A Good Man?

[poliphilo]

If a good man does bad things is he still a good man?

Or- to narrow things down more specifically to the career of Gordon Brown- can a person claim to be in possession of "a moral compass" if he never seems to use it.

The defining characteristics of Brown's career have been cowardice, lack of principle, corrosive ambition, sulkiness, disloyalty and double-dealing. He tacitly supported the Iraq war, encouraged the banking free for all, created a culture of paranoia around himself, persistently undermined his colleagues- including Tony Blair- and (behind closed doors) sulked and fumed and bullied. In what way are these the actions of a "good" man?

I'm asking  because I've just been reading this. Gordon Brown has failed in most things, but he's somehow managed to sell us all on the notion that he's a moral person- that whole son of the manse thing.   Well, I beg to differ.

Comments

[ideealisme.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it is his intensity and taciturnity, his lack of social ease, that endears him to people. Mr Darcy syndrome. He is quite well liked over here.

Being intense implies not being false, hail-fellow-well-met, full of he's-a-grand-fella-down-the-pub-would-stab-you-in-the-back bonhomie. i.e. not being like most politicians.

Most people afford the lion's share of the blame for the Iraq war to Blair. Not that they praise Brown for going along with it, but they don't hold him primarily responsible for it. That was indeed a disgusting crime - though as my partner says, "All war is a crime"

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Blair owned the war. Brown only funded it- and hid in the bushes when the going got tough. It's a recurrent theme of his career that he dodges responsibility.

As for that image of straightness and probity, it's almost entirely false. He's an inveterate back-stabber and enabler of back-stabbers. People- including his closest allies- are afraid of him because they know he'll have no compunction about briefing against them.