Cleaning the Swamp

Empty Slogans and Vacuous Epithets

In New Zealand the Chattering Classes have been rabbiting on for weeks, months, even for years about "Dirty Politics".  For some strange reason, no-one can provide a cogent definition of what Dirty Politics actually is.  We fear that it will turn out that Dirty Politics is simply what the "other side" does.  But, when "we" do the very same (or similar) things, it's subtle, clever, prudent, and skilful.

We are not going to waste time entering the debating lists of who did what to whom.  Nor are we going to pick sides, and defend one at the expense of the other.  Nor are we going to cast doubt upon the existence of conspiracies to discredit political opponents either by fair or foul means.  But we do issue a plea to move beyond the empty epithets, the slogans, the platitudes and the faux outrage.

We would issue an open challenge to all political parties: rather than hurling meaningless charges of "Dirty Politics" at opponents, define "Clean Politics".  If a politician or political party or media pontificator cannot delineate the meaning and standards of "Clean Politics", the epithet "Dirty Politics" is vacuous.

By what standard--ethical, moral, or otherwise--must Clean Politics be represented?  Until politicians can delineate a code of clean conduct by which the electorate may judge them, and to which they rightly ought to be held to account, they should be presumed to be disreputable.  It's ironic that businesses and other societal groups and organisations promulgate codes of professional and ethical conduct for staff and members, yet political parties find it so difficult. 

Presumably this is one reason society ranks "politician" as one of the least trustworthy and least admired occupations.