The personal moral standards of politicians and journalists still matter to most of the population, a ComRes poll for Theos has found. 43% of people would change their vote if their local candidate was shown to have low personal moral standards, and even more (52%) would change the newspaper they buy because of the immoral behaviour of journalists.
The majority of people (71%) think that politicians ought to have higher moral standards than the public they serve, and those most likely to vote (the elderly) have higher expectations than most. On balance, people do not believe you can divorce public from private morality. A majority of people believe that “If a politician is unfaithful to their husband or wife it does affect their job as it shows they cannot keep their word” (51% agreeing vs. 36% disagreeing).
It is clear that things perceived to be ‘private’ really do matter to other people. But should they? There are many who would argue that this impulse comes from a nosy, judgemental instinct and is a hangover from a more religious era. If our leaders are doing a good job, why should we be bothered if they pawn off their points for speeding on their wife or lie to their spouse?
Certainly, part of it is prurience and self-righteousness, a desire to deal with the speck in another’s eye before the log in one’s own. The classic argument for complete moral autonomy is a compelling one. It is difficult to express an opinion on another’s choices without sounding authoritarian and illiberal. We are all adults, the argument goes, and freedom to choose, to self-determine, is the highest moral good.
And freedom is a good. Choice is a good. But not, Christianity would claim, in and of itself, detached from what we do with it. To believe that personal morality is irrelevant to either our job or those around us is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the human. We are not creatures who easily compartmentalise- our beliefs and actions bleed across the artificial boundaries we erect in our lives. Neither are we entirely independent beings, islands adrift. Interdependence is what defines us, and we ignore this at very great risk. If we are honest we know all our actions affect others, that we all contribute to a culture, we all collaborate in deciding moral norms- and our leaders more than most.
The Economist’s Bagehot column last week on the Johann Hari furore did something very brave. It dared to use a very unfashionable word- ‘character’. Much of the debate has been pragmatic, about training and lack of editorial control. Only this writer came out and said what the results of this polling indicates most people still believe, that character and integrity are important. Morality matters to people, not because they are judgemental or outdated, but because they understand that we are indivisible, interconnected people. And that is a good thing.
Elizabeth Hunter is Director of Theos
