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:
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 Andrew’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.
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.
Tim goes on to argue that in fact we don’t accept lies, but Howard muddies the waters by maintaining deniability. I’m not convinced, and I’ll explain later why I think it’s a weak political argument.
But first, Max Weber:
Now then, what relations do ethics and politics actually have? Have the two nothing whatever to do with one another, as has occasionally been said? Or, is the reverse true: that the ethic of political conduct is identical with that of any other conduct ? Occasionally an exclusive choice has been believed to exist between the two propositions–either the one or the other proposition must be correct. But is it true that any ethic of the world could establish commandments of identical content for erotic, business, familial, and official relations; for the relations to one’s wife, to the greengrocer, the son, the competitor, the friend, the defendant? Should it really matter so little for the ethical demands on politics that politics operates with very special means, namely, power backed up by violence? Do we not see that the Bolshevik and the Spartacist ideologists bring about exactly the same results as any militaristic dictator just because they use this political means? In what but the persons of the power-holders and their dilettantism does the rule of the workers’ and soldiers’ councils differ from the rule of any power-holder of the old regime? In what way does the polemic of most representatives of the presumably new ethic differ from that of the opponents which they criticized, or the ethic of any other demagogues ? In their noble intention, people will say. Good! But it is the means about which we speak here, and the adversaries, in complete subjective sincerity, claim, in the very same way, that their ultimate intentions are of lofty character. ‘All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword’ and fighting is everywhere fighting. Hence, the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount.
Weber goes on, after specifically addressing the question of whether truth telling as an absolute duty has a place in a political ethics:
However, it is immensely moving when a mature man–no matter whether old or young in years–is aware of a responsibility for the consequences of his conduct and really feels such responsibility with heart and soul. He then acts by following an ethic of responsibility and somewhere he reaches the point where he says: ‘Here I stand; I can do no other.’ That is something genuinely human and moving. And every one of us who is not spiritually dead must realize the possibility of finding himself at some time in that position. In so far as this is true, an ethic of ultimate ends and an ethic of responsibility are not absolute contrasts but rather supplements, which only in unison constitute a genuine man–a man who can have the ‘calling for politics.’
In short, Weber 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, a spouse). There are many who may not hew 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. 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 replacing the dethroned sovereign with a purely illusory metaphysic that in effect replaces politics altogether with something other. 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 judgement 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.
Update: Tim replies. Dan also has some thoughts.
Good piece, Kim.
Thanks, John.
Couldn’t have put it better myself. I often hear people complaining about how politicians always seem to be deceitful and dishonest. People always seem to make the error of ascribing the dishonesty to the politician as a person. I’m of the opinion that if all politicians are liars, then that says something about the nature of politics, not the nature of the individuals who choose it.
I’d make an attempt to develop my ideas further… but it’s my bedtime.
“That’s why Costello’s “my parents taught me never to tell a lie” line was rightly scorned by most who heard it.”
It should have been scorned for the fact that Costello spent the previous 12 years denying that any such deal with Howard existed. Now he says there was a deal, but also that his parents taught him not to lie.
He’s a twit, and he belongs on the backbench.
Looks like my gravatar has gone.
Everyone’s has, Steve. Gravatar.com is probably down.
Very well argued, Kim.
Here’s a quote from Golo Mann (Thomas Mann’s son the historian):
From his life of Wallenstein, which is very interesting reading for those whose views on politics are Weberian (or Schmittian).
[link]
Good article.
“Public standards have declined.”
Depends on the timeframe dunnit? Lloyd George behaved far more outrageously than Blair in selling peerages for pounds of pounds to name just one such example. Ronnie Reagan’s administration still leads the US in the number of senior appointees indicted and convicted for abuse of their position. And don’t get me started on Sir Robert Walpole and the South Sea Bubble or the ongoing condition of the US Senate.
And yeah G. Mann’s “Wallerstein” was good but I regard his “The History of Germany Since 1789″ as his masterwork. Crap title though. He’d need something catchier to get through today’s publishers. Maybe “Prussian Thrush and Bavarian Cuckoos”?
I was thinking of Weber’s essay when I wrote my post, and also of Machiavelli - who is interesting not so much for his bag of dirty tricks but for contrasting the demands of Christian morality with the responsibilities of a ruler. Politics is not like, as Tim seems to suggest in your quote from him, going to the shops or buying a house. It is a sphere of conduct with multiple and conflicting objectives; indeed we have elections because we cannot just set down clear rules which our leaders must technocratically follow, so instead we elect a small number of people to choose between these multiple and conflicting objectives. If we don’t like their choices, we will vote against them next time.
I think Boris over at Catallaxy made a good point too when he said that all the areas in which Howard is accused of telling lies are ‘non-core’ politically: whether or not kids were tossed overboard on that particular day most people don’t want refugees anyway, even if AWB paid bribes to Saddam at least we sold the wheat, whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction the daily lives of Australians were not affected by the war, people don’t like Costello and it is more important that he is not PM than whether Howard is telling the truth about the matter. On issues of domestic policy that affect lots of people truth-telling might be more highly regarded.
This is the sort of post that keeps me coming back to LP (and I mean that in the best possible way).
Niccolo Machiavelli:
John Howard has this passage bookmarked, no doubt.
No wonder various governing elites have tried to paint Macchiavelli as a wrong ‘un just for describing what princes do to get by. He gave away all their trade secrets.
With all due respect, Kim, I think that it is you who has missed the point.
I don’t think the issue is whether or not public standards have declined or if there was ever a so-called golden age of accountability. It isn’t even a question of whether a ‘good politician’ can always tell the truth.
What it IS about I think is the level of deceit that we as a community are prepared to accept from our political leaders, and politically the level of credibility that a politician needs in order to survive. What you have missed is that Howard’s credibilty has indeed been an issue at various times over the past ten years, and it is only the economic good times, Howard’s political skills, and a compliant media that have reduced its force as an issue. Remove one of those factors and his lying and consequent lack of credibility indeed becomes an issue. People do a care about lying politicians, but it is but one factor among many.
In citing Weber you argue for a politics of conviction and responsibility, but of course Howard’s politics is the denial of those two principles, apart from the conviction of staying in power. Likewise your argument that we should judge politicians not by their personal character, but what they achieve for the public is rather simplistic since the two are so obviously and inevitiably intertwined. It’s also another way of saying that the ends justify the means and we all know where that gets us.
Nobody is arguing that politicians must tell the truth at all times, or that truth is an absolute in politics, as I said it’s the level of deceit tha people are willing to accept and the point at which it becomes a liability that’s the issue. To me at least!
Although I’m not exactly clear on what your argument is Kim (take this as a compliment not a snipe), I think I’m also dissenting.
Depending on how far you take the standard of truth, I think this would actually be an exercise in replacing one form of politics with another; one system of democracy with another. That’s why I think the correct response to a situation like this is to push for democratic reform.
Anyway, whoever runs a succesful honesty campaign against JWH, needs to convince the electorate that they are serious about it and that they can be trusted . As Andrew noted (in the linked post, I think) such a strategy has failed before. There is no need to be perfectly honest (at least not in the short term
but they would have to present a clear alternative. This is quite possible.
Democratic reform also addresses your points about the lefty elite blaming the idiocy of the masses.’ It’s not about the stupidity or gullibility of the voters but about the system not respecting them, not giving them an option. And (for mine) not just the political system, but also the short attention inducing media and consumption trends in general.
Weber argues for responsibility/accountability over purity/honesty but his words seem uncharacteristically stuck in the past. I agree that under representative democracy his (and your) prescription seem the only effective option. To the extent that this is ths system we vote under you have a point, but as Adrian says, it is quite reasonable to develop a two pronged attack against JWH. Politically speaking, honesty flows quite neatly into accountability.
But as far as future forms of democracy government go I think there is, in fact, an important way in which democratic ‘polemic’ can differ from ‘the ethic of any other demagogue.’ Participatory or deliberative democracy differ not in their intention but in their representativeness, in their inclusivity and in their interdependence They allow for both conviction and honesty. Despite the weight of history I don’t believe that politics is inherently ‘impure.’ Anyway, aren’t we supposed to be progressives?
And that’s why I think an honesty campaign could and should work.
So people’s attitudes to a leader’s honesty and character is contingent upon factors that have very little to do with a person’s honesty. I’m not sure how this is different from Kim’s critique.
It is certainly true that Howard can (and probably will) fall on the basis of a lie. But it will be the kind of lie in which the fortunes and dignity of the voting public are directly implicated. In my opinion, the lie that will end Howard is the lie that he can be trusted on economic management. From the 2004 election, we can assume that economics is one area where people do trust Howard, and it is one area where trust in politics is very important.
Trust in a person and trust in a Government are two different things, in my opinion.
No, I think what Kim is arguing, Michael, is that unless we do have contests over ideas played out in a realm of force where many tactics are acceptable (and as she points out - Costello’s “truth telling” is also a political tactic, and she could have added so is the “Howard Lies” trope) then effectively we give up on politics altogether.
Far from being “old fashioned” (which he could be accused of, I guess, since he died in 1920), I think Weber hit on something that has only accentuated over the years - we have far fewer politicians imbued with conviction and responsibility these days. That’s where, as Kim points, out Beazley’s presentation as “nicer” or “more honourable” than Howard is a losing hand - what precisely does the Beazer stand for?
Oh, and Nabs, Mann’s History of Germany is a great read but I think on balance I prefer Wallerstein.
Ok, Mark. But I don’t get it. I don’t understand what this essence of politics is and why a focus on truth would crush it. Are (either of) you saying that if truth were valued more highly then politicians would be too timid to speak with conviction and take responsibility for their actions? Or that there is a connection between bending the truth and showing conviction/taking responsibility? The current status quo doesn’t really bear this out - especially the second part.
Quickly, Michael, because I have to go offline.
I’m not contrasting politics with truth, just stating that political ethics are different from personal ethics and that accusations of lying are ineffective political tactics on the whole.
The situation with Howard really is that he said what was prudent to advance his objectives at the time. He didn’t make a “contract”. Circumstances have changed, and his political position is much more powerful - in large part because he has won four elections. Now, I’d like to see Howard go, but if I believed that he was doing good things for the country, and his conduct was what was required to put him in a position where he could achieve ends I supported, I’d assess his conduct as perfectly reasonable in a political sense.
As Andrew Norton says, politics is a different realm from selling real estate or personal friendships, and different standards apply.
I suggest you read Kim’s post again, and Weber’s full article too.
I think, as i have a wont to do, I am mixing up local vs abstract analysis. I’d also support your hypothetical Howard, out of realism. But I wouldn’t support the systematic perpetuation of that kind of behaviour, out of idealism, or out of a belief that the ethics surrounding the personal doesn’t neccesarily have to be all that different to that surrounding the political.
Re-reading and reading duly. Well, eventually
In other words the ends justify the means. What a sorry state we have arrived at!
No, but what ends would you suggest, adrian? Realistically?
Whatever ends those in power who consider lying to us perfectly acceptable, have determined. As lying is, as you seem to have accepted their stock in trade, it may be difficult to determine exactly what these ends may be.
See Iraq.
You don’t differentiate between the scale? Lying is always wrong? Isn’t there a difference between Iraq and, say, Paul Keating doing a few deals along the way to becoming PM? I’m using PJK as an example because I think he was a great PM. I don’t imagine he never told a lie.
It seems to me you’ve entirely missed the points I made about responsibility and bounds to the political game. The issue is over what standards of conduct are acceptable in different areas. Do you really suggest that all politicians must be morally impeccable?
Yes, of course there is a difference in scale, as I tried to argue above. Maybe you should read it again. Politicians are human, so moral impeccability is out of the question.
As I said, nobody is suggesting that politicians must tell the truth at all times, the question is at what level does the lying become unacceptable and therefore a political liability.
I agree with about Keating, though!
I would also argue that when lying and deceit become widely acceptable political methods, something like Iraq is the natural consequence.
Fair enough, adrian, but I just wanted to clarify I wasn’t arguing that the ends justify the means.
Aha. I should point out that I basically couldn’t care less about Walletgate as anything but a tactical issue. But I think - to whatever extent - the public does. In this sense it is a continuation of an exploitable lying narrative, but definitely not the crux of it.
So to Kim’s immediate issue I am in agreeance, especially with the ‘elitist’ blowback point.
Perhaps so, adrian, but again can you point to a time when lying and deceit weren’t part of politics?
Update: Tim replies.
When Latham beat Beazley for the leadership the Beazer declared ‘that’s it’ and he would never stand for leader again. Was he lying then and does that disqualify him from serious consideration as future PM forever more? Isn’t this exactly the same predicament Howard finds himself in now, nearly 12 years after an opposition conflab with Costello?
Often politics is the glass being half full or half empty depending on incumbency or not. We also remember the ‘lies’ of incumbents rather than oppositions(Rollback anyone?)As well governing for the greatest good for the greatest number, does not lend itself to wearing your heart on your sleeve, as leftists are sadly wont to do. For example there is always the fallacy of composition ie, welcoming one boatload of economic immigrant/refugees may not have the same consequences as welcoming continuing flotillas of them. If our leaders cannot change and respond to changed circumstances, how will the public good ever be served? Must Beazley (and Co) forever be consigned to arguing for Rollback to a WST to preserve their moral integrity?
Kim, belatedly, an excellent and thoughtful post. I’m a bit of a purist, though (hate for us to have to sing from their playbook). But I suspect you’re right if we’re to get anywhere.
Thanks, weathergirl.
For once, I note (some) agreement with observa.
Kim, of course lying and deceit have always been part of politics, but as I see it (and I don’t know how many times I have to say this) it becomes a question of degree. How much lying and deceit is acceptable to you, as long as the ‘outcomes’ are acceptable, and how do you know if the outcomes are acceptable if lying becomes the norm?
I’ve already suggested, adrian, in the post, that the law should regulate political conduct just as it does other conduct. But I’d suggest the best remedy for an unacceptable level of lying and deceit is a political one - organising to kick the bastards out through the electoral process. That’s where my point about the accusation being - (a) weak (b) easily being able to be turned around to accusations about self-righteous elitism - comes in. It’s all good and well for people to write columns and blog posts about political (im)morality. But the main game is to convince 50 percent plus 1 Australian voters in the right electorates to chuck them out. I think there’s a lot of demoralisation in anti-Howardian ranks, and I see moral or ethical critiques as being a sign of political weakness. That’s what I’m getting at with the last paragraph too. Beazley has to come up with something effective - as to what he stands for. Not just “I’m more honourable than Howard”. True, no doubt, but it won’t be enough to get him elected. I fear that we are wasting too much political energy on deconstructing and criticising every falsehood Howard tells. If it is the case that this won’t change the government, we need to concentrate our force where it packs the best punch. That’s my motivation.
Well Kim, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I suspect that in the end we are closer to agreement than I first thought!
Anyway thanks for the dialogue, it’s a pleasure doing discussion with you.
You too, adrian!
Trackback
Oops … Trackback, sorry.
Dan, I left this comment on your thread, but it’s stuck in your moderation filter.
Approved now … sorry about the moderation nazi.
Yes, deceit and chicanery in politics is and has always been. But surely Howard has set a new low in the Machiavellian politics of dishonesty in Australian history at least? I really feel that there is a sense of cynicism and apathy amongst voters in Australia that has never been before. Media may try to suck up to the enfanchised population by describing Australian voters as discerning and sophisticated, but really they are just apathetic. They say ‘all politicians are liars’, as if that justifies a vote for the status quo - aka John Howard. I don’t care about Walletgate. If Peter Costello was dumb enough to believe that getting the prime ministership was going to be as easy as waiting for Howard to retire, he deserves all he gets. The only prime minister in Australian history who got it handed over on a platter was Harold Holt, and look what happened to him. I mean he got eaten by a shark.
No, the thing that disturbs me the most was the obvious con job that the Iraq dossier was and no-one in the electorates seem to care. It disturbs me greatly that an illegal war justified by such a blatant and transparent web of fabricated justifications by our governments has and is causing the deaths of so many innocent Iraqi civilians every day. God if Sydney was anything like Baghdad people might sit up and take notice. Yet Australians seem totally oblivious to anyone’s cares but their own. They are blithely saying ‘well as long as Howard delivers on interest rates, employment and the economy etc., we’ll keep voting for him’. Even when Howard delivered the big Telstra rip-off of the Australian public, GST, IR legislation etc etc they still vote for him.
In short, I’m concerned that people don’t care they’re being lied to as long as they’re being catered to. It seems our democracy is deteriorating. Howard may as well make himself King of Australia and abolish voting altogether, it’s getting that bad.