Authenticity in politics

‘There is no one alive who is Youer than You’ – (Dr Seuss 1959)

Authenticity is a word we hear increasingly often. To be our ‘best, most authentic selves’ has become a way of life for many regardless of the potential consequences. Acceptance of the self is not believing we are without fault but accepting our faults without judgment. Fantastically paradoxical it is an act I struggle to grapple with as I fail to pin down how we recognise faults without judgement.

Authenticity is not seeking perfection nor is it a moral state of analysing our lives. Rather it is an acceptance of who we are with all our imperfections for all to see. Some would argue self-acceptance is the post-faith recognition of ‘he who is without sin cast the first stone’ or the notion of ‘original sin’ i.e., we are all god’s creatures and all flawed so we should embrace it. What is missing from this conversation is the concept of damnation and creation beyond our social structures which bind and shape us. Perhaps this is part of the problem of ‘acceptance’, it lacks a connection to the divine leaving only us to judge. At worst this could be a pathway to dark moral relativism and at best we see the kind of society where we let it all hang out. I’m not sure either is particularly appealing.

In popular culture, we have seen this play out in the series Breaking Bad. When Jessie, the druggie sidekick of evil kingpin Walter White, breaks down over killing someone using the analogy of putting a healthy dog down the therapist wrangles with him to accept himself which he cannot do. The scene, akin to one out of a Greek tragedy, illuminates the importance of the question of self-acceptance, its power and perhaps, most importantly, its limitations.

Although authenticity is a question of the self it is also more than this. Many also demand authenticity from places where we go and visit for our holidays. We seek the ‘traditional’ and ‘real’ places where the locals go. From street food to grand hotels we are searching for real experiences even if they are manufactured to cater for us. Acting out authenticity is more difficult than hypothesizing about it making it difficult to locate when we do see it.

Necessarily this creates a difficulty for authenticity to find in our everyday and our surroundings. Living in a world of globalisation and the rise of mega-companies has shrunk our ability to experience genuine things. How much enjoyment and pleasure do we find when stepping into a genuine local bakery which has a story stretching back generations? Or a pub with an old landlord in a stone building that has been an Inn since the 17th century… There is a reason such haunts remain popular despite the arrival of multi-national competition on their doorsteps. Nothing can beat the real thing especially when there are rough edges which have not been smoothed out.

Pretending this stops at the shores of commercialism strikes me as a little naive. As Marx argued in The Communist Manifesto, capitalism is an unstoppable force pervading everything in its sight. This inherently reflects in the self and what we do just as much as it pervades our surroundings. Seen not only in alienation where we become increasingly dissatisfied and tired but the accosting of ourselves by ourselves in trying to climb the ladder of the workplace and society. We reign ourselves in to ‘do better’.

Of course, we may find small moments where we can act out ourselves, isolated though they may be. Accruing a deeper culture of honesty and self-acceptance to forge a path for authenticity requires us to do away with the social norms which demand hypocrisy for us to function. The arrival of people ‘checking out’ from work is a classic example. Rather than being honest with superiors about how we feel when too much work is placed on us or that we are treated badly we simply ‘sign out’.

So, instead of being honest and authentic with how we feel, the genuine is locked away based on fear and simplicity. Many try to live that way despite the difficulty of acting out authenticity. This is not always for the best as we may know people who should not live their ‘authentic lives’. Some people’s authenticity is undesirable and putting on a mask is the polite thing to do. Philosophically that leads us to question the value of authenticity.

“For Potter (2010: 4), this “demand for the honest, the natural, the real—that is, the authentic—has become one of the most powerful movements in contemporary life.” (Simon Luebke 2020)

Perhaps then we need to examine more closely authenticity in specific environments. In politics today there is a feeling of loss for the ‘authentic’ MP or candidate. When John Prescott passed away there were many references to his fear of being looked down upon and his inability to at times control his emotions with the media i.e., the fact he exhibited bouts of grumpiness. When Prescott got egged and went after the egger we saw a raw honesty and passion which was uncontrived reflecting his authenticity as a candidate.

This sits in contrast with today’s smoother politicians. Manicuring their images and either being unable or unwilling to show their real true selves MPs and their workers have created a gap between the ordinary citizen and politician which is eating away at the authority of Parliament. Trust is at record lows and who can be surprised when we have been visited by shiny robots in suits and skirts for the past 25 years. Today, we are left with the chancellor being accused of lying on her CV and the Prime Minister incessantly harking back to his father being a toolmaker. Neither of these are real acts of their ‘authentic selves’.

Opening the gap for those who are perceived to be authentic today’s mainstream politicians are fooling no one. When chancers such as Nigel Farage arrive on the scene we require opponents with genuineness to be able to stand up to them- either that or a once-in-a-generation skill to communicate like Tony Blair. Instead, we have third-rate communicators who lack realness with all the imperfections that come with it. A lack of authenticity allows honest charlatans to walk through the door of power more easily.

“A shrewd lot, politicians exploit to their advantage the public’s interest in their character. They reference their faith and relish opportunities to include their family in photo-ops. They look to participate in activities demonstrating shared values, from joining union workers for drinks to participating in a key constituency’s religious services. All these activities communicate the same message: I share your values and you can trust me—now join me” (Ben Jones 2016)

In the US, the rise of Trump is in part down to him being authentic. He is thin-skinned, he insults those whom he dislikes, he is brash, he is look obsessed, he is money-orientated, and he is corrupt. He has not hid any of these things from the electorate and more often than not he has used them to his advantage. Using his own experiences of buying politicians he has struck down the fantasy that his opponents wouldn’t sell themselves.

When Trump’s supporters call him ‘honest’ they mean authentic. Trump is authentically dishonest and as terrible a person as he is no one can say they don’t know what he is like. We could not say the same about Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton. The latter has more blame in this game than the former but still, Harris was triangulating, pivoting, and trying to limit the damage of some of her policy positions throughout the campaign. She was not her full true unadulterated self.

I am not saying people should vote for Trump based on his authenticity- I would not vote for him precisely because of it. Yet, it is difficult to ascertain whom we should vote for in an era of inauthenticity. Authenticity in politics releases us from the prospect of being duped and allows citizens to make genuine decisions. Perhaps, some politicians with much better morals and behaviour could learn something from the orange one and take the plunge in being authentic.