No.98 - Johnson, Corbyn, Prince Andrew? Or 'None of the Above'?

Dear James,

The first head-to-head debate is over. And the verdict? Laughter! When Boris was asked whether he thought that truth was important in the election, he agreed. The audience laughed. When Corbyn mentioned his four-day week, again the audience laughed. Lies or Utopias, no one is happy with the choice before them. It comes at the end of an awful week when our political and constitutional structures were shaken to their foundations by the Prince Andrew interview. What has gone wrong? 

Integrity used to be the touchstone of our society. Our nation’s leaders had standards based upon concepts such as honour, trust and truth. Once upon a time, if you broke any of the codes, resignation was the only outcome. How times have changed. Today we find ourselves in a culture of dishonesty and a race to the bottom in terms of individual values and behaviours. The audience at the head-to-head knew this. Their derision was spontaneous and instinctive. They knew that Boris Johnson, using lies and deception, has engaged, as matter of political strategy, in the trashing of parliament as our sovereign body. It is now the ‘people versus parliament’. Everyone knew it and that is why they laughed. It was a cry of frustration and disbelief. And it was from the heart.

But before I depress you further, there has been one brilliant ray of light in this tumultuous week. In America, the House of Representatives have been conducting a forensic examination of witnesses in the impeachment of the ‘populist-in-chief’ Donald Trump. The US Constitution, that stunning document drawn up by the Founding Fathers two hundred and fifty years ago, is a bulwark of Anglo-Saxon constitutional theory and practice around the world. It was designed to prevent tyranny. This week, the process of honest and forensic examination of witnesses in the pursuit of truth has been seen to be in good working order despite the Republicans’ appalling attempts to distract. Witnesses spoke of service to their country and to duty, and several had risked their lives for these values. In our own nation, the British Supreme Court recently ruled against our own government. And to support our truly independent judiciary, the honest part of our press asked for honesty from Prince Andrew.  But all they got was that he ‘couldn’t recall’ the woman who is laying charges against him. Only 6% of the British people believed his denial. Clearly, the expectation and pursuit of truth is still alive and kicking in our own nation. Will our political class react accordingly?

Most of us know, at our deepest levels of consciousness, whether some one is telling the truth or not. These deepest levels are however, overlayed by political, philosophical and social considerations that sometimes prevent the deeper levels from operating. A year ago we watched Brett Kavanaugh attempt to defend himself against Christine Blasey Ford’s description of the teenage attempted rape by the applicant to become a US Supreme Court judge. Today, we have high officials of the US government explaining to us all in obvious truthfulness, how Donald Trump attempted to ‘sell’ Ukraine’s security in return for a political ‘favour’ – namely to dig the dirt on his political rival Joe Biden. Honesty shines out to the objective observer of such events and yet such people are rent asunder by the dishonesty of the populists. Remember  Bill Clinton with his notorious claim in a televised speech, that “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.’? Remember Kavanaugh in tears because he ‘could not remember’ his adolescent misbehaviours? And now we have the almost universal disbelief when Prince Andrew said he had no recall of Ms Roberts Giuffre in 2001 although he could remember in detail his visit to a Woking Pizza House in the same year. Boris Johnson is certainly in good company.

Honesty is something that it is very difficult to fake James. It’s why in the Anglo-Saxon world we rely on juries to decide cases. But clearly we don’t all see people in the same way. We come from different contexts. From a female context, a male context, an age context, a regional context, and of course different political contexts. In the end it is a clash between context and honesty. But if, first of all, we try to be honest with ourselves, then we can determine when others are being honest or deceitful. The Trumps and Borises of this world are socio-genetically unable to see this.  Compared with them, Mr Corbyn, is merely guilty of a genuine utopianism. At least he believes in what he is saying and we can dismiss him on substantive grounds.

Laughter aside James, is it too much to ask for honesty in our politicians? I understand that individuals have to adapt their personal views to the majority of their party but now and then, at critical moments, a stand must be made by the person. At the very centre of our beings we all know what is right and wrong. All we need is the guts to say so and act upon it!

Feeling brave James?

Kind regards,

BH - Your Concerned Constituent