A WORD ON YES MEN

PEOPLE with weak resolve often equate loyalty with obsequiousness, in the hope that deference might be mistaken for some noble gesture. The great virtue of loyalty is that it requires judgment. To exercise it, one must first identify its nature and consequences and then respond to circumstance in a manner consistent with a belief in it. One must be self-aware to be loyal. It is true that, at each extreme, the idea can be perverted. Blind loyalty forsakes any such judgment, disregarding circumstance entirely.

At the other end of the spectrum, the behaviour of a person with no loyalty is entirely determined by circumstance, the mere suggestion of difficulty enough to abandon a cause. In each case, introspection is lacking.

Yes men epitomise the worst of both these aberrations. And the primary reason for this is that they attach absolutely to people, with no regard for principles. Thus, they are moral surrogates. They have suspended their own critical faculties, choosing instead to outsource any judgment to the subject of their deference. And they obey unquestioningly.

The obvious downside of this is that, should they be required to act unethically, they do not hesitate to comply. Because they suffer a fragile moral temperament, should their sponsor suffer some setback, sure enough they are the first to flee — in order that they might ingratiate themselves with a new and safer source of power.

Loyalty to people, friends and family or some respected figure is an admirable trait, to be encouraged. But a healthy mix of loyalties is required between personalities and principles.

Only in this way is one able to gauge when personal loyalty is being abused; for the latter provides a frame of reference for the former, and that is to the benefit of both parties. Gareth van Onselen