Scandal Proof?

It's all down to the internet, apparently.  The reason that our political leaders nowadays seem immune to scandal, that is.  At least, that was the claim made in an article I read the other day. According to this thesis, the way that everything is quickly turned into a meme by social media, means that public anger over the issue dissipates as the meme runs its course.  Basically, it seems to be saying that the internet and, specifically social media, has created a generation of people with short attention spans - conditioned by memes and the like to believe that every phenomena and news story has a finite and short lifespan.  To follow this logic, this would explain why many have quickly tired of lockdowns and the like, as the whole pandemic has 'outstayed its welcome', lasting longer than a meme should.  Personally, I really don't think that this theory holds water.  Particularly with regard to political scandals.  The reason that politicans seem better able to weather such things these days has more to do with the fact that society itself has changed, not to mention political culture and the whole media landscape. Back in the eighties, if you recall, one of Mrs Thatcher's mot valued cronies, Cecil Parkinson, was forced to resign when it became known that he had gotten his secretary pregnant.  Would that happen today?  Probably not.  I mean, just look at the moral degenerate currently in residence at Number Ten, who can't even tell you how many children he has by various women.  

But times have changed.  For one thing, the Thatcher government had been elected, in part, upon a moral agenda, emphasising good old 'Victorian Values', (although one might argue that wealthy authority figures knocking up the help was the very epitome of 'Victorian Values').  This, after all, was the era of moral panics over 'Video Nasties' corrupting our children, 'Satanic' child abuse rings and school children being insidiously indoctrinated with homosexuality by their teachers.  So Parkinson who, ironically, had been one of the architects of this particular strategy, really had no choice but to go.  Particularly as much of the print press (which was still where most people got their news) were squarely behind Thatcher's moral crusade.  It is notable that, following Thatcher's fall, British politics became more openly sleazy, with palms being greased left, right and centre. Moreover, public opinion on issues of personal morality changed, the role of the church as a moral arbiter declined further, attitudes toward homosexuality relaxed, the whole concept of marriage as an ideal form of relationship waned.  Political parties based their campaigns less and less upon moral issues - even when they did touch on morals, it had far more to do with the 'morality' of claiming benefits and a resurrection of the idea of the 'undeserving poor', rather than personal conduct.

On top of all that, the print media made an even more decisive lurch to the right, but not the right of 'conservative values', but rather the right of libertarianism, where personal freedom trumped traditional concepts of morality and sexual conduct.  At the same time, as their print sales declined, they started setting up even more rabidly right-wing web sites. Hence, what once might have been seen as 'scandalous' behaviour, whether it be sexual misconduct, financial irregularity or even bullying, has become accepted as the 'norm' and will no longer be enough, on its own, to bar someone from public office.  After all, the whole phone-hacking business didn't become a public 'scandal', until the offending tabloids were seen as having 'crossed a line' by hacking the phone of a murdered child.  At one time, the mere invasion of privacy would have been enough to result in outrage.  But times change. It's no good blaming technology for making politicians seemingly scandal-proof, any more than it is trying to pretend that things like stalking and bullying didn't exist before the advent of social media.  All the technology has done is give the offenders a new set of tools to abuse with - Twitter rather than poison pen letters, for instance, or Facebook posts rather than graffiti on toilet walls .  The end result, for those on the receiving end, is no different.