The Written Word
for September 29, 1999

The recent questions raised by Vaughn Palmer and me about Gordon Wilson’s credibility raise far broader questions. I don’t think there’s a doubt in the world that Wilson has lied and exaggerated in the renditions of his life he has put about. The primary question is whether or not these lies and the ones he told in 1993 about his relationship with Judi Tyabji should poison his chances to lead the NDP and thus become Premier. That question will be settled by the NDP convention, and no one else, on February 20 of next year.

The broader question is, do we really expect our politicians to be truthful?

Certainly we have not expected them to if they prove to have had what history deems to be good reasons. Franklin Roosevelt lied to the people and to Congress a number of times, especially in the run-up to the United States coming into World War II. There would have been no trade of destroyers for bases had Roosevelt been up front with Congress. There probably wouldn’t have been any Lend-Lease. Indeed, there might have been no Conscription and the United States would certainly not have become the "arsenal of democracy", in Woodrow Wilson’s words (Wilson, no relation, is another who did his share of fibbing after he was elected.)

Churchill misled his people many times, beginning with his insistence at the Fall of France that Britain could actually win the war. Win it she did, with a lot of help, but in June of 1940 no one in full possession of the facts, as Churchill was, could have sanely predicted anything but catastrophe.

Pierre Trudeau is seen by many as a great Prime Minister yet he lied through his teeth in the 1974 election when he said he wouldn’t bring in wage and price controls. The list is endless and it’s hard to think of any leader of consequence who did not, at a minimum, exaggerate.

But these sorts of lies are a bit different, are they not? They are leaders doing what they think necessary to accomplish what they believe to be an essential goal. I don’t suggest that makes lying right nor do I say that it’s even excusable – all I say is that there was some nobility of purpose involved.

When there hasn’t been, such as with Richard Nixon and Watergate the public will exact a penalty although, strangely, no forfeit was demanded of Bill Clinton. You will remember that when it was all hitting the fan, the voters increased the Democrats standing in Congress in the Fall ’98 election. It may have been that the public, seeing that Clinton’s peccadilloes had not done the country any harm, were prepared to forgive him. Perhaps they thought that considering what Hillary was doing to him there was no need for any further punishment!

But let’s return to Gordon Wilson. His sin is probably a political one more than one requiring great moral censure. The public likes their politicians to be honest in the first instance. It will accept a certain degree of lying after they are elected – Roosevelt was elected twice more, Trudeau again in 1980 – but they don’t want to see it before the election.

People, looking at leaders to be, never lose the faith that someday there will be a truly honest politician. It’s in their make-up – from Sunday School on they have learned to believe the best until the contrary is demonstrated. When the hero does prove to have feet of clay, he is not measured by what he promised but against other politicians who also are pretty skilled liars – that is, if he succeeds. If he lies and fails he will pay twice, first for lying then, far more, for not getting the job done.

What Wilson has done is break the rules by being a bare-faced liar, on two occasions, at the beginning of the game and that is a no-no. I think he has permanently blotted his copybook in so doing.