An important lesson from the 'vile' election contest between two famous Prime Ministers' sons
Those who seek to demonise their opponents and reduce political debate to a tribal ‘culture war’ are undermining the fabric of democracy itself
It is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation to imagine life was better in the past, and particularly so in the world of politics.
In this semi-fictitious time, tweed-suited politicians were nobler and wiser, always putting the national interest ahead of their own. In debates, they were unfailingly courteous towards their opponents, and thoughtful and considered when responding to questions.
Today’s scripted soundbites, aggressive social media posts, cynical, half-true attacks on opponents and mendacious non-denial denials were nowhere to be seen.
READ MORE: Poll: Gap between SNP and Reform UK narrows, but nationalists on track to win in Scotland
‘Obnoxious... and he didn’t care’
However, a new book by Rob McInroy, called An Odious Campaign, reveals the politics of the past could also be decidedly unpleasant. It documents the 1936 Ross and Cromarty by-election, which pitted Malcolm MacDonald – son of one Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald – against Randolph Churchill, son of future war-time leader Winston.
McInroy said Churchill was a brilliant orator but was also “obnoxious... he just rubbed people up the wrong way, and he didn’t care”. At the time, the Inverness Courier accused Churchill of espousing the “politics of the dunghill” and staging one of the “vilest and most despicable” campaigns ever seen.
In contrast to his flamboyant, pugnacious opponent, MacDonald was “a very, very serious, sober politician”, according to McInroy, who “didn't really come across very well”.
The antipathy between the two sides was made clear by his father Ramsay, who wrote a letter saying the common view was that Churchill should be “stamped out as a slug crawling on our public life”. It’s not hard to picture Donald Trump saying something similar.
In the end, MacDonald won, although Churchill’s warnings about the need to rearm because of the threat posed by Hitler – a point his father made repeatedly in the run-up to the Second World War – proved to be prescient.
A peaceful clash of ideas
There has always been and always will be a degree of rough and tumble in democratic politics. And, likewise, there are always those who go too far.
The task for voters is to reward those who act in a reasonably decent and honourable way, and punish those who do not. This is not simply a question of civility.
Politics should be a peaceful clash of ideas, and this necessarily involves all sides maintaining a basic degree of respect for one another. Those who seek to demonise their opponents and reduce debate to a tribal ‘culture war’ are undermining the fabric of democracy itself.
Lose that, and future generations’ nostalgia will be justified.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.