Thatcher and perspective

I really think the US would hugely benefit from the British tradition of having the PM take questions from Parliament. It forces the PM to stick to policies that can be justified and explained to the public.

Have you watched the PM respond to questions in the House of Commons on C-span? Doesn't make our Congress look so articulate, either. Maybe take a look at their journalists. . . . :-)

This shows one of the great differences between the British system and the American system. Their PM knows that answering questions comes with the job. Our President only gets grilled when they want to. MPs are used to asking and answering questions at a pace that puts US pols to shame. I believe that British pols are much more articulate because that's what the job requires. US pols are not required to articulate their policies in an effective manner, so they don't.

I was reminded of that interview (the rte one) when Palin was doing her interviews. iirc there was a formal complaint to the Irish embassy and the planned interview with Laura Bush was cancelled after it.

Whatever their politics there is something impressive about politicians that can hold their own in a conversation (George Galloways visit to the senate is a good example).

Margaret Thatcher tangling with a British subject over the Falklands War

Her monarch status probably made things a little easier.... ;-)

I really think the US would hugely benefit from the British tradition of having the PM take questions from Parliament. It forces the PM to stick to policies that can be justified and explained to the public.

This shows one of the great differences between the British system and the American system. Their PM knows that answering questions comes with the job. Our President only gets grilled when they want to.

Unfortunately, it's not going to happen, because of basic constitutional differences between the US and the UK, as Coldstream point out. In the US, with our system of separated powers, the president and members of Congress are elected independently of one another. Neither owes his job to the other.

In the UK, with the parliamentary system, the PM and other executive officers are *themselves members of Parliament*, and they serve in their positions because their party controls the House of Commons and has chosen them for the posts they hold.

The PM and other Cabinet officers in Britain *have* to answer probing questions from members of Parliament because Parliament has the power to vote them out of their jobs.

In the US, by contrast, there is really no constitutional stick that Congress can use to compel a president to answer questions in detail, or truthfully, or for that matter, at all.

Thomas R., I agree, especially since at the time that particular BBC program aired Thatcher was in her late fifties and had been Prime Minister for about four years, which makes comparing Sarah Palin to her seem pretty incongruous. Moreover, Thatcher and her husband were both reportedly extremely angry with the BBC after this segment was filmed.

Houghton, I don't think Rod is being unduly influenced by Andrew Sullivan, who is still complaining in a blog post published today that Sarah Palin "...refuses to provide any objective record of the birth of Trig Palin." I thought we were done with that nonsense by now.

I love the British system, where the PM has to stand up for himself--no hiding behind political hacks. Also, if he isn't getting the job done, he can be quickly replaced. Sadly our government is now more like a monarchy than old England.

Well, Bill Clinton could easily answer such questions. As (with only a slightly lesser degree of ease) could Hilary or Obama. Gore for that matter too.

True, Gore might come across as somewhat patronizing. Obama might pause to reflect every now and then. You might very well find the Clintons insincere and slick. And, what's more, you might disagree with all of their opinions. But they could all handle such questions. With ease actually. Ease, consideration, erudition and real thought. They're all rather intelligent (Gore's the only one of the four who you can't say with certainty is extremely intelligent -- he might be merely bright), hard working, educated people who've spent years thinking about the problems facing our country.

The question is what's happened with the G.O.P.?

What has populism and anti-intellectualism done to the party?

I really respect the decisions Sarah Palin has made with regard to her baby and the support she's showing her pregnant daughter. But she has no business running for the office she is. It's pathetic and reckless.

Something has gone very wrong with the Republican party.

"And it's really a shame that the British national politicians are so very, very much better than our own at talking straight and sensibly."

It's because they don't need to "relate" to their leaders. They don't insist their leaders "be like them." The British understand that the leaders aren't going to be plucked from the line at the local Wal-Mart and that being well educated and worldly pays dividends. It's not about who you'd want to share a pint with, but who you want to lead you during a war. The British don't play out their grievances and victim-status when picking who is going to lead.

Rod, I love your blog and I find here terrific stuff about political, cultural, religious issues, etc., that is not to be found elsewhere.

But, man, you really are overdosing on the Sarah Palin thing :-) Not complaining, mind you. Just thought I'd share the feedback.

I've commented previously that Palin has been speedily climbing a steep learning curve the past 30+ days. There've been bumps, but she's proven to be a relatively quick study. The next 30, 60, 90 days will bring more learning by the Governor regarding foreign policy issues and more experiences dealing with the media and the whole Washington scene. She'll continue to climb that steep curve on overdrive and she'll work out fine.

She's different from you ... and from me ... and from a lot of other folks who blog here. She's not as literary or cosmopolitan as many. Perhaps she's not as familiar with the Austrian school of economics, Edmund Burke, the Oxford movement and several dozen other basic concepts which most people here are conversant with. Perhaps she'd confuse Sinclair Lewis with C.S. Lewis ... and Fulton J. Sheen with Martin Sheen.

Some probably listen to her and think, "Gosh, I'm smarter than her and I know more about global currency issues, or nuclear proliferation, or the nuances of south Asian regional security ... Why, heck, I could do a better job as McCain's running mate than her!"

Other conservatives who were hoping it would be Jindal or Romney or Huckabee (as Mac's VP) are probably still smarting a bit at the emergence of Palin. Maybe they're thinking ahead to 2012 already. If so, pushing Palin down is necessary in their minds to pushing their guy up for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012 or 2016.

But here's the strange thing. 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. Go right ahead :-)

"We award smarminess, because no one lets anyone disagree with anyone in this country. You always have to tack "not that there's anything wrong with that" and "of course, that's just what I believe" and "your opinion is just as good as mine, of course" onto any affirmative statement, if you ever dare to make one."

And don't forget "we are all sinners", a must tack on in criticizing any behavior especially if a moral value is involved.

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.

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.