Operating in half-truths nothing new in politics
Newshub’s debate provided one of the most memorable moments in the election campaign year. Patrick Gower asked Bill English if it was possible to survive in politics without lying. He received the roundabout kind of non-answer you would expect from any politician with a history.
Gower asked the question again. And, once more, English declined to give a straightforward, unequivocal answer. Gower continued the grilling.
The question was then put to English’s challenger, Jacinda Ardern. Her response could not have been more emphatic. ‘‘Well, I actually believe it is possible to exist in politics without lying and by telling the truth,’’ the future prime minister declaimed.
Ardern was then asked if she had ever lied in politics. She did not hesitate. ‘‘No,’’ she responded immediately. She then repeated the ‘‘no’’ and moved on to talk about how good leadership is all about owning your mistakes.
The contrast could not have been more stark. It is, of course, hard to know how much difference television debates make. In the moment, however, it looked like a real body blow to English.
But when you think about it, English’s ducking and weaving was more authentic than Ardern’s apparent straight-shooting. The ducking and weaving left the viewer in no doubt what he really thought. The question of whether it is possible to survive in politics without lying is obvious. This is why Gower asked it.
Telling only ‘‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’’ has never been a hallmark of politicians. Even if we assume that black lies are rare, exaggerations, fibs, puffery and misleading omissions are an inescapable part of the landscape. They always have been.
Cold War dissidents used to talk about ‘‘living in truth’’ as a means of subverting the lie-based regimes that oppressed them. This is a fine principle for resisting totalitarianism. As the British historian Timothy Garten Ash noted, however, liberal democracies did not function this way.
He pointed out that, although ‘‘we expect many things of politicians in a well-functioning parliamentary democracy’’, the idea of ‘‘living in truth’’ is not one of them. ‘‘Parliamentary democracy is, at its heart,’’ he explained, ‘‘a system of limited adversarial mendacity, in which each party attempts to present part of the truth as if it were the whole.’’ The phrase ‘‘working in half-truth’’ was suggested as a serviceable description.
All this may sound very cynical. But the history of politicians everywhere suggests a degree of pessimistic fatalism is wise. Dissimulations in politics are like weeds in a garden. You’ll never eliminate them entirely.
We need look no further than last week for proof. Last Friday, now Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was asked twice by Chris Lynch on Newstalk ZB about Clare Curran, the beleaguered former broadcasting minister. ‘‘Are you considering cutting ties with her, though, firing her?’’ the host pressed.
Ardern answered in the negative. Curran’s errors had to be kept in perspective and, besides, she had already been demoted from Cabinet. She had already ‘‘paid her price’’.
Shortly after, we all learned that Curran had tendered her resignation the night before. Ardern had accepted it. This looks like ‘‘cutting ties’’ to most people.
Confronted with the apparent inconsistency, the prime minister’s office protested that there was no deception. The question, it was said, related purely as to whether Curran would be fired. Since she had fallen on her sword, Ardern’s answer was accurate.
If I’m selling a car and a buyer asks me if I’ve had it serviced, I could say ‘‘yes’’ without disclosing the service found a major mechanical fault. I don’t know if I would feel particularly honest, though.
Now, as far as these things go, this is at the minor end of the spectrum. At the time of the prime minister’s comments, the whole truth was going to come out in a few hours anyway. There was no profit to be made in withholding the full story for such a short amount of time.
That being said, we must bear that Newshub debate. Ardern may have been entirely sincere. In fact, I am sure she was. But she also made a rod for her own back.
We have always held politicians to a higher standard when, in public, they assume a position of moral superiority.
Here, we have a politician who delivered a sermon on honesty, while her opponent squirmed. That politician is now PM. She should be held to the exacting standard put forward on the debate stage. And technically correct statements do not seem to quite cut it, I’m afraid.