Joseph Sabino Mistick: Lesson from Britain on what’s best for America |
Joseph Sabino Mistick, Columnist

Joseph Sabino Mistick: Lesson from Britain on what’s best for America

Joseph Sabino Mistick
Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson

When British politician Edmund Burke received news in 1774 that he had been elected to represent the people of Bristol in Parliament, he told a gathering of voters that he would not mimic their wishes or the desires of any faction when deciding how to vote on the issues.

Instead, he would use his best judgment — after gathering and considering all the facts — and decide what was best for the nation as a whole.

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion,” Burke said.

Politically it may not have been the smartest thing to say, but Burke pulled no punches. Compare that to those American politicians who blindly follow the will of a particular leader or the momentary whims of the voters, without regard for what is best for all.

Actually, as it turns out, America can still learn a lot from the British.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson — the Donald Trump of Britain — has found that the spirit of Burke still lives there. Johnson’s demand for a clean break with the European Union, without provisions for future trade or travel or defense, was defeated when 21 fellow Conservatives voted to oppose his plan.

And those who voted against Johnson did so at great risk to their own political careers. He had warned them that they would be expelled from their party if they defied him, but they defied him anyway.

The 21 expelled members included many former government ministers, two former chancellors and Nicholas Soames, Winston Churchill’s grandson.

That’s fortunes of war. I knew what I was doing,” said Soames, who has served as a Conservative member of Parliament for 37 years.

And there were other acts of political courage by those who were unwilling to bend to Johnson’s will and support a plan that they believed would harm their country.

Jo Johnson, Boris’ brother, resigned his seat in Parliament. Jo had opposed leaving the European Union and opposed his brother’s plan for a no-deal Brexit.

“In recent weeks I’ve been torn between family loyalty and the national interest — it’s an unresolvable tension & time for others to take on my roles as MP & Minister,” Jo tweeted.

And Amber Rudd, a senior member of Parliament, resigned from Johnson’s cabinet, calling his Brexit plan “an assault on decency and democracy.”

It would be nice to see that independent spirit in America again. Right now, far too few Republicans are willing to break with the Trump administration, even on deeply held principles — be it the climate, health care, income inequality, immigration or guns.

And any Democrat who wants to get anything done knows that a strong Republican Party, with members who are free to vote their conscience, is vital to progress. Democrats sometimes bemoan the chaos of their own party, but the freedom to dissent is better for America than blind allegiance to one man or one organization.

Burke wanted more for us. He argued for conciliation with the American colonies, not war. And he said that freedom is the “cure of anarchy.”

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer. Reach him at [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.