Motty weighed in the balance

Ian Boyne, Contributor

If there is one thing all of us can agree on, it is that Wilmot 'Motty' Perkins did not stand on ceremony and was notoriously disdainful of custom and tradition. Like the tradition that you must not speak evil of the dead. He repulsively and nauseatingly violated that sacred dictum the very day Michael Manley died, launching a grievously unforgettable attack on his life and character.

Motty was like a reincarnation of the ancient Cynic philosopher Diogenes, pouring contempt on the sacrosanct mores of the society. How ironic it is, therefore, to see all these worshipful, in some cases cultic, tributes to Motty - some coming from journalists who are supposed to be trained in scepticism and shorn of sentimentality. It does not honour the memory of the outstanding warrior journalist and guerrilla commentator whose motto was 'take no prisoners'.

Wilmot Perkins was, after all, a human being like all of us - flawed, fallible, and feckless in some points. To deify him is to dishonour him. To critically and rigorously assess his life and work is not to disrespect his memory, but to pay homage to what he prized - if imperfectly lived up to - critical thinking.

Ideological combatants

Motty and I were ideological combatants. We had been engaging in combat since the 1970s. In politics and economics, he was a reactionary. (I don't use this as a term of abuse). I am a progressive. His most despised Jamaican political leader was my political hero, Michael Manley. We were polar opposites, ideologically. He was philosophically a libertarian. And like the typical libertarian, he did not properly nuance the liberty-equality, individual-group, state-market equation. You can't understand Perkins and his vitriolic rantings about government - whichever government - unless you understand his philosophy. He was the most philosophically consistent person who ever practised journalism in Jamaica. (More consistent than my close friend and mentor, the late John Maxwell).

Motty was very Hobbesian in his view of the State. Explaining the views of philosopher Thomas Hobbes, conservative scholar Corey Robin says in his 2011 book, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin: "Hobbes insists that there is no way to be free and subject at the same time. Submission to government entails an absolute loss of liberty ... . When republicans claim that citizens are free because they make laws, Hobbes claims they are confusing sovereignty with liberty.

"Hobbes' idea of private liberty pervades libertarian discourse ... where the government's primary purpose is to protect the citizenry from foreign attack and criminal trespass; where people are free to go about their business as long as they do not interfere with the movements of others; and where contracts are enforced and security is ensured." It is no wonder that Perkins would sometimes read sections of my column which he would dismiss as "absolute nonsense" and "rubbish", for I would argue for an activist State and progressive politics. It is the same thing Manley was arguing for, which earned Perkins' ire.

That Manley's socialist experiment ended up an economic disaster, and that he did prove politically inept and made grave strategic miscalculations, was not the essence of Perkins' searing, relentless attack against him. Perkins found his entire political philosophy anathema. It was nothing personal, as we foolishly like to think, making everything personal and petty. Perkins had profound philosophical differences with Manley and progressive thought.

Libertarians want a minimalist; a 'nightwatchman' State.  Manley wanted an interventionist State. Worse, Manley wanted to have a New International Economic Order where globally centralised actors could take decisions affecting the lives of citizens in individual states. Perkins was alarmed. Whereas Manley saw group action as a means of expanding individual liberty - making the point, as progressives do, that liberty of the individual means nothing if he is poor and marginalised - Perkins saw the State as necessarily oppressive, restrictive and corrosive. That is why he popularised Lord Acton's statement in inner cities all over Jamaica: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." You can't really understand Perkins without understanding his philosophy.

Wilmot Perkins was a man of philosophical integrity. Those who felt he was a Labourite were too silly to understand him. That is why they were confused when he would attack Seaga and Golding fiercely. We, in our narrow-minded, tribalist thinking, can't understand people outside our senseless prism. Perkins' stout advocacy for constitutional reform and his crusading human-rights, anti-police stance, which heavily influenced Golding earlier as well as the modern civil-society movement, was all consistent with his libertarianism and his view that the individual was sovereign. Individuals, and not the State, have justiciable rights, as his radio listeners would be told, contra David Coore, as he would tell it.

In my column of November 17, 2002, I said of Perkins, in one of my many references to him over the years: "Wilmot Perkins is usually good at posing interesting questions, though not as good in providing intellectually rigorous answers."

Loved learning

Perkins was a highly intelligent man who obviously loved learning. In a profession locally which has been shameless in its anti-intellectualism and where many journalists and commentators speak contemptuously of book learning and theory, Perkins stood out. He was not shy about quoting Marx, Mannheim or Malthus, or in displaying his historical and political knowledge.

I remember the very first article which marked his return to journalism after a self-imposed exile. It was titled 'Trench Town ideology', and was written between 1976 and 1977 in The Sunday Gleaner. It was a very cerebral and learned piece about the ideas of sociologist of knowledge, Karl Mannheim.

From that first article, I never missed a single column of Perkins. I followed him in Money Index, and then The Herald, and after he left print - he was one of the most elegant stylists this country has ever produced - I trekked with him to radio. I just could not resist Motty. I often used to wonder what I would do after his departure, knowing that he was unlikely to be replaced for his combination of intellect, passion, colourfulness, charm, flamboyance, style, humour and disarming laughter. That day has come.

Motty was feisty, fierce and frontal in his critique of sacred cows - whether it was the Church, the political class, the judiciary, the business class, or sports or entertainment idols. (He did not have much use for Marley and was blasé about Bolt.)

Perkins scandalised many by his open advocacy of gay rights. Homosexuals must be free to engage in their practice, Perkins preached, as long as they are not hurting anyone. People must be free to take drugs, including hard drugs, if they are harming no one but themselves. He was a libertarian pure and true.

Use our brains

He had no place for a God who hears prayers, espousing a deistic view: "God has given us a brain. We must use it!" instead of praying for help. God, whoever He or She is, according to Motty, had created us and gone off to do other things. He left no holy book; only reason and our individual will. Which we must never subvert or surrender to the State, Church or any institution or person.

Perkins was also a social Darwinist who rejected notions of a nanny state there to help us. People must fend for themselves. When Government tries to help, politicians inevitably control and become corrupt. It's the nature of power, Perkins believed. Perkins did not keep current with his reading, certainly not in economics and international affairs. He was incredibly naïve about global economic affairs and what it took for countries to grow. His understanding of the Singaporean Model was hopelessly lopsided and his knowledge of what made the Far East such an economic powerhouse badly lacking.

But, in my view, Perkins had some strengths which trumped all his weaknesses. There was no journalist - ever - who was more fearless, indescribably courageous and genuinely independent. He wanted nothing from any politician. He craved no favours, wanted no job with them, and no board position. Perkins was incorruptible. I can't think of a finer model of journalistic integrity.

Yes, he was many times unfair, unbalanced and unjust in his criticism of others. Perkins has angered me many times with his recklessness remarks about people and his mischaracterisation of them. (His cult following will come down hard on me, but I guess my own cult following will come out in my defence at my death - at least, I hope so!)

No other journalist in this country has the impeccable and flawless record Motty has in attacking people in high society. It is fashionable to attack politicians. But people are generally intimidated to attack the owners of Big Business because of the economic power they wield and the fact that many of us, as journalists, are looking for favours from them. Perkins attacked Butch Stewart, Oliver Clarke, Mayer Matalon and the Ashenheims with equal fervour and abandon as he did politicians and judges.

Couldn't be bought

He famously attacked Butch Stewart's 'Save the Dollar' initiative years ago, dubbing it derisively "the BS initiative" and calling it "voodoo economics"; never minding that he was getting few ads after doing so. You could not buy Perkins. The courage of conviction that Perkins had is what we all need, and is his greatest legacy. Perkins was prepared to be the outlier, the outsider, the genuine independent. He was his own man. He left us as journalists a compelling legacy of integrity and independence.

It is this spirit of Perkins, this willingness not to be seduced by political or Big Business spoils and scarce benefits; a willingness to live in the bush and not even depend on the State for electricity or water, which immeasurably appeals to me and speaks volumes to an overly materialistic, status-driven society, which is at the root of our corruption.

It did not did not matter to Perkins whether you invited him to your cocktail party or over to dinner. He wanted no post from you. Not even awards he would take, whether national or professional. He never needed any.

His award was conferred by multiple thousands every day he went on air; by people who held on to his every word and who savoured his memorable laughter and delectable characterisation of public figures. I was for him 'God Boyne'. Ah, Motty, if you were right on that, I would resurrect you!

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.