As Rummy makes his way around Asia, Japanese TV has been focussing on the matter of Japan sending troops to Iraq - on some mission or other. Obligatory clips of Dubya speaking to the converted masses at home got me thinking how similar U.S. politics is to that of countries it despises most i.e. those led by demagogues. Have you ever seen a speech given by a U.S. president on home soil that isn't received rapturously by the audience? How exactly does that differ to speeches given by leaders Great and Dear? I've seen Tony Blair (and of course Major and Thatcher before him, and indeed other politicians) been given a horrendous time by all sorts of audiences. Possibly the best was that of a Minister of Education giving a speech to the Teachers Union who was greeted with reverberating silence when he finished. In the U.S. elections and politics in general appear to be fought out via paid advertisements and seem to consist solely of sound bites. Where's the debate? Where does dissent get a proper airing?
Posted by Joe at November 16, 2003 10:50 PM"how similar U.S. politics is to that of countries it despises most"
How right you are! So many of the things that are considered repugnant are somehow ignored when practised by one's own country. The prisoners at Guantanamo certainly leap to mind...
Posted by: Lisa at November 16, 2003 11:20 PMDebate is an illusion and dissent is out of vogue. But, who cares, England won the semifinal (rugby, that is).
Posted by: martin at November 16, 2003 11:29 PMThere certainly was no French dissent in the match and with every game, bar one (poor Carl!), going with form, debate isn't so much illusory as unnecessary. (Rugby, that is.)
As far as the current U.S. administration, I think most of it is suppressed in voluntary fashion.
Posted by: Joe at November 17, 2003 08:08 AMI lived in the US for quite a while, and I have seen dissent. The question for us in watching Dubya delivering a speech is not 'Where is the dissent?' but rather 'Why aren't we seeing the dissent?'
Posted by: DJ at November 17, 2003 01:37 PMI can accept that dissent is there in the background, but it must be far in the background so that the cameras aren't close enough to capture images. Agreed the journos should go and search them out, but that's the complicity I was getting at. It's also appears to be a complicity that is there irrespective of the party in power.
Posted by: Joe at November 17, 2003 03:10 PMLet's not forget that journalism is Big Business. But the answer is not necessarily that the dissent is hidden in the background, either. It's very simple: the President makes two speeches in one day - one to an angry, hostile crowd and another to a bunch of pomp-worshippers. Which speech makes national TV?
Posted by: DJ at November 17, 2003 03:25 PMDo you think he ever really makes a speech to a hostile crowd? On home soil?
Posted by: Joe at November 17, 2003 03:54 PMIt has happened, Joe. There were a few doozies in the days leading up to the Iraq war. Not that you'd know it from the US networks.
Posted by: DJ at November 17, 2003 10:41 PMI look forward to the day I see such an occasion on TV.
Posted by: Joe at November 18, 2003 02:53 PM