A Smokescreen called ‘Politically Motivated’

Are we not getting tired of politicians shamelessly shielding their repeated wrong-doing by rejecting any criticism of them as ‘politically motivated’? When the likes of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump are found to have lied about sexual liaison, making up stories about their opponents, covering up policy failures, or putting their personal interests above their public duties, they and their allies trot out the same old line – this is all politically motivated. And that is supposed to be the end of that.

But let’s pause and think …

[A] Is there anything wrong inherently with being politically motivated – if what that means is that one’s actions are motivated by political objectives? Surely, it’s hardly surprising that politicians are often driven by political aims, and though some of these aims may be questionable, others could be quite appropriate or indeed noble in serving the wellbeing of society. Compare the notion of ‘religiously motivated’ – must it be bad if someone criticised an organisation out of a religious motive? It depends on what the criticism is directed at – is it simply because the organisation is being kind and welcoming towards people of all faiths, or because it is worshiping Mammon in its constant celebration of greed?

[B] Even if in a particular case, the political motivation has more to do with causing problem for an opponent than anything else, one still has to look at the facts of the case. If someone has committed serious fraud, or ordered a murder, it does not matter what is motivating the exposé, the crime should be brought to light. Authoritarian-minded political leaders, not unlike crime bosses, will readily accuse others of seeking to tarnish their ‘good’ name, but if the charge in question is correct, then they deserve to be punished. Deflection about motives should never get in the way of holding wrongdoers to account.

[C] Of course, ‘politically motivated’ may be used interchangeably with ‘biased on partisan grounds’. For example, if one is going to take action to hurt the other party when one would not otherwise do anything similar towards one’s own side in similar circumstances. No one is keener on dismissing criticisms as ‘politically motivated’ than the Republican Party in the US. They should know. They channelled energy and resources in their attempt to impeach President Clinton over his lying about his sexual affair. But when Trump has been found to lie about his sexual affairs, cover up his financial dealings from public scrutiny, make money through his public office, side with Russia in dismissing the US’s own national security experts’ analyses, and pressurising a foreign government to help him discredit his potential rival in the 2020 presidential election, the Republicans rally to Trump’s defence by saying the move to impeach him was unfounded simply because it was ‘politically motivated’. In the sense of ‘biased on partisan grounds’, it would be appropriate to dismiss Republican posturing as ‘politically motivated’ and irrelevant.

[D] One final point: there are cases where the charge might be accurate, yet it serves no real public interest other than to harm the reputation of someone, embarrass them, or ruin their career. For example, a politician who has a long track record of serving the public dutifully is found to have behaved badly when much younger – e.g., committed some acts of vandalism. If it has no real bearing on the person’s character and behaviour now, dredging something that happened thirty odd years ago in an attempt to put the person off from running for a higher office could be rightly dismissed as ‘politically motivated’, but only because in such a case the motive is not one worthy of endorsement, and the censure sought has no public value.