Johnson symbolises conservative crisis

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Picture: Getty Images

The demise of Boris Johnson is a study in the tragedy of political leadership but, at this point in history, Johnson exemplifies the follies that have befallen conservatism in Western democracies and the problem of governing in a debased culture.

The first and greatest folly is the abandonment by conservatives of character, integrity and honesty. Johnson fell not primarily because of his flawed policies; he fell because he failed the character test. Johnson wanted to be prime minister on his terms, cavalier about standards, mocking established norms in his addiction to our narcissistic culture. For all his entertaining idiosyncrasies Johnson was a tiresome product of celebrity indulgence, exceeded in politics only by Donald Trump.

Johnson’s resignation was de­void of remorse, conceding nothing. Indeed, he felt entitled to remain in office because it was “my job, my duty”. He felt sad not for the country but for himself. He had been forced out of “the best job in the world” by the “herd instinct” of the parliamentary mob. His resignation was typical – denial of responsibility, absence of contrition and the conviction he was entitled to stay. The man is shameless – and turned shamelessness into part of his charm, part of his rule-breaking audacity.

Johnson was brazen about his infringements – the parties at No. 10 during his imposed Covid lockdowns on the rest of Britain, his cover-ups, his fine for breaking the law, his appointing an MP as deputy chief whip who had engaged in improper behaviour with Johnson lying about his knowledge. He represented the collapse of conservative leadership with a moral foundation.

Western culture is fragmented; the more traditional morals disintegrate, the more the public craves leaders who pos­sess a moral core. Johnson paraded his indiscipline, inconsistency and moral vacuity.

His contempt for much of the British establishment was a potential electoral asset yet was undermined by his apparently equal contempt for the British public. His undeniable talent seemed cancelled by his undeniable flaws.

Johnson’s 2019 election win was a victory for the ages. He scored a primary vote of 43.6 per cent, the highest since 1979, secured an 80-seat majority, marched the Tories into working-class northern England, stopped the radical Jeremy Corbyn from becoming PM and won a mandate to implement the UK’s departure from the EU.

He was burning his opponents before him. Johnson seemed ordained to dominate for a decade given his personal appeal and aspiration to reinvent British conservatism. Alas, just as Nick Kyrgios defeated himself at Wimbledon, Johnson squandered his opportunity – the statesman destined to build the policy edifice for a new Britain post-Brexit imploded. Johnson had neither the stamina nor discipline for the long haul. He wasn’t equipped for the job.

Instead of redefining British conservatism, he left the project in semi-ruin. It was a double failure, an absence of character and statecraft. His legacy invites rumination on the plight of Western conservatism, a movement that seems beset by mavericks, false prophets and celebrity braggarts.

The differences between Johnson and Trump were greater than their similarities, yet it was hard to overlook the parallels. Both were “big head” conservatives. They created their own brand; their personalities overwhelmed their own parties. Trump hijacked the Rep­ubli­can Party trashing many of its policy nostrums while Johnson remade the Tories as the party of Brexit. Both were astonishing feats that redefined their parties as agents of mutinous rebellion.

Johnson and Trump mocked conservative dictums of prudence, compromise and managed change. They were drum-beat­ing populists, obsessed about reversing what they saw as the blunders of the generation before them but inept in the practice of governing: leading a team, winning public trust, harnessing the machinery of state and following consistent policies. Is the tradition of effective conservative government obsolete in our time of rapid technological and cultural change? Is the practical conservatism enunciated by Edmund Burke – his espousal of some change but re­jec­tion of “revolutionary” change – consigned to the dustbin?

Calling Trump and Johnson leaders of consequence misses the point. The question is: what were the consequences? Trump’s consequences were an upending and polarisation of American politics and life, a corruption of the presidential office and an assault on US democracy by attempting to steal an election he lost.

Johnson, despite his faults, was steeped in Britain’s political tradition. His legacy – persuading the public to vote for Brexit – will take another decade to sort whether Britain is left weaker or stronger, but the signs aren’t encouraging. Not much point being a leader of consequence if you get the consequences wrong.

Johnson famously said: “My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it.” This was the metaphor he loved and, it seems, by which he governed. He championed “cakeism”, he wanted to “have it all” – he pledged a stronger economy and delivered record inflation; he talked about markets but was obsessed with state intervention; he spent big but promised lower taxes. The Wall Street Journal said he campaigned from the right but governed from the centre-left. He governed in denial of conservative government principles – make choices, limit expectations, deliver consistency and reliability. But perhaps Boris was right: maybe these governing virtues are dead in contemporary culture.

Still, there is good news. Johnson’s demise shows the system is working. Under the Westminster model Boris is finished, washed up, unlike Trump. The superiority of Westminster is on display. Trump would be out, finish­ed, if he operated in a Westminster system. The parli­a­m­entary party would never have made him leader but, if it succumbed to such folly, it would correct and liquidate him. While Trump roams America spreading discord, the British model would have stamped him a reject.

And there’s more good news. Johnson was a big plus for Australia. He knew Australia and, post-Brexit, he looked to Australia. Johnson and Scott Morrison formed a close bond. The Australia-UK free trade agreement was done. When Morrison put the nuclear-powered submarine deal to Johnson he got an enthusiastic response. Indeed, it is possible that without Johnson the US might not have come on board. Finally, Johnson showed strategic courage in standing with Ukraine.

As Henry Kissinger wrote in his new book, Leadership, the truth is that “leadership is indispensable: decisions must be made, trust earned, promises kept, a way forward proposed” with the task of the leader being “to help people reach from where they are to where they have never been”. For Kissinger there are two vital attributes in leadership – courage and character.

At its finest conservatism is about the conservation of wisdom. It knows that in politics what matters is understanding human nature, not utopianism for abstract theory. True conservatism seeks to preserve the best of tradition while accepting the necessity for change. Johnson, a sublime but chaotic mix, destabilised his country but failed to chart the new course.