Tony Blair: Eloquence Illustrated

[Occhidiangela]

I listened to a great deal of Prime Minister Blair's speech today on the radio. (Should have listened to PBS, no commercial breaks, but reception was horrid today.) He got a far nicer reception from our Congress than in Parliament yesterday, where he was apparently given a rough ride. I heard a lot, but what I hope everyone heard this plea:

"Success in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the mission, does not end with military victory." Clausewitz would agree. (see sig)

I enjoyed a couple of his opening jokes:

1. "I visited the place where, in 1814, the British troops burned the library in Congress. (pause) I know this is a bit late, but . . . sorry. :) "

2. "My son has been studying the American War of Independence, and he has the feeling that Lord North is generally blamed for having 'lost America.' I am secure in knowing that I may make some mistakes, but it is not likely to be one so large."

He had a few other off the cuff remarks that were quite "in stride." Glib is he.

I have watched some of his presentation to the Commons on CNBC and can only ask American politicians to take note. This is public speaking, with some wit, carried on at a high level.

As with any effective politician, his speeches and his message are of course colored by his party, policies, and priorities. Having been advised by some of my Brit friends that Mr Blair was a "pretty faced flash in the pan" Prime Minister, I'd say he has grown into his job and surprised some of his early critics. The charge that he was "a British Clinton" seem to have been off target.

Dame Thatcher lasted 11 or 12 years, as I recall, and my memory tells me that Prime Minister is a high turnover rate job.

The question: do any of our British lurkers know who was Prime Minister for the longest in single stretch? Did Dame Thatcher set a record?

Helmut Kohl set a remarkable standard with 17 years in office in Germany, FDR eat your heart out!

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

The question: do any of our British lurkers know who was Prime Minister for the longest in single stretch? Did Dame Thatcher set a record?

Not a Brit, but I'll pop in: For the 20th century, yes: Dame Thatcher was the longest-serving.

Canadian PM P.E. Trudeau isn't far behind, either: 15 years in office (although not back to back).

[Chaerophon]

Nico, how could you forget Mackenzie King? 22 freakin' years!

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Nico, how could you forget Mackenzie King? 22 freakin' years!

Because I missed my nap this 'aft? Good catch, Chaerophon.

I'll keep myself warm knowing that, while I did know of King's reign, I merely forgot it due to old age. Little comfort, considering that the majority of this forum wasn't even born yet when P.E.T retired in '84.

*tips helm*

[Chaerophon]

To my mind, this is one of the strengths of the British Parliamentary system - national leaders must directly confront at least a portion of their detractors in the house of commons. In my opinion, Bush could never exist in such an environment, as he would constantly be made to look the fool.

Even our own PM, despite his obvious linguistic difficulties, is quick on the offensive and possesses an intellect sophisticated enough to dominate the majority of parliamentary debate.

It's difficult for a fool to be propped up as messiah if he must constantly defend himself under the public eye. Formal speeches, infinite advisors, and even public spokesmen can't save the weak from the ravages of question period.

[Brista]

The core of Blair's appeal and the reason it has faded is that he has always been able to sell sand to the Arabs

Fact is now, we're no longer sure we want him to

We've had a very long period now of Tony smoothing over things we are uncomfortable with, of convincing his doubters to do things his way. He always wins the arguments.

This winter it was the firemen, a body of workers not famed for their oratory but deeply revered in any populace

Of course he ran rings round his firemen unionist opponents - he made them look stupid and selfish, nor can most of us British explain quite why that makes us so deeply uncomfortable

If I can make an analogy, I'm sitting here, glancing around at the 8 encyclopaedias I've already bought from him, hoping against hope he doesn't ring the doorbell tomorrow to try to sell me another

[WarBlade]

To my mind, this is one of the strengths of the British Parliamentary system - national leaders must directly confront at least a portion of their detractors in the house of commons.

I don't suppose you would care to expand on this? Are you saying it is uncommon for incumbent government parties to have to negotiate with the opposition parties when governing?

[Chaerophon]

Are you saying it is uncommon for incumbent government parties to have to negotiate with the opposition parties when governing?

Certainly not. However, the president of the United States is presented with no such direct burden of debate. For the most part, he remains safely stowed away until his sound bytes are needed. There are other merits to the federal system of the United States; however, for the most part, Bush answers what questions he wants to, when he wants to. The media is largely diverted to Fleischer, Rumsfeld, et al, while Bush rests on his laurels. It's simply my opinion that a leader should be forced to act like one and respond to his critics in direct debate. For the most part, his statements take the form of testimony without direct cross examination.

[A.PLH]

i agree. nothing is quite as entertaining as watching the liberal party of canada answer questions on TV. nothing quite beats their abilitity to call other party leaders idiots without actually saying it. i think it must be set up, because i don't understand how the smaller party leaders could ask such dumb questions.

one day i watched good ol' jean and one of his ministers totally own alexa and joe clark 2 or 3 times in a five minute period. no wonder they both quit as party leaders:)

[eppie]

How sweet to read people discussing the american and britisch "democracies".
First of course there is no debate with the president in the usa (not because this particular one can only answer question with the help of his advisors). The congressman are happy just sitting there and receiving there campaign money, nobody likes somebody who is being difficult, so they just listen and applaud.
In brittain there is the house of Lords of which most them (the Lords) honestly believe that they are superior over normal people and subsequently want no "normals" to be in that house of lords. (of course, what do these peasants know about fox hunting?!)
In 'rich people's democracies' even people like Busch can become president and "Thatcher can even be in office for more than a decade. (that of Kohl is however really a remarkable period of time)

[Brista]

In brittain there is the house of Lords of which most them (the Lords) honestly believe that they are superior over normal people and subsequently want no "normals" to be in that house of lords.

Actually we're ruled by the House of Commons over here

The House of Lords is mainly made up of common people who got a Lordship for their public service (top educators, top lawyers, aging MPs
and, I grant you, businessmen who contribute in the right places).

The Lords scrutinises legislation. It dots the i's and crosses the t's, sewing up loopholes in the law. It doesn't govern the country although it is a powerful body

If you really must patronise us ("how sweet") try to do so with at least a minimal amount of grammar, facts and wit ;)

[Jester]

"The charge that he was "a British Clinton" seem to have been off target."

Couldn't disagree more. (Well, okay, Clinton was better in the "sex factor". But that aside...)

He has mastered the single greatest Clinton skill: He can say a tremendous amount that _appears_ on topic without actually engaging with any opposing arguments or evidence. Never was that clearer than in his recent speech. Every sentence was qualified, every issue blurred. Iraq being related to Al Quaeda? Well, uh, maybe, but I'll include both in this heterogenous list, and maybe it will confuse the issue. The search for WMD falling apart? Carreer in jeopardy? No problemo, we'll just make some vague-yet-threatening references, and we come off smelling like roses!

Of course, the British press stays on him like the proverbial bulldog. But he seems to play well in America. Too bad yankees don't vote in brit elections. :)

To me, at least, he seems to be making himself more like Clinton, not less. He's diving for the middle, abandoning his party's traditional politics in favour of a more "smooth" approach, and using a savvy media image to deflect contentious issues, rather than facing them head on (or even flanking them a little).

To me, at least, he's a dissapointment. He could have been great, and he settled for slick.

Jester

[Jester]

... that strikes me as a difference between a monarch and a democratic leader. A monarch is fundamentally untouchable, a democratic leader is constantly engaged with the public. Now, the President of the USA is elected, but past that, he is closer to the former than the latter. Never does he have to seriously debate issues, never does he have to engage directly in the messy business of politics.

Prime Ministers, on the other hand, could be called truly democratic, in that they must subject their rule to public scrutiny to a much greater degree. There is a much greater sense that the leader is the employee of the public, not their ruler (elected or otherwise).

Maybe that's why the Prez of the US always makes me uncomfortable. The whole office has a whiff of superhumanity about it.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I have decided to point out that:

Debate is a process that goes on without the cameras rolling, every day in Washington. If you check out C Span, you can see some of the debate on the floors of the House and the Senate, but since we do not use Prime Ministers, the President is not required to split hairs all day with COngress. He has political allies, and foes, in his own party who do that. He also meets with leaders in Congress all the time trying to get his policies put into place, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. By structure, our President has a host of other concerns that require his attention. The triangular relationship between Congress, the Courts, and the Executive branch create a fairly slow moving machine, by design.

How many Presidents could handle the environment of The Commons? Maybe Kennedy, certainly FDR and TR, possibly Woodrow Wilson. Since our style is different, that particular skill in verbal jousting is not as required as it is in the British, or Canadian, system. The hot air job is delegated to Congressmen and Senators: and they do a decent job of it, and I daresay ours is a more orderly model than the Commons. Different styles, or as they say, different strokes for different folks.

This does not prevent such witticisms by Daniel Webster as: " I disagree with the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (??) but will defend to the death his right to tell such lies." _I will look up the quote, I think I got a few bits inside out_

EDIT: Hmm, can't find an attribution from Daniel Webster, but the web is full of misattributions of a similar quotation allegedly from Voltaire. For some reason, I had thought that Webster had uttered this on the Floor of the Senate in a somewhat obliqe reference to Voltaire's less acrid phrasing./EDIT

Most of the "debate" takes place in Congress. The party leaders are constantly working out compromises to get legislation through, and then Presidents sign or veto the bills. It is all covered in detail in the American press, if you bother to read it, and is posted in a variety of places, to include the Congressional record. Some stuff, however, takes a very tenacious press to bring to light. That is why the First Ammendment is so critical to our governmental process.

Your profound misunderstanding of "how it works" boggles my mind. Eppie, you demonstrate that you know less than nothing about the difference between the conflict of opinions between the public factions, and the Freedom of Speech. If you bother to move the radio or TV dial around, you will find an enormous diversity of opinion about our current administration, and the fingers they point at one another tend to be the middle one. The Dixie Chicks were, for example, censured NOT by any government, but by people, citizens, and radio stations who decided that their BS did not sit well with them. At the same time, the media is filled day in and day out with Hollywood sorts, academics, pundits, intellectuals, and "men on the street" all criticizing what the administration is doing.

Whenever a jackass wishes to equate an American President to a King, I must kindly ask him to step outside. Pistols or sabres, sirrah, my seconds will see to you in the morning.

Your assertion is both foolish and insulting. Kings don't step aside after four or eight years, they are not bound by rule of law. Our leadership is, and like anyone else, are also protected by a thing called due process of law. Ever hear of it? The court of Public Opinion knows no law, it is Mob Rule of the Loudest Mouth. That is no basis for a system of government.

Oh, yeah, ever hear of Watergate?

The last "Imperial President" was named Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[Kevin]

considering that the majority of this forum wasn't even born yet when P.E.T retired in '84.

Are we really that young here? 20 or under for the majority? I always felt the lounge was generally over 20. Heck my 28 always felt a little young, but maybe that is just because a few of the vocal members are older. :)

[TaiDaishar]

My thoughts exactly :rolleyes:

And if you, at the age of 28, feel young imagine how it is for me, at the age of 17 :)

[Guest]

LBJ could have handled it. He was a rather effective politician even if he was a hopeless leader.

[Occhidiangela]

Could LBJ have handled the Commons sort of give and take? Maybe, however, he was most effective in "the back room deal." Very effective.

LBJ was hardly useless. His civil rights legislation was progressive. His domestic focus was broad, however, he had some blinders on as regards international affairs, which is too bad. His strengths in Congressional deal making did not seem to serve him as well in his international deal making.

Useless? No. Disappointing, however, given his considerable talent in the domestic political arena.

[Guest]

Useless is my opinion.
I think the the civil rights legislation would have happend soon with or with out him. I also feel he vital to passing much legislation I feel hurt the US.

But its my opinion and I dont feel like argueing the details beyond saying I have a different view than you.

[Jester]

Well, I'm a pacifist, so the duel's going to be a little one sided. But, then, it's been illegal for quite some time, so maybe we could skip out on that one? Still, if I have to die, or be wounded, I pick sabres.

I'm not equating a president with a monarch. They aren't the same, obviously, in many important respects. What I'm saying is that they share an air of untouchability (and not in the indian sense).

This is not to say they're invulnerable. Kings get hammered plenty often, as do presidents. They just have a ritualistic or formal separation (less a legal one than a mythological one) between them and the people.

Saying that they listen to (or are ruled by the opinion of) the people is no counter either. Kings do that. Perhaps not to the same extent, often, but then I never said they were the same thing. Only that there is a "whiff" of similarity about them.

I still think that Brits, Aussies and Canucks have more of a sense that the PM is their employee, and less their ruler, than Americans with their president. I also think this is a function of their system, not just their culture.

Jester