...and wrong about ours? Has anyone else ever listened to British Prime Ministers speak? You may not always agree with their politics, but they're all exceedingly bright and articulate. We end up with Presidents who are either very privileged, politically-slick (and slimy), overly religious, ignorant, or some combination of these. What is it that we do wrong? Don't we have any bright people with vision who can/want to survive our political process?
It's a great question. The campaign season is shortened, people seem to participate more and expect different things out of their politicians there. But I don't know exactly how to pinpoint the differences. I think media and education is different there, and those seem like the two biggest factors to me, but I'm not 100% sure.
The bright sounding ones aren't charismatic or trustworthy in the eyes of the American people. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and went to Oxford, but he was known more for his flavorful personality. When I think of articulate presidents, the last I think of is Wilson. While he was academically intelligent, he didn't fare too well managing political egos within his party and in Congress. Plus, in this age of soundbites and catchy slogans, there is no pressing need from the parties to bring forth that kind of guy. He could mess up off camera, say something divisive within party lines, or be attacked upon prematurely from a fully articulated but publically under recognized platform. By bringing forth photogenic and easily malleable politicians who might not be bright under the hood, the parties have an easier time mass producing their messages and ideology from the advisors lurking in the background.
If you’re trying to win an election, you need to talk to the level of the majority of the constituency.
Seriously though, have you ever seen PMQs? (Prime Minister's Question Time) This is a weekly Q&A session with our PM, which gets very adversarial. It's not like your average debate. To remain credible, a Prime Minister has to be able to think on his feet, keep calm, and sound articulate on topics that he had no idea might come up. If the PM reads any kind of pre-prepared "speech", he tends to get barracked. Maybe this kind of regular practice makes ad-hoc speeches relatively straightforward.
The best part about their system is that weekly Q&A with the prime minister. Damn, that is harsh. I would LOVE for our guys to duke it out on a regular basis on live national tv. That would ROCK!!!
It's the accent. Thatcher was Reagan in drag. Major was Jimmy Carter Blair snuggles up to George at night. The grass is always greener...
Great question, Cohen. In my opinion, this has to do with what politics has become in the CNN/24 Hour News/Soundbite and Photo-op world we live in. Anyone who runs for President knows in advance that their lives will be put through the meat grinder. The press, and the opposition, will be looking at everything in the candidate's past to try to get a tidbit that the public can glom onto. That being said, I believe the people who would make the best Presidents, regardless of party, just do not want to put themselves, their pasts, and their families under the media microscope like that. Therefore we are left with the second stringers. Q: Where is Abraham Lincoln now that we need him the most? A: Teaching in Illinois. There is no earthly way an Abraham Lincoln type politician would want to run for President these days.
Simple. A two-party system vs. a many-party system. It all stems from this. Although I don't know if I'd necessarily call the British system "right".
I've listened to Clinton and his wife speak extemporaneously, and they were both pretty articulate. Reagan could read a speech pretty well, too, and was quick on the quip. Also, not a few of the Conservative leaders in Britain were dolts IIRC.
It's a parliamentary system. You don't get to vote for the PM. You vote for your member of parliament and the leader of the party with the most seats...gets to be PM. Also....no term limits.
So a PM would be someone who knows how to get other politicians to vote for him and make them think he could best represent his party. Whereas in America, to get into the game requires a large sum of money. Then you have to have a good media image, irregardless of the political record. Then you have to do polls in 50 states, see which ones will be close, angle your campaign to win those close states, and hold the easy win states, so that one will get enough electoral votes.
I don't think its our political system but our educational system and culture which no longer upholds rhetoric and oratory as a skill among our politicians. I've said repeatedly that GW Bush is a sign of that because there are many resonably intelligent people who uphold GW Bush for being "plain spoken. " and sounding like a "real person." (as though you can't be plain spoken or a real person if you use good sentence structure.) We've become a soundbite society that values a quick quip like "Bring em on!" over The Gettysburg Address. I find it surprising that Laura never had a stronger influence on GW's diction. One would've thought that she would've made him read some Shakespeare every now and then.
Great Britain though changing is still connected to an eletist system, an overriding monarchy and the House of Lords. The ruling elete are not required to work for a living and so can emphesize a more formal education that include erudition and oratory. In doing so they maintain an esoteric culture. American society is more egalitarian, developed as a rebellion against English entitlement. We prefer prefer our leaders to be 'of the people'. Perhaps the most eloquent and only quoteable recent president was John F. Kennedy and he was often derided as American royalty. Though much like Barry Switzer we was really just a bootleggers son. American politics are like mass marketing; appearance over substance, hype over reality. But, a politician that took the time to really explain complicated positions would be ignored anyway in a society raised on TV.
