Hitchens proves again (and again) that what is called “conservative” in England, would be called “center-left” here in America.

Conservatives in Europe are branded as “far-right,” or “fascist” by the press...conveniently, just like here in America.

What is Peter Hitchens' purpose in writing this boring essay about Boris?
And what is the reason First Things sees fit to publish it?
None that I can easily decipher.
I am reminded of the final line spoken by Shakespeare's Macbeth in his famous soliloquy:
"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying, nothing."

I am puzzled to know if 'Doctormhl' thinks the article insufficiently sycophantic, or insufficiently critical. If he would only say, I might know what his complaint actually is. As it is, this particular hackneyed Shakespeare excerpt, a favourite of bores, is about as much use as the similarly hackneyed and over-quoted 'The Lady doth protest too much'. It's just a thing people say when they want to appear profound and knowing, and aren't.

I much appreciated your view, as it is from someone with some first hand knowledge of Mr. Johnson. Having said that, in the end, what matters is Brexit and, at this moment of history, little else.

Peter,

Thanks for joining in the conversation. My main objections to Boris would be:

1) Total lack of respect for other people's money. This by itself would make him unfit for any public office. The examples are countless, but the proposal for Boris Island Airport (maybe £500 billion), the ludicrous Garden Bridge over the Thames (£53 million down the toilet) and his defence of the 2012 Olympics extravaganza (£10 billion++) stick out.

2) Total lack of respect for sexual morality.

3) Blatant dishonesty, though we might long have ceased to have any expectations of truth from our politicians.

I for one appreciate your article and the insight provided, which after all bears on things quite important not just for Britain but for what's next on the world stage.

Thank you. There is so much to say about this, but always too little time and space. For me the difficulty arises from the fact that I have met and like the person, but do not at all like the politician. I am disturbed by the peculiar endorsement Mr Johnson has now received from President Trump who , groping for the name of my country, pronounces that he will do a 'good job'.(will he?) and says 'they call him "Britain Trump". Do they? I think in general that people will be disappointed. How could they not be? Hero-politicians always disappoint. And then what?

Men who purposely refuse to comb their hair rarely make good Prime Ministers. That in itself shows you there is some element of acting going on here.

For example...?

I enjoyed the piece. Although if anything an anti-Tory, I often read your stuff as you're that rare thing, an independent and original thinker who sometimes make me think differently about things. The biggest emotion I feel is relief that May has gone. I wasn't fully aware of how depressing she was until she's now no longer here. From my personal experience living in a Brexity working class northern town, Boris might have some success with his patriotic optimism. Til November anyway...

You've earned your pessimism, Mr. Hitchens. But I for one will take a moment to enjoy this win, no matter the likelihood it may prove fleeting.

Any rejection of the EU is a good thing. The EU is more frivolous and fraudulent than the UN. They’re like a bowl of Cheerios - the smaller they get, the more they huddle together

Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, while explaining nothing, makes a good fist of describing it:

For in and out, above, about, below,
'Tis nothing but a Magic Shadow-show,
Play'd in a Box whose Candle is the Sun,
Round which we Phantom Figures come and go

"What does it mean for the future of the UK?"

Does the UK have a future? In other words, will Brexit lead tot he breakup of the Union?

I'm not sure I understand how one can like the person but not the politician, seeing as the person is the politician.

Trump's positive remarks about Johnson are quite odd considering that Johnson has not only publicly criticized Trump, but publicly insulted him, in the past. (One can read about this in the article "Boris Johnson was not always President Trump's friend", by Zachary Cohen of CNN.)

For me, it raises the question: Has Johnson promised Trump something which is potentially profitable for Trump's businesses? Such as help in getting real estate permits in London?

I wonder if you might like the commentaries in this video, which were presented last night on American cable television:

Russia And The New UK Prime Minister | The Last Word | MSNBC
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

"I'm not sure I understand how one can like the person but not the politician..."

I can easily see how you could find a person to be personally charming, but at the same time grossly incompetent professionally.

I can see that, too.

However, Mr. Hitchens was speaking specifically about Prime Minister Johnson. He said: "For me the difficulty arises from the fact that I have met and like the person, but do not at all like the politician".

It seems to me that one of the reasons he does not like the politician is that he believes he is a fraud.

If the politician is a fraud, so is the person.

The late Bernard Levin, who (as his name indicates) was Jewish, had no difficulty in distinguishing between Wagner the musican (whose works he loved) and Wagner the man (whose character he disliked exceedingly).
I, who am not Jewish, concur with his judgement.

In his operas, Wagner was deliberating on and passing judgement upon matters of public interest - which is why they still resonate with a large public.

Wagner's Ring Cycle is effectively a cycle of musical morality plays. And what is the moral? Chiefly none other than that summed up in Lord Acton's dictum: "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

If, as Shelley claimed in 'A Defence of Poetry': "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world", Wagner (by writing all his own librettos) is included.

Yes...life is messy, isn't it?
Something Puritans have always deplored.

Mr. Hitchens says he likes Johnson "the person" , but does "not at all like" Johnson the politician.

This is quite different from saying he likes Johnson as a politician but not Johnson as a private man--which is something one might say of many other politicians.

I would say that with respect to character, one should not say that one likes the private person but not the public person.

However, I think that in other respects it can make sense to differentiate between the two. For example: A man of good character may be excellent in his private affairs, and also excellent in his public role as a military officer, and then enter politics, in which he serves a term as an upright and honorable but incompetent and ineffective politician. It would make sense to admire the private person, and the public person as a military officer, yet not the public person as a politician.

I do not see why you say that. I just said "I would say that with respect to character, one should not say that one likes the private person but not the public person". I would also say that with respect to character, one should not say that one likes the public person but not the private person.

I am differentiating between character and competence. An aged cleric may be an outstanding man, and yet, due to his old age, not as competent in his clerical duties as he used to be, and as much as we would like. Thus we can love him as a man, but prefer that someone else deliver the homilies.

People do not like priests who do not practice what they preach.

Regarding "We are not talking about technical competence but about moral character": A few comments ago you said "We often find that by distinguishing between a person's private and public life, excuses can be made for private misconduct on the grounds that it is irrelevant to a person's public standing and responsibilities". It sounded to me as if you were distinguishing between technical competence (in public life) and moral character (in private life).

Regarding "Your final sentence should include politicians": It could include everybody. In your previous comment, you specifically mentioned a priest, so I specifically mentioned priests in my reply.

"You introduced the notion of competence to avoid talking about the moral dissonance between public and private conduct in Johnson's case": No, I did not. In this thread, your first reply to me was in response to a comment in which I said the following:

It seems to me that one of the reasons he [the author Hitchens] does not like the politician is that he believes he is a fraud.

If the politician is a fraud, so is the person.

Your phrase "a person's public standing and responsibilities" does not suggest to me a concern with morality. It sounds to me like something people said about Bill Clinton when he was president and about Donald Trump now: the fact that he is immoral in his private life does not prevent him from being a good president.

I suspect he understands your point of view well enough, but (like me) just doesn't agree.

As for Johnson? He seems a veritable curate's egg of a man, being '...good in parts'. As such, I doubt he is irredeemable; though, like the rest of us, I suspect he is not guaranteed to be redeemed.

But, perhaps his 'public standing and responsibilities' will lead to his being so redeemed. Who knows? I don't.

I've not only been willing, but trying to understand your point of view here. With your clarifications, I think I do.

Not necessarily. King David could be (and frequently was) a scoundrel. Yet he saved Israel and established it in Jerusalem. Also, see my remarks about Bernard Levin and Wagner above.

It is neither sycophantic nor critical. It is just "blah" I came away from the article feeling no more informed about PM Johnson than before.
Please re-visit your subject in a year or two and see if you can put some meat on Boris's bare bones.

Perhaps there is an audience for this piece of drivel in the same way the "Seinfeld" TV show , a show "about nothing" became enormously popular in the 1990's

His first appointment, reportedly suggested anti-terror powers could be used against Christian teachers who try to tell students gay marriage is wrong.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/ne...

So there's that. It is my understanding though that British 'Conservatives' are very socially liberal, so I merely mind my business.

"It is my understanding though that British 'Conservatives' are very socially liberal..."

Political parties in Britain and in most of Europe have studiously refrained from taking an official position on social issues, which they refer to as "issues of conscience."

In the UK, abortion, homosexual law reform, capital punishment and so on have all been dealt with by Private Member's bills and a free vote in the House of Commons. At most, the governing party makes time for such issues to be discussed.

Frankly, there is no electoral advantage in making them a party issue and thereby risking alienating more voters than they would attract.

I understand, but in the long-run it leads to ends that interfere in private homes and thoughts. Things like anti-terror powers against Christian teachers sharing their 'private opinion' or taking away children from their parents for wanting to transition to a different gender without their parent's consent.

There is no 'private' over questions of social morality, because in the end, whatever is determined to be right/just will require enforcement. But I'll admit that my thinking on this is heavily influenced by 'Americanisms' so maybe the Europeans have the right of it. The results I've seen suggest otherwise, but maybe...

"There is no 'private' over questions of social morality, because in the
end, whatever is determined to be right/just will require enforcement."

But that is no reason why they should become party-political issues. Peers and members of parliament, on a free vote, untrammeled by party allegiances, are likely to reflect the sentiment of the nation and views widely held among the people at large are sure to find a spokesman in Parliament.

On such questions, even when Parliament appears to be in advance of public opinion, it is seldom counter to it; its measures usually come to be acquiesced in and are seldom or never subsequently reversed.

"Peers and members of parliament, on a free vote, untrammeled by party allegiances, are likely to reflect the sentiment of the nation and views widely held among the people at large are sure to find a spokesman in Parliament."

But you also said:

- - “But perhaps those 87 dared not vote against it for some reason?”

- 'The reason is quite simple. The issue was a controversial one and, whichever way they had voted would have displeased some of their constituents. That is why no party would include such an issue in their legislative programme...."

".....So, the 186 MPs who did not vote (95 Labour, 87 Tories and 4 Liberals) had a ready-made excuse for not doing so."

As my quote from Sir David Steel shows, this was not a "private", personal bill submitted by him in his "private" capacity as an MP, but one "suggested" to him by ("progressive" Ministers of) the Labour government.

Who would then have done everything in their power to ensure "his" "Private" Member's Bill had adequate time and support to become law.

"On such questions, even when Parliament appears to be in advance of public opinion, it is seldom counter to it; its measures usually come to be acquiesced in and are seldom or never subsequently reversed."

In another reply you point out:

"Between 1952 and 1966, 6 similar bills had run out of time."

You also pointed out;

"The bill, as amended in the Lords, passed its third reading with 262 votes to 181, a majority of 81: for the bill, Labour 234, Conservatives 20, Liberals 8; against the bill Labour 35, Conservatives 146. Thus, 95 Labour MPs (the governing party) did not vote, nor did 87 Tories and 4 Liberals."

"Had 82 of the 87 Tory abstainers voted against the bill, it would have been lost."

Or had 82 of the 95 government abstainers voted against the bill, it would have also been lost.

And as far as i'm aware it was in none of the three parties' manifestos.

But, yes, the powers that be somehow manage to ensure that, as on many:

"such questions, even when Parliament appears to be in advance of public opinion, it is seldom counter to it; its measures usually come to be acquiesced in and are seldom or never subsequently reversed."

Of course, we know they are "in advance of public opinion...seldom counter to it" because they are too "controversial" to be included in manifestos.

"Of course, we know they are "in advance of public opinion...seldom counter to it" because they are too "controversial" to be included in manifestos."

As I pointed out, they are not "counter to public opinion," for there is seldom any attempt to reverse them, let alone a successful one.

Were there a substantial body of public opinion against the measure, it would be sure to find some support in Parliament and the House of Commons would revisit the issue, if only in the form of a 10-minute Rule Bill

Balderdash

"There is seldom any attempt to reverse them"

BY THE POWERS THAT BE THAT INTRODUCED THEM!

And that's your "logical" argument?!

Take capital punishment for example.

Bills were drawn up by "liberal" Home Secretaries on a number of occasions and nearly or actually put before Parliament on a number of occasions but continually rejected even by it, but modified and reintroduced repeatedly until it finally passed by, I think, 24 votes, in the 60s.

Not that long ago the public were invited by the BBC to propose and vote on what an MP they were working with should bring as a Private Members Bill.

The most popular suggestion and the one that got the most votes, despite desperate attempts by the Beeb and MP to avoid including it, was for a return of capital punishment.

In the end the MP just ignored the plebs "populist" vote that showed that MPs, the media, and the rest of the "liberal" establishment were still at least half a century "ahead" of public opinion!

"Bills were drawn up by "liberal" Home Secretaries on a number of
occasions and nearly or actually put before Parliament on a number of
occasions..."

They were introduced as Private Member's bills by Sydney Silverman MP. One was passed by the House of Commons by 200 votes to 98 in the Commons on 28 June 1958 but it was defeated in the House of Lords (The Upper House has a veto on Private Member's bills)

In 1965, Silverman again introduced his bill, which suspended Capital Punishment for murder for 5 years, with a provision that it could be made permanent by an affirmative resolution of both Houses. The resolutions were passed in 1969.

Silverman, far from being popular with the Front Bench. He was twice suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party, once for voting against German Rearmament in 1954 (a conscientious objector, he had served 3 terms of imprisonment during WWI) and again for voting against the Army, Navy and Air Force estimates in 1961 (He was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.)

And in what way have you contradicted anything I have said?!