Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Truth, lies and Walletgate

By Kim Jameson - posted Thursday, 27 July 2006


Walletgate has proved the truth of the adage about a week in politics, having been almost literally blown off the front pages by events which neither John Howard nor Peter Costello can influence much, if at all.

Its wake has morphed into the usual speculation on nothing much that's actually happening above the surface, either predictable or tendentiously partisan. The most recent discussion has focused on the question of truth and lies in politics, via a poll which finds that a majority believe Costello to be telling the truth but prefer Howard as PM anyway.

This raises the question of the success of political tactics designed to paint Howard as a liar, whose impact Andrew Norton at Catallaxy characterises as follows:

Advertisement

You have to take the good with the bad with politicians as with other people, and fudging things a little is no more than a misdemeanour. The Left’s John Howard Lies campaign fell flat as a result. What matters politically is not so much trust as confidence that a political leader will deliver better than his rivals on key issues. On that count, for the meantime at least, Howard is ahead.

I disagree with Norton's claim that Howard has been "fudging things a little". It's a lot more serious than that. But I agree with him on the main thrust of the argument, and think that those like Tim Dunlop at Road to Surfdom, who continue to analyse the Liberal woes through the prism of truth or lies, miss the political point. Dunlop writes:

It’s an interesting state of affairs, and as I suggested below, it is weird to think we, allegedly, accept a level of dishonesty from the prime minister that we wouldn’t accept from a shop assistant or a real estate agent or anyone else we deal with in a relationship of trust.

Dunlop subsequently argues that in fact we don't accept lies, but Howard muddies the waters by maintaining deniability. The great German sociologist Max Weber, after specifically addressing the question of whether truth telling as an absolute duty has a place in a political ethics, argues for a political ethics not of purity, but of conviction and responsibility.

I am far from arguing John Howard is Weber's conviction politician. And it's clear by his repeated conduct he attempts to evade or escape responsibility.

But I think we need to be clear about the role of truth and ethics in politics. There are many politicians we might not choose to have as a friend (or thinking of Bill Clinton here, as a spouse). There are many who may not stick as closely to a "deal" as we would hope those with whom we have a commercial relationship adhere to contracts. But politics is an affair of force and contingency. It lacks the predictability of commercial transactions, and it rests on a different basis from personal relations.

Advertisement

Its goal is to achieve public ends. It's by that, and their responsibility for their actions, that politicians should be judged. And provided they operate within the law, it's the electorate who judge.

There's sort of a Kantian universe of noble souls where law and honour rule politics. There's a need for law and honour but, for instance, expecting that UN resolutions will be unproblematically heeded by states if not backed up by force is an exercise in noble naivety. The real world is otherwise, and it should be otherwise, because we should judge politicians not by their personal character but what they achieve for the public.

Expecting that there will be a standard of truth or justice that will fundamentally decide between Weber's "warring gods" is really an exercise in misplaced hope. It's right and proper that there be vigorous disagreement over ends in politics. Otherwise we don't have democracy. We might feel morally more comfortable if all was pure, but we wouldn't have the contest of ideas, and the inevitable contest of force that ought to be played within rules, but still needs to take place.

This is why fundamentally the argument that "John Howard lies" is a very weak one. In the context of Walletgate, it's not too dissimilar to McLachlan and Costello's misunderstanding that they had a deal frozen in stone that should be honoured come what may. John Howard is in fact right to say that such arrangements are always provisional, and that politicians don't have a right to pass on public office through private transactions (even if his own behaviour might belie his words).

And politically, for those wanting to hold the Howard Government responsible for its disservice to the public good, it doesn't work. If Howard could win the 2004 election based on a slogan of trust, after all the accusations levelled against him, it does indicate that there is a difference in the public mind between personal honour and public performance.

The Labor Party, and Howard's other opponents, would have done better to make a strong case as to why they ought to be entrusted with government. The fact that they resorted to various forms of raising the "character" question - for instance, Costello's arrogance, and the fact that this failed, is proof again. Contra George W. Bush, feeling comfortable having a beer with someone is not a good argument. I've met politicians who were honourable in their own way, and who achieved good things guided by a set of convictions, who were quite distasteful as people in many ways. But I wasn't picking a friend or a business partner, but supporting a political leader.

Pragmatically, as well, the evidence that the moral critique of Howard doesn't convince is that it's easily turned around by the Right into the accusation that the Left are out of touch and more concerned with issues of process than issues of policy. It does seem to follow from the claim that Howard lies, but nevertheless is re-elected and maintains his popularity that there's some sort of higher morality available to those sitting in judgment that transcends that of the majority of Australian citizens.

It's easy again to see how this is translated into the "Howard-hating lefty elitist". The fact, though, is that nice considerations of truth telling and lying are just not the issues that move the electorate. To claim they should be is also to make a claim, however implicit or downplayed, of a superior moral position.

That's why Costello's "my parents taught me never to tell a lie" line was rightly scorned by most who heard it. In saying it, he was himself trying to manipulate opinion and achieve position. In other words, he wasn't making a moral accusation, but playing out a political tactic. It's just that he's rather bad at it, and Howard's rather good.

So it's not a good political argument. If Kim Beazley is indeed more honourable than John Howard, is that a good enough reason to vote for him?

Nor was there ever a golden age of accountability and honour. Did Keating, like George Washington, never tell a lie? How many Ministers did Whitlam sack? How many should have been sacked earlier? Didn't Fraser betray Gorton? Wasn't he, now often held up as a pillar of rectitude, a ruthless power politician? What in Westminster conventions gave Whitlam the right to force a Speaker from office? Politics has never been a pleasant game.

Public standards have declined. You won't get any argument from me. But to counterpose an (anti) politics of morality to an ethic of conviction just doesn't work. It's a recipe for opposition. It doesn't lead to responsibility and accountability.

I'd rather see Howard ousted for political reasons, and replaced by a prime minister with convictions. He doesn't have to be a nice cuddly avuncular bloke. But he or she has to be a good politician with a sense of what that means. It doesn't mean "whatever it takes", but it does mean that you should focus your ammunition where it actually hits the target. And remember that you need to persuade the people.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Kim A. Jameson is a writer, artist and design specialist based in Brisbane. She has previously lectured at Universities in the United States, and has postgraduate qualifications in Sociology and Fine Arts. She blogs at Larvatus Prodeo.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy