Por supuesto, acciones como el acoso sexual o la agresión deben orientar nuestra evaluación de un líder. Pero mientras Trump ha enfrentado tales acusaciones, Johnson no lo ha hecho. Y, en última instancia, no elegimos a personas para cargos políticos porque queremos que actúen como abanderados de nuestras definiciones subjetivas, variadas y cambiantes de la moralidad. Alguien que ha sido infiel a su cónyuge puede ser un líder hábil, así como una esposa o esposo fiel puede ser un líder pobre.

Sin embargo, hay muchos otros problemas con el liderazgo tanto de Trump como de Johnson, que dimitió de su cargo de Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores en julio por su oposición a los compromisos que el Gobierno de la Primera Ministra Theresa May decidió que estaría dispuesto a hacer en las negociaciones de Brexit con la UE. Aunque Johnson tiene cierta habilidad retórica -que ha estado usando con creciente vigor para conseguir apoyo para un «Brexit duro«-, la opinión general es que era un diplomático incapaz, siempre prefiriendo un chiste barato a un informe serio. Durante su mandato como Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, Johnson fue una causa casi constante de vergüenza para el Reino Unido, con una metedura de pata tras otra dejando a los amigos de Gran Bretaña en el extranjero con la cabeza en las manos.

Desde que dejó esa posición, Johnson no ha mostrado algún propósito de enmienda. El mes pasado hizo la declaración islamofóbica de que las mujeres musulmanas que llevan niqabs parecen «ladrones de bancos» y «buzones de correos».

Poco después, Johnson describió la posición negociadora con la UE de Theresa May  como equivalente a envolver «un chaleco suicida alrededor de la constitución británica» y entregar el detonador a la UE. El comentario fue de mal gusto, por decirlo suavemente, entre otras cosas porque 22 personas (incluyendo niños) fueron asesinadas por un terrorista suicida en un concierto en Manchester el año pasado.

Tales declaraciones claramente no son dignas de un líder político británico, al igual que muchos de los comentarios con carga racial y de otro modo incendiarios (por no mencionar las acciones) que Trump ha hecho. Pero los fracasos de estos líderes son aún más profundos. Para entenderlos, vale la pena observar a tres líderes de renombre que murieron este verano: el ex Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas Kofi Annan, el ex Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores británico y ex Secretario General de la OTAN Peter Carrington, y el Senador de los Estados Unidos John McCain.

Habiendo trabajado con Annan y para Carrington, soy testigo de su amabilidad, honor y compromiso con la verdad. McCain tenía las mismas cualidades, sin mencionar un nivel de valentía personal mucho más allá de lo que se espera de la mayoría de nosotros (aunque hay que señalar que Carrington también fue un héroe de guerra). La forma que estos líderes combinaban honor y compromiso con la verdad – dos atributos que están intrínsecamente conectados – no se ve en ninguna parte en Trump o Johnson.

Nadie sugiere que los líderes políticos deban responder a todas las preguntas que se les formulan con respuestas totalmente francas. Eso sería esperar un comportamiento muy por encima y más allá de lo normal. Enfrentarse a los problemas de la vida a veces exige, para tomar prestado el lenguaje del ex Secretario del Gabinete del Reino Unido, Robert Armstrong, que seamos algo más económicos con la verdad.

Pero hay una gran diferencia entre economizar, como seguramente han hecho líderes honorables como McCain y Carrington, y ser un mentiroso en serie, como es el caso de Trump y Johnson. Trump típicamente dice lo que le interesa a corto plazo, aunque a veces parece que ni siquiera sabe cuál es la verdad. Incluso su propio abogado tiene fama de haberle descrito como un mentiroso.

Sin embargo, la deshonestidad de Trump es aún más profunda: toda su plataforma política nacionalista se basa en la noción mendaz de que Estados Unidos necesita volver a ser grande. Sin embargo, Estados Unidos era grande antes de Trump, y su comportamiento (pisotear los acuerdos internacionales, golpear a los aliados y aplicar medidas comerciales proteccionistas) sólo socavará esa grandeza al agotar, entre otras cosas, las formidables reservas de poder blando del país. De manera similar, la campaña Brexit de Johnson se basó enteramente en el engaño, en propuestas económicas descabelladas y en ilusiones jactanciosas.

Una democracia sana depende de un intercambio honesto de ideas y opiniones, en un contexto de respeto compartido por los hechos y la verdad. El caso moral contra Trump y Johnson no es que hayan sido infieles a sus esposas, sino que subvierten estas condiciones mintiendo implacablemente a la gente que se supone que deben representar.

The question is acutely relevant today in both the United States and the United Kingdom. US President Donald Trump, who has already reached the height of political power in his country, and former UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who aspires to keep rising in the ranks, have in common not just their crude nationalism, but also their apparent inability to control their sexual appetites.

Trump’s extramarital affairs are common knowledge, despite hefty pay-offs intended to silence his sexual partners, such as the adult film performer and stripper known as Stormy Daniels. Though Trump is far from the first US president with a long record of adultery, he stands out for the crudeness of his remarks about women, including the infamous “grab ’em by the pussy” comment, exposed during the campaign.

As for Johnson, reports are circulating that his wife has kicked him out over an affair. While this is hardly his first – nor even the first time he has been given the boot – there are questions now about whether this will hurt his political ambitions, which many believe were the main motivation behind his decision to act as a leader of the campaign to withdraw the UK from the European Union.

But is it appropriate to judge political leaders based on their sex lives, as many have been wont to do? The answer, in my opinion, is no.

Of course, actions like sexual harassment or assault should inform our assessment of a leader. But while Trump has faced such accusations, Johnson has not. And, ultimately, we do not elect people to political office because we want them to act as standard bearers for our subjective, varied, and evolving definitions of morality. Someone who has been unfaithful to his or her spouse can be a skilled leader, just as a faithful wife or husband can be a poor one.

Nonetheless, there are plenty of other problems with the leadership of both Trump and Johnson, who resigned from his post as foreign secretary in July over his opposition to the compromises that Prime Minister Theresa May’s government decided it would be willing to make in the Brexit negotiations with the EU. While Johnson has some rhetorical skill – which he has been using with increasing vigor to whip up support for a “hard Brexit” – the general view is that he was a hopeless diplomat, always preferring a cheap joke to a serious brief. During his stint as foreign secretary, Johnson was a near-constant cause of embarrassment for the UK, with gaffe after gaffe leaving Britain’s friends abroad with their heads in their hands.

Since leaving that position, Johnson has not cleaned up his act. Just last month, he made the Islamophobicdeclaration that Muslim women wearing niqabs resemble “bank robbers” and “letter boxes.”

Soon after, Johnsondescribed May’s EU negotiating position as being tantamount to wrapping “a suicide vest around the British constitution” and handing the detonator to the EU. The comment was tasteless, to put it mildly, not least because 22 people (including children) were killed by a suicide bomber at a concert in Manchester last year.

Such statements are clearly not befitting of a British political leader, much like many of the racially charged and otherwise incendiary comments (not to mention actions) that Trump has made. But these leaders’ failures run even deeper. To understand them, it is worth looking at three reputable leaders who died this summer: former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former British Foreign Secretary and NATO Secretary-General Peter Carrington, and US Senator John McCain.

Having worked with Annan and for Carrington, I can vouch for their grace, honor, and commitment to truth. McCain plainly had the same qualities, not to mention a level of personal bravery far beyond what is expected of most of us (though it should be noted that Carrington was also a war hero). These leaders’ combination of honor and commitment to truth – two attributes that are intrinsically connected – is nowhere to be seen in Trump or Johnson.

No one would suggest that political leaders must respond to every question they are asked with entirely frank answers. That would be to expect behavior far above and beyond what is normal. Dealing with life’s predicaments sometimes demands, to borrow the language of former UK Cabinet Secretary Robert Armstrong, that we are somewhat economical with the truth.

But there is a big difference between some economizing, as even honorable leaders like McCain and Carrington have surely done, and being a serial liar, as is the case with Trump and Johnson. Trump typically says whatever is in his short-term interest, though sometimes it seems that he does not even know what the truth is. Even his own lawyer is reputed to have described him as a liar.

Yet Trump’s dishonesty runs even deeper: his entire nationalist political platform is based on the mendacious notion that America needs to be made great again. Yet America was great before Trump, and his behavior – riding roughshod over international agreements, trashing allies, and pursuing protectionist trade measures – will only undermine that greatness by, among other things, depleting the country’s formidable stock of soft power. Similarly, Johnson’s Brexit campaign was based entirely on deception, crackpot economics, and vainglorious wishful thinking.

A healthy democracy depends on an honest exchange of ideas and opinions, against a background of shared respect for facts and truth. The moral case against Trump and Johnson is not that they have been unfaithful to their wives, but rather that they subvert these conditions by lying relentlessly to the people they are supposed to represent.2