I want to gripe again. My
question is this. When do you ever hear what a politician really thinks?
Maybe Donald Trump’s tweets are
genuinely his thoughts. But if they are, then where do his more reasonable
speeches come from? Are they really what he thinks and wants? Or are they what
his speech-writers reckon will go down well with his audience at the time?
Certainly his minders minded when in the early days he strayed off-script. And
it’s probable that they now also try to vet his tweets, with limited success it
must be said.
Meanwhile on our side of the pond
it’s fairly obvious that our prime ministers don’t have the time to write the
host of speeches they choose to deliver every week. One imagines that their
party minders, the ones who pre-brief on coming speeches, suggest a promising
topic as well as a crowd or party pleasing line; the PM chooses it and the
speech writers produce it for her to deliver. And so we have the curious
phenomenon of shifting policy arguments stated with all the conviction of a
university debating chamber.
How I long for a politician whom
one knows where they stand! And I don’t think I am alone. I suspect the
perceived straightforwardness of Jeremy Corbyn accounted for the unexpected
success of Labour at the last general election, and the beautifully articulate
rigidity of the honourable member for the 18th century, Jacob
Rees-Mogg, explains similarly his unaccountable and regrettable popularity
among certain circles. Even the wily Father of the House, Ken Clarke, remains
consistent at the expense of his
colleagues falling asleep.
There is, it seems, a struggle
between politicians of convenience and politicians on conviction. Sadly often
those with political aspirations start off with conviction but the pressures of
expediency and the pursuit of power soon squeeze them into the mould of
convenience.
It would be nice to believe that
a good interviewer might elicit the truth from a politician. But of course the
party machines have that awful possibility covered as well. Their
representatives are intensively trained in interview technique, which we
recognise all too well. It seems to boil down to, “Don’t answer the question
asked. Have a sound bite and repeat it at every opportunity. Above all, stay on message.” In my view, the
adversarial nature of the interviewing game has done nothing for honest
politics. Belligerent interviewers such as John Humphrys simply produce
defensive politicians.
Let me add one thing. I’m not blaming
politicians more than anyone else. The rest of us have a mob mentality, like a
pack of hounds led by journalists on their high horses, seeking out any
weaknesses and hunting down our prey to their political extinction. We relish
the chase. Perhaps if we respected our politicians more, who are entrusted with
a huge responsibility on our behalf, we might receive the respect of their
honesty in return.
So, meanwhile, are Donald Trump’s
tweets the nearest we will get to knowing the honest views of a politician? If
this is as good as it gets, how sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment