In defence of Ross Cameron

That the federal MP for Parramatta, Ross Cameron should be under siege because of his revelations about extra-marital liaisons is unfortunate and reveals more about the double standards of our political culture than it does about Mr Cameron.
 
The media have labeled Mr Cameron a “hypocrite” because while he has been a public champion of the necessity for a more moral Australia, his private actions suggest he’s not living up to his standards.
 
But if Mr Cameron is hypocritical, so are millions of other politicians around the world. It would seem that those who enter political life, or seek power, are often what might be termed hypocritical in terms of their private life and their public stance and image. But because Mr Cameron’s hypocrisy involves sex, the censorious gene that exists in our Anglo-Saxon political culture deems it more reprehensible than any other case of double standards.
 
To illustrate, there is a plethora of politicians in Australia who preach human rights and tolerance whilst demonising their political opponents and treating the rights of rivals with contempt as they climb up the political ladder. Yet it is very rare that the media works itself into frenzy over these cases.
 
That’s because it seems that politics and hypocrisy have always been inextricably linked and Mr Cameron’s case, stripped of its sexual sensationalism, should be viewed simply as an example of this fact.
 
Why hypocrisy and politics seem inextricably linked is explained by the American political theorist Judith Shklar, who perceptively notes in her book Ordinary Vices, “The paradox of liberal democracy is that it encourages hypocrisy because the politics of persuasion require, as any reader of Aristotle's Rhetoric knows, a certain amount of dissimulation on the part of all speakers.”
 
A point of view shared by a US political academic, Ruth Grant of Duke University, whose 1997 book Hypocrisy and Integrity should be compulsory reading for all politicians and the political media in this country.
 
As Grant rightly points out, that masterful observer of political life, Niccolo Machiavelli would have it that hypocrisy in politics is simply the inevitable result of the clash of vanity, personal ambition, principle and loyalty.
 
In short, we have always known about and tolerated hypocritical politicians. But it seems that in our society, as is the case in the US and the UK, hypocrisy that involves sex is adjudged to beyond the pale.
 
The contrast with the Latin approach to the politics of sex makes this point clear. For the body politic in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and their former colonies, the fact that their political leaders attend church on Sundays, preach the need for less corruption and moral virtue during the week, but keep a mistress at taxpayer’s expense merely raises a resigned shrug of the shoulders.
 
This latter approach is not only more realistic but recognises the point made by Shklar and Grant, that there’s little reason to expect that the personality type attracted to politics is a human of impeccable moral virtue.
 
Mr Cameron is clearly a manifestation of that observation. A person of considerable ambition who enters politics with the noble aim of advancing his country, he is also a risk-taker who probably rationalised the inconsistency between his public persona and what it stands for, and his private life. Cameron is obviously a flawed individual, but that should be of little relevance to voters unless his conduct has resulted in criminal conduct or manifest corruption involving his public office. Neither is even hinted at in this case.
 
The questions that the voters of Parramatta need to ask themselves about Ross Cameron is whether or not he has been an effective local MP and do they agree with the policies of the Liberal Party, the political party which he represents. That Mr Cameron has attracted media attention because of his “familial” difficulties in recent times should be low on the list of relevant factors in deciding whom to vote for in the federal election.
 
As Prime Minister John Howard said on Friday last week, "Mr Cameron’s a very hard-working Member of Parliament and the questions of difficulties in his marriage is a matter for him and his wife." It’s not often that this writer agrees with John Howard but on this matter he is quite right.
 
If Mr Cameron’s hypocrisy had not involved steamy revelations of sexual peccadilloes then it’s doubtful the media would care. In fact, at least Cameron has admitted his hypocrisy and for that the media should be grateful.