Election campaigns often bring out the worst in political leaders. The alarming decline in civil respect, and the scorn for accuracy let alone honesty of words is one of the more socially damaging developments in recent electioneering. Disrespect and witting or unwitting deceit are corrosive of trust, and act as solvents which compromise and weaken the most important things that a society has in common. The results of this are not long in appearing; intolerance of views that differ, refusal to listen to other views, unwillingness to consider evidence inconvenient to the promulgated ideology, a lowering of the bars of credibility and credulity as claims and disclaimers become more strident, exaggerated, overstated and untruthful. And all of this in a culture now soaked in information, misinformation and pervasive exchanges on social media, as truths and counter truths, lies and counter lies, ping back in forth on millions of devices.
The example that prompts this post was the recent claim made by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, that Jeremy Corbyn would be "reluctant to use nuclear weapons". The Prime Minister's own position is emphatically stated, that she would use nuclear weapons, even on a first strike basis "without hesitation". Now it is well known that Corbyn's opposition to nuclear weapons is a major fault line between him and the Conservatives, and indeed that his position is not one fully shared within the Labour Party. But that is not my concern with the choice of words. It was the word "reluctant", that made me stop, and consider, and then hear what had actually been said.
In the bid to appear strong, resolute, and to be trusted with the security of the nation, her opponent was portrayed as weak, vacillating and not to be trusted, as he would be "reluctant" to order a nuclear strike. She would not hesitate, he would be reluctant. She "would not hesitate." Really? Is that even conceivable in the leader of a democratic and sovereign state, and a human being, standing on the last millimetre of the very edge of a catastrophe of global proportions which she will initiate? Is she claiming that degree of certainty, moral authority and decisive strategic will? This is not even to question the validity of a view that legitimates the use of an ultimate weapon which could have irrevocable consequences for millions of human beings, if not the future of humanity itself. It is to call in question the self-awareness, political wisdom and moral competence of the person who holds that power.
He would be "reluctant", which is not the same as a refusal, but does seem to suggest that awareness of the consequences of the decision made are of such magnitude that they give pause for thought, deep thought. Now such hesitation and reluctance could indeed be fatal if deterrence fails and a first strike is launched against our country. Much of the thinking has to be done beforehand, though in the end the reality of making such a decision will be different from any mental and emotional rehearsals.
And that is my difficulty with the two phrases - would not hesitate versus would be reluctant. How can any person, faced with an exchange of overwhelming military force with unknown figures of human casualties and massive perhaps permanent damage to the earth's biosphere, say what they will do, how they will think, what considerations at present unforeseen will have to be taken into account? The rhetoric of the dispatch box in Parliament, and the bravado and big talk of the hustings (or in the Prime Minister's case) the orchestrated news conference filled with supporters), is, literally light years removed from an operations room and the requirement to say yes or no in response to looming catastrophe on an unprecedented scale. This is not Hollywood. This is real. And it is the mark of the true leader that they demonstrate the moral seriousness and political humility of the one entrusted with a nation's safety and our global future. Boasting of strength is a fundamental weakness that in this case, lacks the requisite moral awareness to look into the abyss, and be reluctant to the very last, to push us all over that edge.
This is not an argument against the retention of a nuclear capability and deterrent. That is another issue I think. I am offering a critique of the dangerous rhetoric that ridicules proper moral caution. I am urging a proper acknowledgement of consequences, and a recognition of the human costs on an unprecedented scale of nuclear conflict. I am saying no to the practice of ridiculing such moral considerations and rubbishing valid differences of ethical principle. And I am also asking the question whether strong leadership which does not hesitate to unleash destruction, is to be preferred to a leadership that recoils from such certainty until the decision has to be made, and only then, with a reluctance weighted with a primal guilt inherent in actions of such finality.
Recent Comments