Politicians, Royalty, Heads of State

[August1991]

A quote in Christie Blatchford's piece about Jack Layton's death made me think:

By the accounts of those who knew him best and loved him most, if there was a truly private side of Jack Layton, it was but a sliver of the man who happily lived virtually his entire adult life in the public eye and who was a 24/7 politician who was always on.

NP

"L'État, c'est moi."

In English, this phrase is used to suggest supreme arrogance. In fact, it simply meant that the sovereign's life was indelibly connected to the country. In Jack Layton terms, Louis XIV - like Jack - had no private life. Both were public figures, 24/7.

----

Should our politician's have a private life? Or should they, like Jack Layton, Louis XIV or the Duke of York, Prince of Wales, be "on" all the time?

I suspect that in the future, the only people willing to become politicians/leaders will be people who, like Layton, accept that they will always be "on". Future leaders will live as members of Stalin's NKVD: always aware of an observing eye.

Is that a good criteria for selecting a leader? Dunno.

[msj]

Is that a good criteria for selecting a leader? Dunno.

Don't care.

[August1991]

Don't care.

In a democracy, your opinion, your single vote, is largely irrelevant.

But I suspect that we will increasingly choose our leaders according to their (DSK) private behaviour. And ambitious politicians will follow the incentives.

[Bonam]

Don't care.

I don't think it's quite that easily dismissed. August is right that modern politicians have their entire lives utterly bared to the public, 24/7. There are many many individuals who would be bothered by this, and not want to be public figures as a result. In my opinion, it takes a very odd kind of person to be willing to sacrifice any semblance of privacy in order to gain political power. What does such drive for political power and willingness to sacrifice a private life to that end imply about that person? In my opinion, rarely would it be something good. Those who crave power most tend to be those who least deserve it.

I actually think that the private lives of politicians are no business of the public and that they should have as much right to privacy in their lives as people in any other line of work.

[Sir Bandelot]

What does such drive for political power and willingness to sacrifice a private life to that end imply about that person? In my opinion, rarely would it be something good. Those who crave power most tend to be those who least deserve it.

You are definitely on to something there, Bonam. The will to power. I think it's similar to the will to extreme wealth.

But, I doubt that's what the OP is talking about.

[Smallc]

August is right that modern politicians have their entire lives utterly bared to the public, 24/7.

They don't really have to in Canada though. Most people here really don't care about the private lives of politicians...certainly not to the degree that people do in the US.

[August1991]

August is right that modern politicians have their entire lives utterly bared to the public, 24/7. There are many many individuals who would be bothered by this, and not want to be public figures as a result. In my opinion, it takes a very odd kind of person to be willing to sacrifice any semblance of privacy in order to gain political power.

Bonam, you are describing 17th century royalty.

From birth, boys of royal parents were told that they could accede to the throne. IOW, the royal boys lived in public 24/7. It appears that we the people need some people to appear in public.

----

Here's the question: if you knew of this public light, what would you do? Then again, what would you do if you were the son of a monarch - or the son of a butcher?

[g_bambino]

IOW, the royal boys lived in public 24/7.

I don't believe they did. They would've been raised by nannies in the palace. It wasn't until Diana put William and Harry into regular schools - rather than, as with every generation of royal children before them, being educated by private tutors - that the children of the Royal Family became public figures.

Still, I think what you're actually getting at is the fact that the private lives still lived by royals, politicians, and pop stars have been cleaved open to public view by new technology that allows journalists and photographers access into what was once completely private domain. Add to that the media's complete abandonment of tact in lieu of the profits that come from feeding an ever-growing, hypocritical society wanting to consume an endless stream of the most salacious gossip possible (no more speaking of the president's affairs only in hushed tones at cocktail parties), and, yes, any figure of note (though, what makes one notable has even come to be questionable - er, Paris Hilton...) suddenly has to be "on" 24-7. Though, it's more like "on guard".

That said, Prince William has done a pretty impressive job at keeping the tabloid hounds at bay, managing to live a quite private life with his new wife. The fact that he had a bachelor party and not one single photo was got by the paparazzi or leaked to the media is almost astounding.

Potential politicians may have to choose whether or not to take on the burden of protecting their private life before entering politics. A royal, obviously, doesn't have much choice; especially one born close to the throne. However, doing one's duty in circumstances unsought is pretty much the main example a royal figure is supposed to set.

Perhaps, in future, though, we’ll all become so overwhelmed with the minutiae of stars' lives that we'll simply lose interest and it'll become a live and let live world.

[c/e]

Edited August 29, 2011 by g_bambino

[August1991]

August is right that modern politicians have their entire lives utterly bared to the public, 24/7. There are many many individuals who would be bothered by this, and not want to be public figures as a result. In my opinion, it takes a very odd kind of person to be willing to sacrifice any semblance of privacy in order to gain political power.

It takes an odd person who will buy a lottery ticket for such a life.

When Barack Obama started, he had no certainty that he would become president.

I actually think that the private lives of politicians are no business of the public and that they should have as much right to privacy in their lives as people in any other line of work.

I disagree. We have to choose our leaders somehow.

Still, I think what you're actually getting at is the fact that the private lives still lived by royals, politicians, and pop stars have been cleaved open to public view by new technology that allows journalists and photographers access into what was once completely private domain.

Yes. IOW, the Royals have lost their purple robe, their cloak.

As Americans say, every man puts his pants on one leg at a time, and now the Internet shows us that British princes use cell phones to talk to their mistresses.

Edited August 30, 2011 by August1991

[Bonam]

I disagree. We have to choose our leaders somehow.

There are plenty of things to base our choice on besides who attended a fetish strip club, who posted raunchy photos online, or who had an affair. I'm much more interested in politicians stances on issues, their ideas to solve various problems, etc. The problem is most people would rather gossip about celebrities than they would soberly consider serious things.

[g_bambino]

As Americans say, every man puts his pants on one leg at a time, and now the Internet shows us that British princes use cell phones to talk to their mistresses.

August, the humanity of royalty has never, ever been in doubt; at least, not in the British tradition. You carry on a very 18th century French concept of monarchy; or, at best, a modern Thai one. People in Britain and the Empire and then the Commonwealth have always known the kings and princes had mistresses; as did most men of the nobility and the political and merchant classes. Same in the Scandinavian countries. And it wasn't anything shocking.

I guess that demonstrates that I was wrong to say royalty once had a completely private side to their lives; they have never had fully private lives. Given their intricate relationship with the state, they can't. However, their lives were more private in the past; the gossip was there, only it was slower in spreading and the details less visceral. Further, there was less hypocritical, pseudo-puritanical character assassination; it's become common to cast aside an individual's lifetime of work and achievements to clear the way for a sneering assault on them by blowing their few mistakes far out of proportion, into spectacle on the scale of a three ring circus; for failing to be more than human. The media makes money tearing people down for doing very human things and the public, the members of which do all the same said human things, eats it up; it's an industry now.

As I said, royals don't have an option in dealing with it. However, of concern might be the idea that people who might otherwise go into politics will keep out simply to avoid being torn to shreds by the media for the sake of pure entertainment. And this, I guess, takes us back to your OP.

I disagree. We have to choose our leaders somehow.

To a certain extent. One doesn't want a coke-head in office. But there's a line. It becomes pretty sad when the direction of our vote is decided by how often the candidates forget to floss or whether or not they smoked dope in university.

[sp]

Edited August 30, 2011 by g_bambino

[jbg]

A quote in Christie Blatchford's piece about Jack Layton's death made me think:NP

"L'État, c'est moi."

In English, this phrase is used to suggest supreme arrogance. In fact, it simply meant that the sovereign's life was indelibly connected to the country. In Jack Layton terms, Louis XIV - like Jack - had no private life. Both were public figures, 24/7.

Except for a few hours in a "room where you do what you don't confess" (apologies to Gordon Lightfoot's Sundown) in January 1996.

[August1991]

There are plenty of things to base our choice on besides who attended a fetish strip club, who posted raunchy photos online, or who had an affair. I'm much more interested in politicians stances on issues, their ideas to solve various problems, etc. The problem is most people would rather gossip about celebrities than they would soberly consider serious things.

That's how you choose to vote - and in fact, most politicians offer similar policies since these are variables they can control. Understandably, many other people choose to vote on other differences between politician

We have to distinguish between politicians, and politicians know this.

I guess that demonstrates that I was wrong to say royalty once had a completely private side to their lives; they have never had fully private lives. Given their intricate relationship with the state, they can't. However, their lives were more private in the past; the gossip was there, only it was slower in spreading and the details less visceral.

Monarchs of the past understood that they were on duty 24/7. Their lives, as you put it, had an "intricate relationship with the state".

Louis XV used to appear every morning at a balcony so that people would know that he was alive and at work. (The equivalent today would be a press conference.)

In the past century, and illustrated in last year's Best Picture Oscar, a Duke of York became a King because a Prince of Wales was not willing to sacrifice his private life.

The point in my OP was that Layton elevated himself to such a status. He was on 24/7.

----

It's weird that Layton acted as royalty. But then, Layton was known as "Jack" when in fact he was a scion of an established anglo family in Quebec. In this sense, when Layton spoke French, I always cringed. He was like royalty of past who often didn't speak the language of commoners - but ruled them by a sense of duty.

Ultimately, shorn of his public persona, I found Layton to be paternalistic. But what do I know...

Edited August 31, 2011 by August1991

[Smallc]

He was like royalty of past who often didn't speak the language of commoners - but ruled them by a sense of duty.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see where this comes from. Layton was nothing like royalty.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Smallc

[Mr.Canada]

In a democracy, your opinion, your single vote, is largely irrelevant.

This is wrong. Everyone's vote is worth exactly the same...one.

[g_bambino]

Monarchs of the past understood that they were on duty 24/7. Their lives, as you put it, had an "intricate relationship with the state".

I think this depends on what we mean by "on duty". Of course a monarch is always "on duty"; it isn't a 9 to 5 job until retirement, and they can be called upon to act at any moment, regardless of time or place. However, they aren't "on duty" as in being in the public eye 24/7; they have private lives. All I'm saying is that the being on public display "duty" has become more and more dominant since cameras have encroached more and more into what private lives sovereigns and other royals once had.

It's rather sad, in my opinion; and that goes for all people who're now hounded by paparazzi. They may be public figures, but they're sill human beings. There's absolutely no need for the gossip and character assasinations that the media regularly prints, airs, and conducts; no reason other than pure entertainment, that is. It turns everyone - monarch, princess, president, senator, and others alike - into mere celebrities; and celebrity is inherently vacuous and transient, meaning our figures of state are, to the masses, there not as legislators and statesmen, but as two-dimensional caricatures for consumption and eventual disposal.

[g_bambino]

Here's an extremely rare interview with the Queen that sheds a bit of light on the notion of being "on duty" all the time.

[Wilber]

Doesn't matter what they should be, todays media and the web have made celeb private lives a thing of the past. The only private life they can have is one they can hide from the rest of us because they will not be granted one.