"Too often we think we can act without explaining and take decisions without justifying them"
About this Quote
The line lands like a quiet rebuke to a certain species of political arrogance: the belief that power is self-explanatory. Mandelson, a master mechanic of modern British politics and the communications age that remade it, isn’t lamenting procedure for its own sake. He’s diagnosing a legitimacy problem. In an era when governments try to move at the speed of markets and media cycles, leaders begin to treat explanation as a luxury add-on rather than part of the act itself. The quote insists that justification isn’t an after-the-fact PR exercise; it’s the democratic price of admission.
The phrasing matters. “Too often” signals a pattern, not a one-off scandal. “Think we can” targets mindset before policy: the internal story decision-makers tell themselves to make unilateral action feel normal. “Act” and “take decisions” split performance from authority: the public sees gestures and announcements, but rarely the reasoning that would allow citizens to consent, object, or course-correct. Mandelson’s subtext is that opacity is not just morally dubious; it’s strategically stupid. When you don’t explain, your opponents will. When you don’t justify, your motives get written for you - by tabloids, by rivals, by algorithmic outrage.
Contextually, this sits inside late-20th/early-21st century governance: New Labour’s obsession with message discipline, the rise of “sofa government,” and a broader drift toward executive centralization. It reads as both confession and warning: modern politics can win elections on control, but it can’t sustain trust without narrative accountability.
The phrasing matters. “Too often” signals a pattern, not a one-off scandal. “Think we can” targets mindset before policy: the internal story decision-makers tell themselves to make unilateral action feel normal. “Act” and “take decisions” split performance from authority: the public sees gestures and announcements, but rarely the reasoning that would allow citizens to consent, object, or course-correct. Mandelson’s subtext is that opacity is not just morally dubious; it’s strategically stupid. When you don’t explain, your opponents will. When you don’t justify, your motives get written for you - by tabloids, by rivals, by algorithmic outrage.
Contextually, this sits inside late-20th/early-21st century governance: New Labour’s obsession with message discipline, the rise of “sofa government,” and a broader drift toward executive centralization. It reads as both confession and warning: modern politics can win elections on control, but it can’t sustain trust without narrative accountability.
Quote Details
| Topic | Decision-Making |
|---|
More Quotes by Peter
Add to List



