Do we care if it turns out that politicians break their promises and construct their lives around cheating and lying? Sounds like an odd question, doesn't it, and I suspect that most of you are pretty sure you know the answer. But let's see...
Case I. Suppose that it emerged that a politician had cheated his brother out of his portion of their parents' inheritance. Suppose that it were perfectly clear that this had actually been what had happened, but let's also suppose that the matter weren't being taken to law - e.g. perhaps the cheated brother didn't have the appetite to testify in court about his brother, or perhaps the matter emerged in the tabloid press in such a way that a fair trial would not subsequently be possible.
Would you say: (a) "Well, that's a private matter between the politician and his brother, and of no relevance to my opinion of him as a politician"? Or perhaps you would say: (b) "No matter how brilliant a politician he is now, how long ago this occurred, or what he has tried to do since then to make restitution, I believe that he would be totally unsuited to be an MP"? Or maybe: (c) "He can continue as an MP if his constituents will put up with him, but he clearly should not be an acceptable candidate for high office"?
Case II. Next, let us suppose that it emerges that the politician in question had claimed, early in his career, to have gone to Oxford, but in fact had never been to university at all. He had managed to lie his way through his early-career jobs, then lie his way onto a candidates' list to be an MP, and continued to lie as an MP. Let's suppose he had given interviews about life at Oxford, had been shown around the set of Lewis, and had emphasized the importance of his Oxford background in establishing his understanding of academic life when discussing higher education issues. But it was all a lie.
Which of (a) to (c) do you prefer this time? And if he had made less of a high-profile issue of his Oxford background, but it nonetheless sat there on his Wikipedia entry and elsewhere for all to see? Does that make a difference?
Case III. Let's suppose next that our politician worked earlier in his life for a defence company. And let's suppose that it emerges that, earlier in his career, he had masterminded an elaborate scam whereby this company spread rumours that one small African state was planning an invasion of its neighbour, as a consequence of which that neighbour purchased large volumes of defence equipment from the now-politician's firm. Let's suppose that this all falls outside any legal jurisdiction of the UK courts.
Do you think: What a clever chap! You bad dog - good on you! Wish I could come up with something as smart as that and get away with it! Or is one of (a) to (c) more your attitude?
Case IV. Suppose that it emerges that a politician had made a solemn promise to his mother, which he repeated on her death-bed, that he would look after his intellectually-challenged brother, but that once she was dead, he had quickly had his brother institutionalised and got on with his life. Would you think: "Well, these things happen. I can't really say how hard it would have been for him to keep his promise."
What of (a) to (c) this time? Is this one more clear to you than the others (in one direction or the other - e.g. obviously more forgivable)? Or is it trickier in some way?
There surely are tasks in life for which skill at lying and cheating and promise-breaking are useful. Maybe the CV of a spy would be strengthened by such experience. Perhaps there are even jobs in politics - perhaps some spin doctor roles? But do we really want people in front-line roles with such a background?
The answer, I think, is: perhaps we sometimes do. Perhaps, sometimes, we want people with colour in their characters. I don't mean we want them to be liars and cheats and promise-breakers. But we may want the other colourful aspects of their character that go along with the lying and cheating and promise-breaking - imagination, perhaps, vigour, determination, self-belief, arrogance, the will to power, the sense that the limitations under which others operate don't apply to me, perhaps even greed. If the cost of excluding all the liars and cheats and promise-breakers is too high - if it means the exclusion of that je ne sais quoi that makes the difference between those born to rule and those born to be ruled - then we should be wary of excessive priggishness.
But to declare that the fact that someone lies, cheats, and breaks promises and, not only that, that he constructs his life around lies and cheating and promise-breaking, is totally irrelevant to one's view of him as a politician... Should we really think that?
And so, we have Case V. A politician turns out to have broken his promises to his wife, to have lied to her and cheated upon her. I'm guessing you don't want to go up to her and say that it's irrelevant. It's definitively not a "private matter". A marriage is a set of public vows, backed by the state. Breaking that set of promises violates a deal with the state as well as with the wife. (Indeed, in the past one would even have received special tax treatment on the basis of the state's part of the deal.) An adulterer cheated on his deal with the state as well as with his wife. Apart from anything else, there is clearly a victim here - indeed, quite probably more than one, in that there might be parents-in-law and children hurt as well as the wife. And the mistress, tempted into corruption, is hardly untainted by the man's actions.
Now, of course, these things happen. Rather a lot, these days. And there are sometimes more to these matters than one reads in the tabloids. And, even if there isn't, none of us is perfect or would like every wrong we've ever done put up for public display. I'm not for one moment suggesting that we should assume that any politician exposed as having an affair should resign. I just said I wanted people with colourful characters.
But don't tell me that adultery is a "private matter" (which is to deny the intrinsically public nature of marriage) or that it is "simply irrelevant" - as if I'm never supposed to care whether my rulers are liars, cheats and promise-breakers.
