Reader Ryan F., a conservative, sends along this five-minute video clip of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher tangling with a British subject over the Falklands War. It's astonishing to watch and to see what its like to see a politician who knows what she's talking about defend her policies:
As Ryan writes:
Can you imagine Sarah Palin being grilled like this? Then again, can you imagine GWB? When did our leaders cease to be able to answer tough questions. . . .
I think the questions answer themselves once you watch the video. And the answers are pretty sick-making.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The more people put her down ... the more she just keeps popping back up. The more of the right kind of enemies she accumulates, the more endearing she becomes to social conservatives and other people who are tired of being sneered at and pushed around. So if folks here want to keep putting her down, don't let anything stop you.
Too bad it isn't having any impact on the ticket. The more she talks, the worse the ticket is doing in the polling. While she isn't to blame for McCain's problems, she definitely isn't helping in the slightest beyond the people who already were planning on voting for McCain.
As others have pointed out, a parliamentary system does emphasize and polish these skills in a way ours does not.
That's not to make excuses for, say, Palin - who while really not ready for this gig has the legitimate excuses of having really only been at this sort of thing for several weeks (on the national stage) and beseiged by a media gripped by a Pavlovian disdain for her. But even a stiff like Gordon Brown can run forensic rings around most of our politicos, even the lawyer ones. It's part of his weekly job.
"First she claimed that the enemy ship was sailing towards the British fleet when it was sunk, but when presented with the facts that showed it was sailing away from the Falkland Islands, Thatcher abandoned that point and shifted to the rhetorical tactic of claiming that it was an unspecified danger to the fleet."
Which was the real premise of Thatcher's decision, and in reality the only one necessary to give the order to sink it. Course and speed are really irrelevant since either can change in seconds, and it's clear Thatcher knew that. A major enemy warship sailing in a war zone in close (by late 20th century naval standards) proximity to your own naval and amphibious forces? Does anyone doubt that Churchill, Asquith, Salisbury, or either of the Pitts would have given no more than a moment's thought to give that order?
On the whole I thought Thatcher's respone was restrained and crisp to what was a hectoring pacifist unlikely to accept any answer given the PM at face value.
As with some others here, I don't think the direct comparison is quite fair. Nor do I think the further premise that Britain creates more articulate politicians is necessarily true either. As pointed out, Maggie Thatcher in this clip is a good decade older than Palin, with loads more experience, including the equivalent of a full presidential term under her belt. But even if Palin never measures up to Thatcher as a speaker, why is that an indictment of American politicians in general and their communications skills? Thatcher was a pivotal figure and an objectively great politician. Britain has had it's share of nonentities as PMs too. Do you think Gordon Brown is capable of this level of discourse? If so, I haven't heard it from him.
On this side of the pond, I'd say that Reagan, Clinton, Gingrich, Cheney, and Cuomo (off the top of my head) were equally good in an extemporaneous discussion. To cite some rising GOP stars that seem equally capable, I wouldn't put it past Eric Cantor or Bobby Jindal to perform like this either. I'm sure someone on the other side of the aisle can point out some rising young Dems of equal skill. You're right that the American system puts less pressure on people to engage in this kind of give-and-take, but that's a far cry from asserting that we've stopped creating politicians who can do it.
However, if you are unconvinced and have to assign blame, I think that it resides in two places. First, the Parliament has a more rough-and-tumble style than our House and Senate. Senators give speeches from the floor, Parlimentarians argue. Even at hearings, your average Senator spends roughly 1/3 of his time asking a question, and 2/3 of his time prefacing it by waxing eloquent on his own views to grandstand for the cameras. The second reason for the difference is that we have the option of electing executives who have never spent any time in the legislature. In England, the highest executive office other than the PM is that of Mayor of London. While London is an impressive city, in America we have 50 state executives who tend to hog the top spot (this election excepted of course). If they have any legislative time, it's usually in state legislatures. If California (the only legislature I'm familiar with) is a representative example, that training ground is fairly bush-league compared to Parliament.
Being a bad speaker doesn't necessarily mean a president will make bad decisions - or choose the wrong topics to prioritize. And likewise, history is loaded with examples of good speakers who were evil dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). I don't think Palin's folksiness automatically disqualifies her from office. . . .
BUT - let's face it, it's helpful to have a leader who is a good communicator, who is willing to face tough questions, and who can explain their decisions in a thorough manner. With Bush - don't you think one of the reasons his administration has created so few opportunities for him to be cross-examined by the press is because of his Palinesque malapropisms?
As far as the British leaders being better communicators: sorry, Britian wins hands down. Bush didn't convince me that we should pursue Iraq or other aspects of the War on Terror. Tony Blair did. Their parliamentary system, their journalists, and their citizens demands blunt, rigorous debate. We tolerate soft ball interviews and vague platitudinous speeches.
I do think it's important to point out - for balance - that Obama is very rarely rigourously cross-examined.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.