Public Morality
Why What Politicians Do In Their Private Lives Is a Public Issue
Yesterday, I touched on the issue of public morality. In particular, I made mention of the David Blunkett affair. I want to elaborate a little on why I think the private lives of politicians are a legitimate target of public interest.
When Blunkett was forced to resign, pretty much all commentators thought that if it had simply been a matter of him having an affair with a married woman, then that would not have been sufficient reason for him to go. The argument was that he was single, it was presumably a matter between two consenting adults and that was the end of it.
In any case, throughout history the ruling classes have hardly been a model of moral rectitude, why should we suddenly be so prudish?
Let's leave aside the implication of that last argument (it's OK for our rulers to have lax standards). If we had limited government, I'd be inclined to go along with this. After all, none of us are perfect and, except for one thing. I would be inclined to give politicians the same tolerance as everyone else. Provided you don't infringe on others, what you do is your own affair.
However. Politicians, whether left wing or right wing, seem to share a common characteristic. They all think they know better than we do what is best for us and they all want to boss people around! Given this, I think it is entirely legitimate that we know how they conduct their own affairs. After all, if someone is claiming the right to tell us how to live our lives, I think we should know how they live up to these standards.
The sordid truth, of course, as Dalrymple points out, is that the political class in general is given to what he describes as "libertinisme". Left wing politicians in particular see nothing wrong with this and are quite open about it. I guess in some ways that's better than the moral humbug and hypocrisy we often see from right wingers who often feel in necessary to cloak themselves in the garb of conventional religion.
However, when this impacts on public policy, it has had the disastrous effects that Dalrymple describes.
I'll discuss further what James Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg describe as the "Imperial Culture of the Slums" in a future post.
Yesterday, I touched on the issue of public morality. In particular, I made mention of the David Blunkett affair. I want to elaborate a little on why I think the private lives of politicians are a legitimate target of public interest.
When Blunkett was forced to resign, pretty much all commentators thought that if it had simply been a matter of him having an affair with a married woman, then that would not have been sufficient reason for him to go. The argument was that he was single, it was presumably a matter between two consenting adults and that was the end of it.
In any case, throughout history the ruling classes have hardly been a model of moral rectitude, why should we suddenly be so prudish?
Let's leave aside the implication of that last argument (it's OK for our rulers to have lax standards). If we had limited government, I'd be inclined to go along with this. After all, none of us are perfect and, except for one thing. I would be inclined to give politicians the same tolerance as everyone else. Provided you don't infringe on others, what you do is your own affair.
However. Politicians, whether left wing or right wing, seem to share a common characteristic. They all think they know better than we do what is best for us and they all want to boss people around! Given this, I think it is entirely legitimate that we know how they conduct their own affairs. After all, if someone is claiming the right to tell us how to live our lives, I think we should know how they live up to these standards.
The sordid truth, of course, as Dalrymple points out, is that the political class in general is given to what he describes as "libertinisme". Left wing politicians in particular see nothing wrong with this and are quite open about it. I guess in some ways that's better than the moral humbug and hypocrisy we often see from right wingers who often feel in necessary to cloak themselves in the garb of conventional religion.
However, when this impacts on public policy, it has had the disastrous effects that Dalrymple describes.
I'll discuss further what James Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg describe as the "Imperial Culture of the Slums" in a future post.
posted by Kevin Francis at
4:58 pm
