There is currently a lot of political discussion/contorversy here in the UK over the current leader of the Liberal Democrat party, Charles Kennedy. (Here is a BBC link to the welter of different stories on the matter - Link. The other links on the right hand side cover other aspects of the story.)

This has rumbled on for almost a month now, despite his widespread personal popularity among the British public. His party may only be the third most popular, but as an individual he has consistently been the most highly rated by the British public, in large part to do with his consistent and principled stand against the Iraq War since before it's inception.

Rumours that he was a heavy drinker have been around almost since he entered parliament, but these have never been a particular electoral harm to him or his party, in part because they have remained unsubstatiated, but also in part because we Brits have a generally more friendly (and more unhealthy - particularly in the WAY we tend to drink i.e. in binges) relationship with alcohol than most of the rest of Europe, let alone than the rather more puritanical USA.

On Thursday evening, he called a press conference to announce that he had indeed been battling with a drink problem (for which everyone has read alcoholism), had sought treatment for it (the nature of which he didn't elaborate on), and now considered it a closed issue. However, he announced he would ask his party for a leadership election, presumably in the hope that, if he wins, he will have a fresh mandate.

He had been challenged on his drinking in several interviews, particularly since a famous incident during last year's General Election campaign, when in an early morning interview the morning after his wife's confinement during the birth of their first child, he appeared confused and disorientated. (Personally, I attributed this to extreme tiredness at the time, and I suspect most other voters did the same, but this weeks coverage clearly implies that he was drunk.) In every interview, he denied that his drinking was a problem or interfered with his job or family responsibilities in any way at all. Yet, we have been told this week, his drinking problems were "the worst kept secret in Westminster" and apparently everyone in senior positions in his party, in Parliament, and in the news media was perfectly aware of them, but chose not to make an issue of it until now.

Denial, we are now told, is part and parcel of problem drinking. I say "we are told" because I think the British are generally much less aware of problem drinking, alcoholism, etc. Given recent developments (We have the highest-rising liver cirrhosis rates in the world) one might even say that our whole culture is somewhat alcoholic.

Alcoholics Anonymous Website

Even as I write this post, Kennedy has announced that he will be stepping down as leader (despite insisting on Thursday that he would not)

This contrasts starkly with recent history - Winston Churchill is universally credited with sustaining Britain through WW2, after which it became public that he would drink as much as a bottle of brandy daily. Like Charles Kennedy, it was apparnetly common knowledge in "the Westminster Village" that he did so, but nobody made an issue of it until well afterwards.

Is heavy drinking that stops short of alcholism a problem in political leaders?

Is it a problem to have a recovery alcoholic in positions of responsibility, if they remain in recovery? I'm aware that President Bush is a recovering alcholic, and that he achieved that through his religous faith rather than through a formal 12 step recovery program. Nobody seriously disputes that he has not taken a drink for many years, and certainly not since his election to the highest office. If you choose to cite him as an example in any response, please only do so to illustrate a principle; I don't want to see another yah-boo Bush-Bashing vs Clinton-Bashing thread

Is it hypocritical for senior journalists and policitians who know of a senior figure's problem drinking to say nothing about it until the story breaks, and then weigh condemning what they knew all along?

How far into the private lives of political leaders extends "the public right to know"?

Is heavy drinking that stops short of alcoholism a problem in political leaders?
It could be, but there are plenty of examples where it wasn't. As long as there is no negative effect on their jobperformance, political leaders can drink 3 bottles of brandy a day as far as I am concerned.

Is it a problem to have a recovery alcoholic in positions of responsibility, if they remain in recovery?
Same answer as above really. There is no clear yes or no answer to any of these questions.

Is it hypocritical for senior journalists and politicians who know of a senior figure's problem drinking to say nothing about it until the story breaks, and then weigh condemning what they knew all along?
As far as I am concerned it should only be a story, if there is any visible negative effect. Of course the media and other politicians has the right to stay silent, and then act shocked when the news break to the unsuspecting public, hypocritical as that is, but I will judge the politicians on their jobperformance and not on their personal problems. I simply have no interest in knowing anything about my political leaders private life, unless what they do is illegal or is harmful to their job.

How far into the private lives of political leaders extends "the public right to know"?
In principle the public doesn't have any special right to know, but of course I would want to know that my political leaders are not criminals and that they are not acting against the common good or against national interests. Other than they can be do just about anything they want to in their private lives. If their job performance suffers for some reason, I don't really care for the reason, I just care to get it fixed or I'll vote for another guy or party the next time.

Is heavy drinking that stops short of alcoholism a problem in political leaders? It is a negative factor. How negative depends in part on the culture in which they live. British and French culture have a few more mechanisms in place to deal with drunk decision makers, at the expense of having more drunk decision makers to deal with. It is not, however, an automatic disqualifier.

Is it a problem to have a recovery alcoholic in positions of responsibility, if they remain in recovery? No, although recovery can present issues during the first stage, when the recovering addict has both the "fervor" and often is less than forgiving of others in addiction.

Is it hypocritical for senior journalists and politicians who know of a senior figure's problem drinking to say nothing about it until the story breaks, and then weigh condemning what they knew all along? Yes, especially hypocritical of journalists, because the stock in trade of journalists is truth. (Or at least that's what the tell us ... Rathergate, cough, cough... With regards to other politicians, I look at it more as a matter of simple political calculation. "Look out for one another when it costs nothing, but throw 'em under the bus when the cost rises or opportunity knocks."

How far into the private lives of political leaders extends "the public right to know"? Anything that, barring outside factors, can compromise their ability to perform their jobs we have a right to know. Given that the same political leaders have seen fit to enact BAC limits on driving, it seems quite reasonable to concern ourselves with the BAC when going about the people's business. This is more of a factor with the executive branches, as they are more likely to have to make critical decisions 24/7. For a judge, as long as he's sober when he puts on the robe, then its not a major concern. As the most public lush in America, I think its criminal that the Senate allows Ted Kennedy into the chamber to vote when he's in a condition that would send him to jail if he attempted to drive a car.

As a disclaimer, both my parents are alcoholics. My father hasn't had a drink in more than 30 years. My mother calls in the wee hours of the morning when she's three sheets to the wind. I know both sides, and, everything else being equal, I'd rather have a recovering alcoholic in office than a lush or drinking alcoholic.

Is heavy drinking that stops short of alcholism a problem in political leaders?
Heavy drinking clouds people's judgements. Anyone who is a heavy drinker should not hold positions of high responsibility. Thankfully, there is a balance of power between the different government bodies in Europe and America to prevent a single person's bad judgement from doing too much damage.


Is it a problem to have a recovery alcoholic in positions of responsibility, if they remain in recovery?
It depends on how long the recovering alcholic had been drinking for. I read the book "Fortunate Son--Unauthorized Biography of Bush" and it mentioned that George W. Bush had been heavily drinking over a 15 year period betwen 1968 and 1985. After watching Bush in the debates with John Kerry, it was clear to me that 15 years of heavy drinking and drug abuse damaged Bush's cognitive abilities.


Is it hypocritical for senior journalists and policitians who know of a senior figure's problem drinking to say nothing about it until the story breaks, and then weigh condemning what they knew all along?
Yes it is. People with high responsibility must be on their best behavior at all times. If a senior politician is a problem drinker, the other politicians should put that politician into rehab.


How far into the private lives of political leaders extends "the public right to know"?
The public has the right to know if the politicians are on their best behavior in their private lives. Politicians should be good role models for the children to follow. If a politician is abusing drugs, committing adultery, practicing witchcraft, taking bribes, or any other sin then that politician needs to either change his ways or get kicked out of office.

I would say so. In the case of journalists, not every episode of a binge should be made public and aired out ingloriously. If he is claiming that he is a moral, upright citizen and castigating others for their behavior, then yes, the journalists have a duty to call him out on it, or if he is failing to execute the duties that he was elected to do.



A few embarrassing episodes is nothing and shouldn't be reported. Now if he is calling in sick, not showing up for votes, and doesn't appear to be with it a majority of the time, then it's fair game. So far, it sounds as if the man you are talking about has owned up to his behavior and has acknowledged his personal problem. If he had been denying it in any way or ignoring it, I would presume it's worse and that he would not be a a capable leader in your nation. Everyone has problems, we need to quit insisting that our leaders be a Pope or something in terms of being a leader with little or no flaws.

I consider myself to be an "honest" alcoholic. I am an Alcoholics Anonymous and Alanon member, with 6 years sobriety. I speak for myself only now and not for them. I am always scared to death of drinking again. All of us, even "the recovered" having these problems have a higher risk of being "under the influence", at any time, than a "normal" non-chemically-influence-susceptible person.

I also see/know how even a little alcohol/drugs/chemicals., can degrade mental and emotional capabilities.

I know I am very, very, very biased, and strongly opinionated in my responses in the following. I apologize now for all that I may offend.

Is heavy drinking that stops short of alcoholism a problem in political leaders?

Any drinking/drugging/chemicalling is a problem for political leaders because of degraded performance, when max performance may be needed. I see political leaders as "max performance needed on call 24/7/52 employees." They have to be "up and ready at all times". The president, for the heaviest example, is followed at all times by a guy with something they call informally "the football" with nuclear release codes available instantly and always, to launch a US nuclear strike. I don't want any chance of that being in any way a degraded performance environment or action.

Is it a problem to have a recovery alcoholic in positions of responsibility, if they remain in recovery?

The catch is: How do we/they know they are still, at all times will be, recovered?" There are lots of non-alcoholics to choose from for public office. Play the odds right and let them be the public office types. Let us with the wisdom we gain from fighting "our problems", and there is such wisdom, apply it at the ballot box. A a hare call! But, it's Liberty on the line.

Is it hypocritical for senior journalists and politicians who know of a senior figure's problem drinking to say nothing about it until the story breaks, and then weigh condemning what they knew all along?

Yes indeed. Also immoral and unethical I believe.

How far into the private lives of political leaders extends "the public right to know"?

All the way, for all those issues that might/will have even a slight chance of yielding less than "max performance needed on call 24/7/52."