Boris Johnson: the personality cult and "national saviour" narrative

After Boris Johnson’s first appearance at the House of Commons as Prime Minister, his general approach was dismissed by the opposition as “incoherent optimism”. This is as accurate a description of Johnson’s “free jazz” approach to dialogue as you may get, but at the same time, it exemplifies the problem that conventional parties have to tackling Populism as a whole. They cannot counter appeals to emotion with references to facts; it is an approach doomed to failure, for it misses the point. They do not understand the nature of what they are up against.

Johnson’s appeals to emotion are typical to Populism, with the important distinction that Johnson became London mayor eleven years ago using the same charismatic,maverick approach several years before Populism became a wider force in the world. It should also be mentioned that Johnson’s predecessor at the mayoralty, Ken Livingstone, used his own charismatic (left-wing) style to great success for eight years.

Love versus fear

Johnson has been compared to Trump many times before for obvious reasons, but there are also important personality differences worth mentioning too, and these affect their political style in important ways. The two men may well be Populists, but they are Populists of their own mould. Both men are narcissistic and charismatic,reckless and unprincipled. Both men have used their force of will to attain personal success by breaking conventions and engaging in amoral behaviour. And yet, although their careers have both fluctuated over the decades, they were always in an ultimately upward trajectory, until they reached the absolute pinnacle of power.

What is different about Johnson and Trump is what motivates them beyond the self-evident narcissism. Trump’s motivation stems from the instincts of a businessman. He is a swindler with the approach to ethics as straight-laced as a mafia don, and although he clearly loves attention, he doesn’t seem to mind what kind of attention it is; bad publicity is still publicity, after all. This indicates a very high (and very skewed) sense of omnipotence.

In this sense, Trump is the kind of narcissist that doesn’t care if few people love him or like him, as long as people respect him. He may be a difficult person to love, but a much easier person to respect; and he seems to have earned a kind of grudging respect even from enemies that hate him. If you can’t be loved, then at least be feared: this seems to be his “mafia don” mentality that he applied first to business, and now to politics.

Johnson’s narcissism, on the other hand, seems to stem from an innate need to be loved. Playing the buffoon and the clown simply for people’s laughs (and therefore affection) has been his singular style since becoming involved in politics.While he is by nature academically-bright and sharp-witted, his public persona has been to play the jester. 

This also explains why Johnson’s rhetorical style is subtly different from Trump’s. To borrow the phrase used at the start, compared to Johnson, Trump’s rhetorical style is more “angry incoherence” compared to Boris’ “incoherent optimism”. Boris wants to make people feel good, so that they will feel good about him. His use of high-flown rhetoric and pseudo-Churchillian prose are a strategic act and a psychological ploy. It is also clear that he is at his most comfortable when in this role, such as when inspiring Londoners during the Olympics or extolling Britain’s future prospects during the referendum campaign. With the oncoming event of Brexit, he is in the role of national leader continuing in the same motivational manner, exhorting others to combine with him in a collective spirit, and scolding the opposition for sowing doubt and disharmony.

The cult of Boris

Of course, by embracing such a faith-based belief system, the reality of Brexit hardly seems to matter to him. Boris has turned Britain into the archetypal personality cult, with him as its charismatic leader. This is where Nigel Farage and Johnson share the same instincts: they are both “Pied Pipers”, and along with Donald Trump, are an Anglo-Saxon Triumvirate of Populism.

In this way, Boris’ message is both dangerously seductive and terrifyingly simplistic. He has turned Brexit from an ideological “death cult” to an esoteric “sex cult”: his persona provides a motivational “force of nature” that infatuates the nation, making them love him for making them love themselves and love their country. The negative energy, and the anger and depression that Theresa May’s ghoulish tenure generated has been transformed by Boris into a kind of orgiastic national hero-worship.

It may still be Brexit “do or die”, but Boris’ rhetoric ability is to make it seductive regardless, and to make people love him for it in the process. To any right-thinking person, Brexit may well be a disaster, but to Boris’ supporters, it will still be a glorious disaster. Boris’ ability to channel all the stereotypical national myths into an evocative “Brexit” narrative is the spell that his supporters don’t want to end. Such a narrative would be even difficult for agnostic parts of the electorate to ignore. After all, it worked three years ago, so why not now, at its most pivotal moment?

The signs are that the anger that Farage channeled through his “Brexit Party” is now being dissipated by Boris’ singular rhetoric; his purple prose transforming the “betrayal” narrative into a narrative of national salvation. Boris’ emotive and bombastic talk in the House of Commons on his first full day in power left the opposition not only confounded but also dejected. As said earlier, they simply lack the political tools to know how to deal with it. The only answer is for them to find their own emotive narrative to fight back against Boris with, but they are too divided and lacking in a clear direction to know where this would come from.

This is why there is a temptation to go along with the “national destiny” narrative: that Boris, from a young age, was destined for greatness, regardless of his reckless and unconventional nature. The Churchill parallels are well-known, as well as knowingly well-versed by Johnson himself. Clearly, he has long been fascinated by the wartime leader, seeing the man’s ups and downs and long-winded career (and unstable upbringing) reflected in his own. Churchill was a deeply-complex (and often maddening) character, and his long career before 1940 was largely famed for its infamy, in spite of its longevity. Like Boris, the people that most liked Churchill didn’t know him; they only loved the myth. While charismatic, he could as easily be horrendous company. It was only the Second World War that rectified his reputation; so now, the man on the British five pound note is only remembered for his exploits during a five year period of war. The charlatan and drunk he was known as before has been forgotten.

Doubtless, Boris has similar hopes of national “immortality”. If he can get his government through Brexit, then his hope is that he stays in power for long enough that people will remember him for being the charismatic blonde-mopped icon in power at a time of adversity and national change and will have forgotten about any of the trauma and hardships (he created) that went with it.

Given his luck, he may well pull it off.

Boris Johnson’s government – the Brexit “coup” and the Libertarian agenda

Many people were worried that Boris Johnson was someone who didn’t have any idea what he was doing. From the way he has assembled his new cabinet, it’s very clear that he does know what he is doing – and that is what terrifies everyone but the Libertarian right. 

Boris, the man mocked as a “clown”, is clearly having the last laugh: like the “Joker” in the Batman universe, he has long given the impression being a chaotic anarchist without any kind of plan; but in reality, he very clearly does have a plan; a plan that terrifies his opponents. The blundering Boris “persona” was always an act to those who knew him well, and the manner of his assembling of government is the crystal-clear evidence of that.

He has assembled a government of ideologues, whose other key attribute is loyalty to Boris. This is not a “compromise” government, it is a government assembled for a mission:to leave the EU at the end of October, and embark on a “WTO Brexit” if necessary. In order to do, Boris has displayed not only his tendency for the theatrical, but also for powerful ideological statements. Boris has ruthlessly purged almost all the “old guard” from government – Theresa May’s natural instinct for preferring old, unimaginative white men, for instance – and replaced them with a cabinet of eclectic personalities that looks around ten years younger.

Those “eclectic”personalities are, put another way, a sign of how Johnson’s government (like himself) is one marked by mavericks and “outliers” (although there are also blunter ways to describe it, which may come later). This is the most obvious sign that Brexit is a Libertarian project, led by people from unusual backgrounds. Boris himself was born in New York, and lived most of his formative years in a nomadic existence abroad with his siblings following his father’s career around different parts of the world. His family’s background and make-up is already easily rich enough to merit a dramatic saga, without even looking into Boris’ own career.

The core positions have been given to people who, like Boris, come from eclectic backgrounds, with a common cause in being long supporters of the Libertarian agenda. The new chancellor, Sajid Javid, is the son of Pakistani immigrants (whose father, like Labour’s London mayor Sadiq Khan, was also a bus driver); the new foreign secretary (and also first secretary of state), Dominic Raab, is the son of a Jewish Czech refugee who fled the Nazis as a child; the new Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is the daughter of Hindu immigrants who fled Idi Amin’s brutal regime in Uganda. Then there is Michael Gove who, under the title of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (CDL) will be responsible for domestic preparations for a potential “WTO Brexit”, is the adopted son of a Scottish family.

The Libertarian agenda bleeds into almost every position of strategic significance, with arch-ideologue Liz Truss in the International Trade brief, and Andrea Leadsome in the Business department. Theresa Villiers, another Libertarian, takes over Gove’s position at the Department for the Environment. The “icing on the cake” of all this, though,  is seeing Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the ERG Libertarian faction in the party, becoming Leader of the House of Commons (and thus being a near-successor in this position to Leadsome). Meanwhile, the agenda to diversify the appearance of government likewise continues with men of Asian background being promoted to the Department for International Development and in the role of Chief Secretary to the Treasury (supporting Javid). The new party chairman, meanwhile, is black.

There are token positions given here and there to moderates (or Boris-supporting “Remainers”), but the overall complexion of the government (no pun intended) is one that is radical in ideology and diverse in its heritage. In this sense, it mirrors much of the make-up of the ERG faction itself, whose character is also eclectic, if not often downright odd.

But this is the point: Brexit, and the “hard” form that the Libertarian faction support, was always, by definition, a marginal cause, supported by people who never represented the values of British society at large. This was why the allegation that Brexit was effectively a Libertarian “coup” against British society stands even more valid now, looking at the people running the key levers of government. These are people whose agenda is one mainly supported by “cranks”.

Perhaps the most significant personality involved that backs this interpretation in all this is not someone in a government department, but who is said to become a key government advisor: Dominic Cummings. This is the clearest sign that Johnson’s aim is to bring the “Vote Leave” referendum campaign into government, complete with Cummings’ ideological pyromania – the “British Steve Bannon”, if you will.Things may well become “interesting” very quickly.

Apart from Cummings, it is clear that Johnson does not shy away from controversial characters (who’d have thought that?); this is further self-evident from promoting Gavin Williamson so quickly after being fired under a cloud of national security scandal, while similarly promoting Priti Patel after her controversial dealings with Israel. The message given out here is that Johnson values ideological loyalty and patronage first, and is not that bothered by (or maybe even secretly admires) unethical or destructive behavior. Given his many own examples over his career, this is hardly surprising. The same indifference to chaos is a characteristic that seems to run through the personalities of many in key positions in government.

So the Johnson administration is an assemblage of personalities designed for a purpose: to make Britain leave the EU at the end of October, regardless of the consequences. This is the government that Libertarians would have dreamed of having three years ago, had Gove not knifed Johnson at the critical moment in the leadership campaign. As it is now, it has been called the “Ferrero Rocher” Brexit government: Johnson spoiling the ERG by effectively creating their “fantasy cabinet” for them.

This all makes it clear the Boris is dead-set on destroying the “Brexit Party” and reclaiming as many of their supporters as possible, while seemingly indifferent to any flight in the other direction from moderates in his party to the Lib Dems. Johnson has set his stall with his choice of personalities. Perhaps he sees the strategic long game in how the Brexit may well eventually see the resurgent and ideologically-motivated Lib Dems replace a directionless and insular-looking Labour Party, and sees little point in fighting against the political tide; he simply wishes to forestall what he sees as the coming realignment by making his own ideological preparations. It would certainly be ironic if, a few years from now we have the Conservatives and the Lib Dems as the two main parties, given how they were in government together only five years ago.

Boris has cultivated the clownish image for so long that people have forgotten (or never knew) about the intellectually-gifted man underneath. His strategic method behind his agenda is clear from how he has chosen his government. His supporters, and the Libertarians, will say he is bold and ruthless; his detractors will say (justifiably) he is destructive and reckless. He can be both those things, of course. His strategy, if he is looking at the likelihood of an early election, may well be to – in the short-term – to deal with Brexit and the (divided) Labour Party as soon as practically possible. The chances of Johnson winning a majority in parliament in an early election may be higher than many people assume, given the stark difference in style and appearance his government will portray to the public. By contrast, Corbyn’s Labour Party is more likely to divide the opposition against Johnson with the Lib Dems and others.

The effect of this may well be not dissimilar to the election of 1983. It’s possible that Johnson has seen this as a possible (fortuitous) scenario as well, leaving him comfortably able to plan for the strategic long-term afterwards. Of course, any early election could also be a complete mess as well (the Prime Minister himself, as well as other ministers, could lose their seats); it could all go completely wrong and the Lib Dems could be the big winner out it it. But this is the risk that Johnson takes; and we know he likes taking risks from time to time.   

Whatever happens, it won’t be dull.