William Rees-Mogg, or Bill Mogg as the Cameroons would prefer, tries to defend the personality politics that has led to a “moronic” and “infantilizing” involvement of the leaders’ wives in their hubbies’ campaigns.
He says:
But this raises two questions. First, how does knowing about the leaders’ wives help me decide who best to trust on such questions? In looking for a person who can deal with complex issues, I’d want three characteristics:
1. Some knowledge of decision theory. I don’t mean just statistical inference - expertise on this can be brought in. I mean an ability to recognise and deal with genuine uncertainty, and an awareness of cognitive biases.
2. Open-mindedness. When faced with tricky issues, we should consult as widely as possible, and be prepared to listen to those who challenge our prejudices.
3. An ability to be unswayed by the media. These are often a source not of enlightenment but of error and hysteria.
However, there is very little in Brown or Cameron’s known characters that suggest they satisfy these criteria. Indeed, a common complaint about both is that they take advice only from a small coterie of close advisors, and are too influenced by the press. Knowing more about their wives does not assuage these concerns.
This, though, leads to another question: what, exactly, is the relationship between character and performance?
Take, for example Gordon Brown’s temper tantrums. One reason why these tell against him is that they suggest he’ll be terrible in a crisis - the first thing one needs in these is a cool head. But on the other hand, his policy response to the worst financial crisis in decades was not at all bad. Even his many detractors don’t put it near the top of the list of reasons not to want him as PM.
Al of which just leaves me puzzled. What, then, is the point of involving wives in election campaigns? I can think of reasons that appeal to irrationality. But are there more respectable ones?
He says:
Ordinary voters are well aware how little they know about the technological and scientific issues that 21st-century governments face…Voters use the experience of their own lives in judging other people. If they do not have expertise, they have to trust someone who does. Trust will be given to those who have appropriate knowledge, but it also involves judgment of integrity.Now, I agree with his premise: I know little about climate change, energy policy, foreign affairs or military procurement, to name but a few areas of ignorance. I’d be happy to vote for someone I thought could make reasoned judgements on these.
But this raises two questions. First, how does knowing about the leaders’ wives help me decide who best to trust on such questions? In looking for a person who can deal with complex issues, I’d want three characteristics:
1. Some knowledge of decision theory. I don’t mean just statistical inference - expertise on this can be brought in. I mean an ability to recognise and deal with genuine uncertainty, and an awareness of cognitive biases.
2. Open-mindedness. When faced with tricky issues, we should consult as widely as possible, and be prepared to listen to those who challenge our prejudices.
3. An ability to be unswayed by the media. These are often a source not of enlightenment but of error and hysteria.
However, there is very little in Brown or Cameron’s known characters that suggest they satisfy these criteria. Indeed, a common complaint about both is that they take advice only from a small coterie of close advisors, and are too influenced by the press. Knowing more about their wives does not assuage these concerns.
This, though, leads to another question: what, exactly, is the relationship between character and performance?
Take, for example Gordon Brown’s temper tantrums. One reason why these tell against him is that they suggest he’ll be terrible in a crisis - the first thing one needs in these is a cool head. But on the other hand, his policy response to the worst financial crisis in decades was not at all bad. Even his many detractors don’t put it near the top of the list of reasons not to want him as PM.
Al of which just leaves me puzzled. What, then, is the point of involving wives in election campaigns? I can think of reasons that appeal to irrationality. But are there more respectable ones?
You know the answer; of course there aren't.
I do wonder, though. Assuming the idea of being a politician is relatively prominent at an early age these days, to what extent is "aiding my electability" a factor in these guys' marriage decisions?
"Darling, I'm sorry, I only married you for your PR value"
Posted by: Andrew | March 15, 2010 at 06:07 PM
I'd like to think the point is that the party leaders think the electorate are so stupid, and the electorate recognises that in a fairly tacit manner, that there's an unspoken agreement that outside of people on the internet very mistakenly thinking they DO know something about military procurement and climate change, the rest of the electorate have decided that the battle will be won on whose missus is wearing the prettier dress or gives out the simpler muffin recipe.
Posted by: chris c | March 15, 2010 at 06:40 PM
And no picture of (say) Carla Bruni. You're letting yourself down.
Posted by: Laban | March 15, 2010 at 07:33 PM
i am not certain that mr brown's temper tantrums should disqualify him as pm; the kind of crises that leaders of states have to deal with will generally allow time for a therapeutic tantrum in order to calm down before making important decisions. on your other points i fully agree - and i find it sad that your three aspects of quality in a leader are rarely themes for media interviews with candidates.
Posted by: hans | March 15, 2010 at 07:39 PM
"Indeed, a common complaint about both is that they take advice only from a small coterie of close advisors, and are too influenced by the press. Knowing more about their wives does not assuage these concerns."
Since the wife is likely to be one of those 'close advisors', surely it's better to know something about them?
Posted by: Adam | March 16, 2010 at 01:09 PM