Is Current Politics More About Image Than Substance?

1. This question picks up on the current zeitgeist for writing off politicians as spin-mongers who are long on rhetoric (including evasions, half-truths and lies) and short on practical achievements. Harry Frankfurt’s work on “Political Bullsh*t” (yes it’s an actual theory) is superb on this. ;

As such, the hallmark of a bad answer would be to agree with the question on the back of a) not defining the key terms “image” and/or “substance” or b) wandering off into examples of politicians or recent political actions that support (eg “Partygate” in the UK) or, less likely, refute the statement again without thinking through the artificial separation of image from substance implied by the question.

2. A definition of Image can be arrived at in several ways:

o ; A politician’s managed “brand” – how they present themselves, how they speak (changing tastes, more inclusive regional accents now), how far they let us see the “real” person behind the political veil.

o ; How does the politician reveal themselves to us through their interests, families, other social connections; what are they trying to say through these glimpses into their “everyday life”?

o ; Image is also present in what they say, how they say it, and the issues they choose to speak on (Aristotle on rhetoric). For example, in Parliamentary debates. ;

o ; There is an underlying assumption in the question than image is bad, substance is good. Is this, though, built on an artificial binary? ; ;

3. A definition of Substance can be arrived at by thinking about what politicians do day to day:

o Are they a career politician or have they come to politics from another profession, such as Law or Medicine, or a non-professional background entirely? ;

o Do experiences outside elite politics (there’s a reason it’s called “the Westminster bubble” in the UK) help make better politicians? ; ;

o How does a political operate in their constituencies and their party? Are they a leader or a follower? ; How do the structuring effects of these interpersonal and institutional relationships affect the overall ‘brand’? ;

o What causes do they champion and which other stakeholders such as think-tanks do they have dealings with? ;

o Does the politician speak in terms of overarching values (eg Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher) such as Justice, Freedom, Democracy, Equality and Opportunity – and do they mean what they say?

o Is the politician able to translate such abstract terms into practical policies that advance causes close to their heart? For instance, if they are leaders during general elections, do party manifesto commitments live up to the rhetoric they put out about their personal and party values? ; ;

o “Getting things done” in politics can be a messy, difficult business: so the concept of “substance” itself gets freighted with a political meaning all of its own. ;

o We need some benchmark for the ways in which politicians make practical changes in terms of altering legislation in a desired direction. For example, by improving the lives of ordinary voters through economic policies, or advocating for improvements in key sectors such as health, education, crime and so on.

4. The challenge inherent in such a question is evident from some key wider context which seems to be informing it:

o ; In the UK the idea of “spin vs substance” became most associated with the New Labour governments of Tony Blair (1997-2007).

o Media management, strategic communication, the “grid” of government announcements centrally managed by an all-powerful chief “spin doctor” (Alastair Campbell).

o Was this intrinsically detrimental to the conduct of politics? Or was it a necessary response to 24/7 rolling news and modern political communication?

5. A broader conceptual analysis would therefore see image and substance as part and parcel of the “performance” of politics:

o Kenneth Minogue’s book Politics: A Very Short Introduction amply makes this point when he talks throughout about politics and “drama” and “performance”.

o Arguably a politician requires both skill sets to be successful. Possessing only image but no substance implies a politician lacking authenticity and/or a moral compass (Boris Johnson?) .

o Yet a politician who excels at detail, knowledge, facts and data without being relatable and/or having the ability to communicate a vision won’t get that far, or be found out when they take centre stage as leader (Gordon Brown?).

o Perhaps it is a condition of our “postmodern” politics that in fact some balance between the two is required: even more so in the testing crucible of social media and modern news. ; ;