Political Hard Men: Why Successful Politicians Need Enforcers
By Will Barber Taylor
At the heart of politics may lie compromise but to gain such compromise politicians have to be in a position of strength. The nature of political strength can be sometimes illusory; a leader who might once have come to power through the wave of public approval can be vilified by the public just as quickly. Yet, one of the constants of political discourse is that most successful politicians have loyal deputies, ready to smooth the path ahead for their leader’s success. Julius Caesar had Mark Anthony in the same way that Tony Blair had Alastair Campbell. Dozens of political giants felt they needed someone who could do the dirty work of discipline and interpersonal management without them getting their hands dirty. Whilst it is obvious what leaders get out of it, what do their “enforces” receive from the relationship?
Yet what, if anything drives the Political “Hard Men”? Is it solely a means for their own advancement? In some cases this is true; Sejanus, the effective right hand man of Tiberius seemed to have only played his part so that he could climb the ladder of power (though the veracity of this is questionable given that most of the sources that tell of how heinous Sejanus was were commissioned by those who ensured his death for treason: the Emperors of Rome) in the same way that Mark Anthony, though supposedly the ally of Augustus Caesar wanted all of the Roman Empire for himself.
Yet these traitorous deputies are perhaps more of anachronism. Whilst political enforcers do still betray their leader, this is less of a phenomenon now that it was during the height of Roman debauchery. Therefore, if it isn’t personal gain which drives those who do the back-breaking work for leaders why do they do it?
In some cases, it is personal affinity more than ideological bent — Bobby Kennedy masterminded his brother’s successful Senate and Presidential campaigns not just because he agreed with his brother politically but also because he was his brother. Yet, in most cases it is a common ideological goal and the success of that goal that drives the political enforcers of today. Alastair Campbell believed in New Labour as much as Bill Clinton’s lead strategist James “The Ragin Cajun” Carville believed that Clinton could transform America. These were men who put themselves in the front line not simply because they believed in their leader but that they believed what they stood for and that they would be the best conduit to achieve that change.
Does this mean therefore that political enforcers are simply needed for tough elections, to keep the troops in line and ensure that the election strategy goes to plan? No necessarily. Both Alastair Campbell and Putin’s right-hand man Vladislav Surkov were key to each leader success in government — they smoothed the path for their leader’s legalisation and helped promote their image. Of course, in Surkov’s case he would hardly need to help Putin much given the latter’s strangle hold on his country.
This is perhaps only a short summary of why political hard men are important and a more detailed summary has the potential to be written at some point. The political enforcer is an archetype that is vital to understanding how politics works — without an enforcer leaders would not be able to keep people in the party inline without compromising their own standing with them; they act as a buffer to ensure that the leader can lead without being sucked into every aspect of a campaign or a government. They are often the driving force behind change in this country and around the world and should, therefore, never be underestimated or ignored.
