Burn the Witch! Burn the Witch!
I love politics. I love the questions and the debates and the search for a better way of doing things. I even wanted to be a politician once, and still toy with the idea even now. But I hate all the cynicism that goes with it. I really do not understand why, but people seem to take an almost hysterical glee in hating politicians. Quite frankly, I find this absurd. The vast majority of people who go into politics do so because of a desire to do some good. They are amazingly hard working people who have to work exceedingly long hours. And yet people just love to hate ‘em.
Last night, I watched Frost/Nixon:
Loved it. It’s a superb film that I would recommend to anyone with an interest in politics. Or, indeed, anyone with an interest in entertaining, thoughtful, intelligent, perceptive, films. I even forgot to drink my Heineken – that’s how gripped I was. So, this film has prompted me to write a post I’ve been meaning to do for a while – one that was originally to be titled ‘I Love Iain Duncan Smith.’ I have decided to rename the title because the above film reminded me of the fact that this modern day witch hunt against politicians is no modern thing. It did not all begin with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair (both of whom – although it is astonishingly unfashionable of me to admit – I have a great deal of respect for) – these witch hunts were going on back in Nixon’s day and, no doubt, before that as well.
What I loved so much about the film was its refusal to demonize President Nixon. It approached the Watergate issue in a balanced way that, I felt, made allowances for human failings because of the fact that Nixon was human and, therefore, imperfect, rather than suggesting Nixon was a villain and, therefore, evil. People love to look at it in black and white, but surely there is only a great big mess of grey in politics – and especially in Presidential politics.
It seems to me that politics suffers from something that I shall refer to as the Spiderman Effect. Everyone loves Spiderman at first – in the same way that people suddenly ‘love’ reality TV contestants (despite the fact that they don’t actually know them), and everyone loves a political party when it first comes to power because ‘everything will be different now’. But no matter how much Spiderman gives to the people, they will always turn against him sooner or later because even Spiderman cannot make peoples’ lives instantly perfect. That is why if any politician or political party is around for long enough, the public will always turn against him (or them) in the most vicious way imaginable, quite blind to any of their past achievements. It’s stupid nonsense, of course, like deciding you suddenly hate Spiderman, but it’s true just the same.
I often cringe to see the way the audience behaves on Question Time. I can practically see the pitchforks. When I was studying politics at college, I went to a Q and A thing in Westminster, with John Reid representing Labour, and Iain Duncan Smith (then the party leader) representing the Tories. Being 2003, Iraq was high on the agenda and, in fact, John Reid and Iain Duncan Smith were saying more or less the same thing on this issue. Imagine my astonishment, therefore, when John Reid was earnestly applauded by the audience, and Iain Duncan Smith was enthusiastically booed. Even though they were both saying the exact same thing! It was as if people were so set on disagreeing with Duncan Smith that they did not even hear what he was saying. They began to boo even before he had finished his first sentence. In fact, as soon as he came on the stage, people started jeering and holding up signs mocking the ‘quiet man’. I realised then that it didn’t actually matter what Iain Duncan Smith said to us, he was never going to receive applause. What a truly sorry state of affairs. I was ashamed to be part of such an audience. I must say, though, that he handled it all with extraordinary grace and eloquence, and even though I am a staunch Labour supporter, I was terribly impressed and wrote him an extremely gushing letter when I got home. I take my hat off to him for his patience, but I don’t think I could remain quite as cool in the presence of such dire stupidity, and would be very tempted to pull a John Prescott which, no doubt, would go down very badly indeed.
It seems that at least one out of every three ‘questions’ on Question Time is not a question at all but rather an audience member’s rant about all the things they think the government is doing wrong. And then – the cherry on top of this ridiculous cake – is that when the panellists actually debate a point of policy, they are very often maligned for ‘squabbling.’ Honestly, what an absurd choice of word. Disagreement is the entire point of a debate. It allows for the exploration of, and search for, new ideas. No matter how much people might wish it were otherwise, there are no pantomime villains in politics. If someone is after fame and riches then politics would be the very last route they would choose.
I particularly hate hearing people refer to a political leader as ‘stupid’. Take President Bush, for example. You can disagree with his policies all you like – indeed, I disagree with most of them myself, just as I would disagree with any other Republican – but to suggest that the man is stupid is nonsense. You don’t get to be the President of the United States unless you are an extremely intelligent man, and any suggestion to the contrary is an utter fantasy. Wild, emotive insults of this type only serve to give less credence to genuine criticisms.
If politicians or parties are instantly dismissed as a ‘waste of space’ then, no doubt, this makes the speaker feel very clever and superior but, let’s be honest, it is a cop out. To sneer at the efforts others make whilst making no effort yourself is a childish sort of strategy. As Charles Dickens remarks in A Christmas Carol: ‘it is always the person not in the predicament who knows what ought to have been done in it, and would unquestionably have done it too.’ I have no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with my political views on any or all counts (indeed, I very much enjoy it if we can debate it intelligently). What I have no patience, or respect, for is this trend for politician-bashing. One that, as Frost/Nixon shows, is not a new craze, and is not likely to end any time soon. Vapid insults directed against politicians are boring to me. As Father Copleston once said: ‘If you refuse to sit down at the chess table, you cannot be checkmated.’ Genuine political debate has therefore got to be more than simply bleating in a whiny voice: ‘the politicians are doing it wrong’ – it’s got to involve some suggestion as to what would be doing it right. Repeatedly shrieking ‘burn the witch!’ will achieve nothing, and, if you’ve really got nothing more condemning to say than that, makes you look a bit of a fool. Criticise politicians by all means, but at least have the sense to do it intelligently if you want to be taken seriously.
Maybe - just maybe - the truth is that there are no easy answers in politics, no quick fix solutions, no secret money trees growing round the back of 10 Downing Street that the PM guards jealously because he doesn’t want to pay out on health care etc. This is why the debate is so fundamental - because it is the search for the least bad way of doing things. I have found few people able to rationally discuss politics - especially at university where everyone liked to think they were against ‘the establishment’ which, to hear them, you would think had been doing things wrong for years out of pure stubbornness - but it is a real pleasure to find the odd person who is willing to engage in genuine political debate rather than a playground-like exchange of insults.
My point in all this is that if only a few more people in the audience in Question Time would actually ask a question when they get the microphone (rather than shrieking: ‘burn the witch’), and then, once they get the response they requested, extend the politician the intellectual courtesy of accepting it as the best answer they are able to give at the time (being only human rather than Spiderman), then perhaps debate would be calmer, more rational and more productive. It never pays to hate Spiderman, after all.
This post has gone on long enough, although I’m sure I will blog about specific political issues in the future because I just find it all so interesting – like getting a little brain workout. But now, because every political rant should end on a light note, here is a snap of my Great Dane – the most beautiful dog in the entire world – getting into the Christmas spirit:
Tags: Great films, Moose, Politics
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Actually, people disliked Spider-Man because he frequently made weird choices: disobeying the law when it fit him, siding with villains like Venom, and being a regular guy instead of a legend, like Captain America. People hated him because he was a man with super powers, who made mistakes like any other man in a field where the people demanded legendary goodness.
Same reason he was wildly popular, though, especially with strange little kids like me.
/adjusts glasses
/straightens pocket protector
/takes a hit off the inhaler
It is interesting to see how much politics has become a matter of magic, actually. In a way, it’s kind of written like a good fantasy novel, but the audience is demanding an awful one.
What they want is someone who is unquestionably good, flawless, raises the dead with his words, slays the dragon and makes the lame walk again. What we’ve got is a series of difficult decisions that ultimately leave us wondering if there will ever be a happy ending.
This is made worse by the fact that a lot of politics (at least in the U.S.) are becoming increasingly identity-based (“I don’t care what his policies are, I just know he drives the same kind of car I do!”), thus OUR special hero is THEIR horrific villain, which means THEIR special hero must be the real bad guy.
By realizing those decisions are difficult, a lot more thought could be given to them and, without the pressures of the pitchforks, as it were, a rational solution could be found.
Of course, that would mean admitting that life was hard.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
Sam, all the cool kids like Spiderman (adjusts glasses etc)! Interesting points, though. Don’t know much about Captain America, but other heroes like Superman have more of a God-like quality, whereas Spiderman - being a regular geek beneath the mask - is more unforgiveably fallible.
I suppose politics has always been bound up with personality to a point. If a politician is good looking and charismatic then people want to like him. I think it’s really interesting (and more than a little disturbing) that in the Kennedy/Nixon debate, people who heard it on the radio thought Nixon had won, whereas people watching it on TV thought Kennedy the victor more because of the fact that he looked calm and handsome than what he was actually saying (although Kennedy is my favourite whatever the medium).
Life is hard, indeed. I wouldn’t want to be the one making the PM or President’s decisions for anything. Especially when they know people are, as you say, just gagging for a really awful fantasy novel.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Ok I can’t help but ask as it keeps bugging me, but what is it exactly that you respect about Bush and Blair?
December 30th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Oh, Wilfred, from the disbelieving tone of your question, I sense that here we must finally disagree. And we were so completely in accord over the animals and the bugs! It had to happen some time, I guess . . .
Your question, however, requires a blog post all of its own! Perhaps I will do one eventually, so I don’t want to get drawn into an overly long response in this, the lowly comments section, of the blog. But suffice to say that I respect Tony Blair for being an eloquent, charismatic party leader who led Labour to an unprecedented series of electoral victories (must have been doing something right, eh?). He also seems to have a very good sense of humour (although I suppose this is more a reason for my liking him rather than respecting him). In short, I believe him to possess (in spades) wit, integrity and honour, and I think it’s a disgrace that he was pushed out of power as he was. In addition, I could name numerous social and domestic policies in which our political ideologies are exactly in accord.
As for President Bush, there are very few social issues that would find us in agreement because, as a Republican, President Bush was, by very definition, right wing, whereas I am a definite liberal in almost everything (saving, perhaps, penal and fiscal policy, in which I am a little more middle of the road). But a person does not have to be exactly the same as me in order for me to respect them. I think President Bush had the misfortune to become president at an extremely difficult time and, for that reason, people love to demonize him, whilst completely overlooking any aspect of his presidency that does not involve Iraq. I find this narrow minded and unfair. If you do not look at a thing objectively, in its entirety, then how can you possibly comment on it rationally? I think people should be able to discuss other aspects of his presidency irrespective of whether or not they think sending troops to Iraq was justified. And I think he was in an impossible position because if he had advocated a less proactive foreign policy then he would have faced accusations of weakness and appeasement (as, of course, poor old Neville Chamberlain did back in the 1930’s). Indeed, this no win situation is evident in the fact that President Bush has faced contradictory criticisms for his actions in the Middle East. Some have accused him of going to war to benefit Israel (i.e. serving Jewish interests rather than the interests of peace), but then in the same breath he is compared to Hitler who, as we all know, was no friend to the Jews.
I believe there should be some recognition of the political reality of the situation rather than this shrill, hysterical, black and white outlook that condemns him so utterly for a policy decision that was, ultimately, designed to save lives. Whether his decision was right or not, let’s not indulge in this absurd fantasy that it was made with anything other than his country’s best interests at heart. And, not being Spiderman, it must have been extremely difficult for him to know what to do in such a scenario (the similarity between this and the Cuban Missile Crisis faced by President Kennedy in the 1960′s springs to mind – the difference there was that the gamble paid off, and so presidential actions were applauded rather than vilified). At the very, very worst, President Bush’s decision was misguided and wrong, not evil.
I therefore respect him as an extremely intelligent man, and leader, (‘dysverbia’ is not indicative of stupidity, people), who did the best he could when faced with an impossible political situation, and has received a very rough deal indeed. I sincerely hope that, as with President Nixon, history will rectify the injustice of this.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:16 am
Bush… hmm, I’ve heard of him somewhere. Now let me think. He must be in American history, at a guess, not having left too much of an impression apart from a few not so good things as I remember…. isn’t that the guy who started off with a 1 trillion dollar deficit and then when he left had managed to get it up to 10 trillion in a matter of 8 years? Wasn’t that the guy who invaded a sovereign nation without a declaration of war (or indeed approval of the American people in the form of the senate or congress) (I’m not saying he was wrong doing it - but there is this little thing called the “Geneva Convention” that prohibits that type of behavior and that deals with people like that by asking to take a trip to The Hague to discuss issues along those lines)?? Oh - isn’t that the guy who said that the war in Iraq would take 40 billion dollars, and signed a 110 billion dollar appropriation fee JUST FOR 2009 ??? (and that’s all that we know about - I’d say it’d be pretty safe to double it, don’t you think??). Oh - hang on, it’s starting to come back to me now. Isn’t he the guy that one of my people did the audio system for during a private session with the pharma industry where they agreed to support him and in return he’d “look after them” - wasn’t there an issue with medicine being really expensive in the USA and you can get the same stuff in Canada for a fraction of the price, and they tried to stop it coming in from Canada because you don’t know if it’s “safe” ??? (mind you - they WERE the same boxes from the same manufacturers…). Hmm, well, if it’s HIM, I would say that the man is an absolute idiot rather than merely misguided…. Am I missing something??
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 am
My suspicion is that the recession would still have affected America, even if another man had been President. It was not a simple matter of President Bush plunging the country into a depression single handedly. Global market forces must take some of the responsibility, surely. We shall be blaming George Bush for earthquakes and ice storms next.
As for the Iraq War and the Geneva Convention etc, if actual, qualified lawyers have become entangled in bitter argument as to the legality of the war, then who am I to pronounce it absolutely legal or illegal? I do, however, think there was a legitimate argument for enforcing the will of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441.
Medicine etc - most of what I know about this comes from Boston Legal so I am not really qualified to enter into a debate on the issue. However, I never said the Bush Administration was perfect - only that it should not be demonised - and, indeed, personally I would always rather see a Democrat as President of the US. In the constant search for the “least bad” way of doing things, no administration is ever going to have a spotless record (not even in the West Wing!).
I was aware when I wrote them that my views on this matter would be unpopular but they are my views, nevertheless, and so anyone with an opposing viewpoint will simply have to agree to differ with me on this one. I don’t think it’s a bad thing either. Disagreement is surely one of the most important aspects of any democracy. (A luxury, one might add, that would not have been granted citizens under the old regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan).
February 5th, 2010 at 5:58 am
I must say, this has been a very refreshing view to read. I should put a disclaimer here, first, that I am almost precisely the opposite of you in political views, Alex, being very much a supporter of many of those right wing policies that you seem to oppose, though I prefer to self-identify as libertarian/conservative/classical liberal (for those who are not aware of this distinction I might suggest reading up on your political history).
I am always charmed when I am able to have a civil, reasoned debate about politics with someone who recognizes that my views are shaped by a wealth of reading on the subject and a lot of careful thought, rather than promptly demonizing me as a “evil right wing monster who wants to kill the poor polar bears” when I say that I stand for the 1960s strand of Republicanism in America, exemplified by Barry Goldwater, and for the views espoused by such exemplars as Rockefeller, immortalized in stone at Rockefeller Center. That’s a very rare thing, these days, and I count it a matter of great joy that all the friends I have are able to deal adequately with opposing political viewpoints, and enjoy a rousing debate about such things. Helps that we’re mostly lawyers and philosophers and journalists and the odd academic, though.
I will admit, in passing, that I have nothing but contempt for those people who spout streams of vitriol at a particular leader without being able to articulate, in a reasoned, measured way, arguments for or against their views. If I dislike a leader, it is based on a clear-headed (albeit shaped by certain a priori normative views of what the proper place of individual, society and state should be) evaluation of his policies and whether they are appropriate to the circumstances, taking into account any information limitations that might be present.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Kwok Ting Lee - I, in turn, have found your comment an extremely refreshing one to read(I always enjoy your comments, in fact!). With a balanced, reasonable attitude like that, I am sure you and I could have some cracking debates!
The right seems to have a tendency to be demonised more than the left, for some strange reason. When I studied Penal Policy at university I was the most right wing person in the class (in fact I was the only one - it was a small class). I was accused of cold heartlessness more than once. And my classmates adamantly refused to even consider the possibility that the right wing ideas of politicians could stem from anything other than blatant populism.
They could not concede that perhaps some politicians are right wing because they believe right wing policies will be more effective, rather than because they are shamelessly trying to court public votes. Nothing stifles a debate more quickly than an absolute refusal to extend a degree of intellectual courtesy to your opponent, and I have no patience with this disturbingly common trend.
No useful purpose can possibly be served in demonising people who are attempting to govern responsibly, and when I hear such remarks made about Tony Blair, George Bush or any other leader, I’m afraid I simply dismiss them out of hand as uninformed, sensationalist, nonsense. If there is to be a debate, then let it be a proper, *interesting* one with actual *facts* rather than the incoherence of emotive reasoning and the inappropriate use of generic trump cards that, depressingly, always go something along the lines of: “I just think e’s a waste of space.”