From Watergate to Partygate

IWAS recently listening to an interview with Carl Bernstein, who came to prominence as being one of the two reporters most heavily involved in exposing the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.

He was speaking about being on television a few years ago when he said that the main problem with the President was that he was a ‘serial liar’. He stopped momentarily, incredulous at what he had said.

He reflected, and concluded, yes, he meant what he had said.

The most powerful man in the world was a ‘serial liar’. Yet no-one in the room demurred. Not an eyebrow was raised.

In 2009, Obama was addressing Congress when someone shouted ‘You lie’, and there was an audible gasp of astonishment. The President was stopped in his tracks. This was considered totally disrespectful and the heckler was forced to make an immediate and unreserved apology. It was also worldwide news, as it was so shocking.

At what stage over the past decade did it become OK for certain leaders to be blatantly and unrepentantly dishonest? Surely the one basic requirement is for us to be able to trust our leaders to be prepared to tell the truth as they see it.

In the past, we may have been unhappy if certain electoral promises had not been kept, or if things had not gone to plan due to changing circumstances, but a leader blatantly telling untruths would have once been a source of shock and outrage.

It would have seemed as far-fetched as the Queen suddenly starting to advertise baked beans.

So from Watergate to ‘Partygate’. Many words have been uttered on this subject, and there have rightly been comparisons made between the events in Downing Street and the rules that the general public were adhering to at the same time, often at personally very difficult times.

Stripping away the emotion, the most remarkable thing, as someone pointed out on Twitter, is how the narrative developed. The truth developed gradually from ‘there was no party’, ‘it wasn’t exactly a party’, ‘well not an organised one’, ‘I didn’t realised it was against the rules,

‘I didn’t know the rules’, ‘ah Ok I wrote the rules but I thought it was a business meeting’, ‘I apologise but I don’t know who I am apologising to, or why’, ending up with ‘Wait for Sue Gray’. And the Police’

This reminds me of teenagers trying to explain away the debris from a party that had obviously occurred when their parents were away. ‘No there was no party’, ‘it was just a few friends for pre’s’ ‘It wasn’t a party it was a gathering’, ending up with ‘yes it was a party but you said I could have one’

Surely common sense tells you that when there are lots of people involved, there are individuals with grievances, and everything is recorded either through entry cards or on mobile phones, the best policy must be to simply own up.

The whole furore could have been wrapped up before Christmas, and we would not have had the bizarre drip drip of more and more allegations coming out, when surely everyone must agree that there are many far more important issues for the Government to be grappling with.

One of the first rules of politics is that the subsequent cover-up becomes more of an issue than the original misdemeanour, so fess up and tell the truth.

This is also not a bad life lesson for our teenagers or any of us to reflect upon.