the case for freedom with well-articulated passion.

As one of the 'less energetic' myself (perforce, through illness) I have a great deal of admiration for Sean Gabb. Every month, for years, despite the demands of a PhD thesis, a teaching position and family life, he has aimed a stream of well-honed verbal darts--in print, on radio, and on television--at the pretentious buffoons who claim the right to rule us, and at those who support or defend them. Unlike many other such efforts his darts have hit home, actually bursting some British political balloons; his greatest success being the Candidlist enterprise--the exposure of deliberate misrepresentation (or obfuscation) of their positions on Europe by Conservative MPs--which is fascinatingly described in Sean's book.

But there is more to my admiration than that. It takes courage to do what Sean does. Political buffoons do not like their ignorance and hypocrisy exposed, and some have the power and nasty will to make life unpleasant for the journalists who demonstrate their fraudulence. Sean has had his garbage sifted, his mail opened, his phone tapped, his flat broken into and his computer stolen. Even a thick-skinned maverick like him finds this a bit nerve-racking on occasion [92]. I salute his bravery.

The best essay in Dispatches from a Dying Country is "Robert Henderson v. Tony Blair: A Tale of New Britain" (pp. 76-92). This examines in considerable detail how the present Prime Minister abused his office and the law in order to hinder the attempts of a perfectly reasonable man to obtain redress for a blatant injustice. The essay reads like a thriller, grabbing and holding one's attention from beginning to end, yet is as carefully documented as an article in a good academic journal. This is journalism at its best. Add to it the Candidlist story; other essays exposing the hypocrisy of politicians such as Jack Straw and Clare Short; plus some intriguing speculation, and £10 seems a low price indeed.

Given my admiration for Sean, my hope that his book is successful, and my agreement with a lot of what he says, it is difficult to criticise Dispatches from a Dying Country. But I do think a few modifications would have made the book a lot stronger.

The basic issue involves the transition from periodical literature to the more permanent medium of a book. In a book, readers' expectations of an author are higher.

Certainly mine are, and Dispatches contains a string of minor flaws which, though amounting to very little individually, together give an impression of sloppiness. Sean tells us at the beginning not to expect "perfect consistency of thought"; adding that he writes in "great haste, usually without revision", and that "unless I am looking for typing errors… I make no effort to read what I have already written before writing again on the same or a similar subject" [xi]. This made me suspicious at the outset. It suggested that Sean was aware of problems but chose to ignore them.

The minor flaws begin on the title page. We are told there is an Introduction by Chris Tame. But, when we turn to it, it is entitled "Foreword", the "Introduction" follows--by Sean. Another minor flaw which begins early is a slight excess of self-congratulation: "I did rather well…" [4], "I am pleased with myself [75], "My Candidlist… is one of the most important political uses of the Internet anywhere in the world"[196], "… my achievement" [200]. Then there's the odd hint that the author is showing off: e.g. "I think of Cicero's in verrem speeches and the 1783 India Act--and I shudder"[125], or the overuse of the rather precious term "clerisy" [e.g. 125, 140, 142] which was introduced into English by the poet Coleridge to mean the class of learned men or scholars, but is used in this book to mean "those who really govern the country" [207]. Although not a frequent occurrence in Dispatches, and hardly egregious, this sort of thing makes me fidget.

Sean did ask us to overlook the occasional inconsistency but, as other peccadilloes mount, one becomes less tolerant. For instance, his statements that "Freedom of speech is the most precious freedom that can ever be possessed…. The right … is central to our existence as rational beings" are contradicted in the next two paragraphs: "I accept the occasional need for limiting the means of expressing certain opinions" which "… may rightly be controlled by law" [5]. But rights precede law, they are what laws are enacted to protect or guarantee. A right controlled by law is not a right. Elsewhere, Sean defends liberal democracy [4, 8], then scoffs at British hereditary peers for being "too soaked in democratic sentiment to believe any more in their right to sit in Parliament" [59]. An inherited right to govern, which Sean so enthusiastically advocates, is not a plank of liberal democracy.

On another front, The Daily Telegraph is scorned throughout the book--e.g. "Telegraph journalists are notorious for their inability to check the truth of the stories they are fed"[74]--then suddenly becomes "the only daily newspaper in the country which seems to care anything about the freedoms we have lost…" [165]. Other famous journals are abused several times as "controlled media" [e.g. 111], then suddenly relied on as 'quality' newspapers [152].

There are also several inaccuracies, some not so minor. Sean states "the normal penalty for drink driving is six months imprisonment" [27]. In fact, it's a fine and a ban. (I rang a solicitor friend who said he hadn't seen imprisonment for drink driving in 25 years of practice). In another minor mistake, Sean refers to "Kurdish repression against Turkey"[125] when in fact it's the Kurds who have been so repressed by Turkey that they have risen in rebellion or fled the country.

Among more serious inaccuracies, Sean calls the House of Lords "the best second chamber that ever existed" [53]. Since the Lords was emasculated in 1911, and has done virtually nothing to hold back the statist onslaught during the last nine decades, such hyperbole is off key. Moreover, the German Bundesrat, the Swiss Ständerat, and the US Senate all carry out far more effectively both the Lords' function as a body of review, as well as their erstwhile if poorly defined role as representatives of the regions, so the assertion is just plain wrong.

Another obvious inaccuracy comes earlier. Sean asserts that "only a fool" would doubt that severe penalties deter criminals [3]. Well, I don't believe Sir Edward Coke was a fool, yet it was he who pointed out that it is not the severity of punishment which is the true deterrent for crime, but its certainty. And the three centuries since Coke wrote have born out the truth of his dictum annually: steady streams of heinous crimes despite draconian, sometimes diabolical, punishments. In criminal reality, severe penalties merely make some criminals more cautious. The majority of them can safely rely on the inefficiency of state police monopolies to avoid punishment, no matter how dire that may be. Besides, many criminals are both stupid and arrogant, hence overconfident in their ability to avoid detection.

As the list of errors in Dispatches grows, other things one wouldn't normally comment on become irritants. Such as more than a few typing errors [e.g., 17, 82, 132, 133, 135, 147, 164, 169 and 217] and some infelicitous phrasing: "Except I accused… " [26], or paragraph 2, page 125, or "Nor since… " [135]. One even starts being annoyed by those inelegant typesetting errors which printers call 'widows' [e.g. 13, 37, 83, 125, 149, 199] and spotting tiny mistakes in punctuation, such as en dashes ( - ) suddenly changing into hyphens [e.g. 133].

Lastly, Sean claims his Index is "reasonably complete" [xi]. It isn't. For instance, William Hague is cast as one of Sean's villains, so features frequently in the text, yet is not indexed. Similarly, the Criminal Justice Act, The Guardian, The Independent, Kosovo, the Liberal Democrats, Panorama, Patriotism, The Racial Attacks Monitoring Unit, the Representation of the People Act, The Times, Wales, and other things, people, places or events all play roles in the book, but are excluded from the Index. Bit part players such as the Brixton bombing, 'Lord' Bragg, the Chechens, Cicero, Noam Chomsky, The Communist Manifesto, Frank Dobson, 'Lady' Jay, Kevin McFarlane, News-night, Newsweek, Albert J. Nock, councillor Margaret Payne and the Queen fare even worse: literally dozens of them are missing. Far from being "reasonably complete", I'd say the Index isn't half done.

It is also misleading. Philosopher David Hume is indexed for page xi, but doesn't appear there. Alphonso Hales is indexed for page 7, but not for his more significant appearances on page 8. Anthony Flew and Dennis O'Keeffe appear together on page 22, but only O'Keeffe is indexed. Augusto Pinochet is indexed for page 127, but not for pp. 128-30. Habeas corpus is indexed for xiv, a page that doesn't exist, but not for page 15 where it appears: etc, etc, etc.

To repeat, these points are mostly minor by themselves, they would hardly count in periodic literature. However, in a book, read at leisure, perhaps studied, or used as a reference, the accumulation becomes more noticeable, less forgivable and, in a work one wants to promote, disappointing. A little revision might not in future be such a bad idea, plus an outside reading of the manuscript.

A more serious problem, however, is unsupported assertion or allegation. We expect this in journalism; sources may need protecting, time may not permit referencing. We just keep our eyes open and over time recognise which journalists are the more trustworthy. But, in a book--particularly one which is going into libraries of deposit to educate and inform our children and grandchildren--unsupported, undocumented statements or assertions are not admissible.

I deliberately began by complimenting Sean on his Robert Henderson piece, because the excellence of his reporting there shows up its inadequacy elsewhere. Beyond the odd newspaper reference in the text, or quote from an act of parliament, only one other essay is at all documented [Part Three, # IV] and only a few passages here and there in the remaining ones are backed up by clear evidence. For the most part, the essays consist of polemical assertions and bald or raw opinions. In some places, I'm afraid to say, the text almost sinks into ranting. Not that Sean's rants are uninteresting. He is frequently correct, informative, and enlightening. But the paucity of proper documentation; and of patient, reasoned analysis; makes the book much less persuasive than it might have been. It's fine for the converted, entertaining even (despite the absence of humour, the approach is castigation, never comedy); but I can't see this book convincing many outside the Libertarian fold of the value of political freedom. Of course, it is not intended to be scholarly, but Sean is a scholar, and his book would have been ten times more powerful if he had added an element of scholarship.

Let me give some examples of what I mean. Sean proclaims that William Hague was "the most childishly stupid leader" of the Conservative Party "in its entire history" [18]. This might be true, but in the biting critique which follows there is nothing to establish the allegation. At best, Sean shows that Mr Hague was weak in opposition. But since the list of events supposed to show this is neither documented nor backed with solid evidence, and since one remembers several occasions when Mr Hague bested Mr Blair in debate, even the lesser charge is unconvincing. 'Childish stupidity' ends up looking like abuse, which does Sean no credit.

Elsewhere, Sean asserts that Mr Hague "has at least one secret he does not want the world to know" [157]. True or not, without further information, this becomes the sort of 'reporting' one would expect from a tabloid. It's of a kind with "Are you still beating your wife?" Mr Hague may indeed have secrets; but dark, unsubstantiated hints about these do nothing for the credibility of the author who publishes them.

Sean also asserts that Edward Heath was a "disastrously--indeed, a treasonably--bad Prime Minister" [154]. I agree. But without something in support (a sentence or two would do) this is just an insult. And not only do insults persuade nobody of their truth, they risk rendering suspect their author's other judgements.

On the same page Sean repeats a charge made earlier [19] that the Blair government "has quietly amended the electoral laws so that its creatures in the police and local government can rig any important ballot." I was not aware of this. Perhaps I don't read the papers as carefully as Sean does. But since ballot-rigging is the most serious charge that can be brought in a democratic system of government--it's normal practice with election-subverters such as Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, or Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe--I naturally want to know what the basis for the charge is. I think many other readers would like to know too. But Sean tells us nothing. Everything rests on his bald assertion.

On page 124, Sean asserts that Mr Blair ghosted an article about himself for Newsweek. Again, fascinating stuff. I would love to know the details. But I can't accept the truth of it merely on Sean's say-so.

On page 156, Sean asserts that "the Quisling Rightists who run the Conservative Party… took over and destroyed the Countryside Alliance." Well, I live in the country, and welcomed the posters going up--"Never underestimate the power of a minority"--and the grand parades. Subsequently, as I watched wind and rain destroy the once proud banners, I wondered why the revolt had petered out. Sean may well be right that the movement was eviscerated by the Conservatives. But no matter how much I admire him, I can't possibly take the charge for granted just because he tells me so.

On page 201, Sean asserts that the Conservative Party's Central Office "went to extreme lengths… to have a BBC Panorama documentary about me first delayed and then cancelled." I am very ready to accept this. I would love to hear the story. But how can I or anybody else be expected to believe such a disgraceful tale with not one word of evidence to back it up?

I could carry on like this about virtually every essay in the book. Of particular concern is Sean's identification of a "Quisling Right" helping an "Enemy Class" to establish a "New World Order" [e.g., 71, 158-61, 205-9]. An intriguing notion indeed. It may be true. But until the existence of these entities is established by careful scholarship--with names and dates and documents and persuasive analytic reasoning--I can't see most people taking them any more seriously than I do the Bogeyman. Especially because the "Enemy Class" is merely a new name for an old enemy: the parasitical State, with all its apologists, employees and dependants.

My other problems with Dispatches from a Dying Country are philosophical. I simply cannot agree with Sean's nationalism; his adulation for the British Constitution and belief that it can be reformed to defend our liberty and property; his affection for patriotism, in my view the first resort of despots, and so different from "the sense of place and unforced pride in community that is inseparable from living in a free society" [205]; or his support for the death penalty and other harsh punishments. But since I have neither time nor inclination to turn this into a review essay, I shall leave those matters where they lie.

Some might see my emphasis on the book's flaws as mere quibbling or nit-picking. I would not agree. Sean has enemies, enemies who also write. The mistakes I have pointed out are exactly the kind of weaknesses hostile critics like to seize on. What's the point of offering your opponents handholds with which to throw you? One can imagine the sneering and scoffing: "Dispatches? It's just a 200-page rant by a basement gun nut who wants to bring back hanging while encouraging drug use, child-molesting and drink-driving. The man's plainly mad. In any case, the book's so embarrassingly full of typing and other errors that it's just not worth wasting time on." Or: "Dr Gabb is such a backwards-looking, hang-and-flog, arch conservative that he even clings to out-of-date software. He would have saved himself and us lot of embarrassment if he'd used Microsoft's grammar and spelling checkers. On the other hand, a bazaar scribe with a clickety old sit-up-and-beg typewriter could have produced a better Index."

Readers of Free Life whose memories go back to the mid-1990s might also be tempted to dismiss my criticisms as retaliation for the sarcastic, unfair review of my book Fed up with Government?, which Sean published in issue No. 21 of this magazine (November, 1994). They would be mistaken: it would be neither to my taste nor my self-interest to work that way. I replied forcefully to the review at that time (although Sean did point to the opportunity for retaliation when he recently invited me to review his own book!). Besides, I have moved on a long way since then. I no longer espouse the political philosophy of limited government which underlay my book. I don't regret writing it, however, because doing so helped me to see the flaws in my own philosophy and, equally important, to get a lifelong fascination with politics out of my system.

No, my criticisms of Dispatches From A Dying Country are solely inspired by the fact that, despite our many differences, I am on Sean's side. I want to destroy what he calls the "Enemy Class" just as much as he does--as any reader of Fed up with Government? will know. But the enemy have in their ranks hundreds of well-educated, intelligent, skilled and experienced writers and debaters who, together, make the Enemy Class a difficult foe to combat. We do indeed have truth and reason on our side, but the better way to defeat Britain's 'Court Intelligentsia', and their lapdogs in the media, is by becoming better political journalists than they are. Sean is often a lone figure, a solitary voice in opposition. My hope in criticising him is that by doing so I will help him to become even more effective at attacking and debunking our mutual enemy. And with successes like Candidlist behind him, he's off to a very good start.

To conclude, Dispatches from a Dying Country falls a bit short of what it might have been--a brilliant rallying cry for British freedom lovers--due to an over-reliance on the power of diatribe, a lack of evidence and calm analysis, and an excess of minor flaws. On the other hand, it contains some excellent and some good reporting, some interesting facts, fascinating speculation, true opinions, a lot of passion for the cause of liberty, and some refreshingly new perspectives on fashionable or 'politically correct' causes. I would urge all Libertarians, Objectivists, Randians, Classical Liberals, true Conservatives, and any genuine lover of freedom to buy the book, if only to enable Hampden Press to publish more of the same!

Nicholas Dykes.