Bill Clinton

Face Of The Day

Hillbilly-632x846

Strategy and Narrative vs. Principle and Conviction

Something that fascinates me is that politicians always talk about their political heroes being people of principle, like Reagan and Thatcher, yet most of them seem to have no principles that I can discern. They don’t stand for anything much, and that is very disappointing.

Ever since the “third way” infected politics world wide we have seen a focus on strategy and narrative rather than principles and conviction.

 As political parties became “brands”, their principles were reduced to “attributes”. Just as Heinz may change the level of salt, the label or the price of a can of baked beans, political parties began to ditch or adopt policies to suit the public taste, day by day, week by week.

How we laughed in No 10 when Tony Blair agreed with Bill Clinton that “the most important person in the world is the member of a focus group”. I even inserted a joke about it into a speech John Major gave before the red hordes massacred us in 1997. But after the deluge, the Blairite approach to politics became accepted wisdom. Strategy and narrative were in, principle and conviction were out.

The rise of the pollster and focus group junkies…upon us and still upon us.

Opinion research is critical in politics, but only if it is used to tell a politician how to communicate, not what to believe – a point Lynton Crosby, the election guru who will advise the Tories’ 2015 campaign, repeats ad infinitum. It provides a map and a compass, but the leader must set the direction. Before 1997, we certainly did too little of it. But politicians who are guided by polls are chasing will-o’-the-wisp in a forlorn search for popularity. They are not selling baked beans, but something more complex: vision, belief and leadership. And the more politicians change to reflect every passing fad, the less the public believes what they say, and will-o’-the-wisp flits away.

We lack conviction politicians.

Nor am I saying that politicians should worship at the shrine of a holy grail of principles. Such blind devotion is at the top of the slippery slope of fanaticism. There is a world of difference between that and the sheet anchor of belief, the integrity of politicians who sticks to their guns, and of whom even their enemies begrudgingly admit, “They’ve got guts – they’ll speak their mind, whatever the consequences.”

There are precious few politicians in New Zealand prepared to speak their minds. I blame MMP.

“Whatever the consequences”: that’s what it boils down to. Yes, speaking one’s mind can mean exposing uncomfortable truths. Yet what is the point of being a politician if you don’t speak your mind? What hope do we have as a country if our politicians stay silent on issues, for fear of losing votes?

Such refreshing words and yet so disappointing.

The mindset of political strategy is now poisoning the well of politics. Those politicians who do have the guts to highlight unpalatable truths, and what they would do about them, are criticised. On Europe, politicians are told that voters don’t care about it – so shut up. Meanwhile, politicians talk of taxing “wealth” more because of what that would “say” about their party, not whether it is the right or wrong thing to do.

All this puts presentation before principle. Remember what used to be Conservative principle? “Cutting taxes has been shown to be the greatest stimulus to economic growth and personal freedom there has ever been. Every pound we cut in tax is a pound more for people’s choice, a pound more to create work for others, a pound more to buy things for their family. Apologise for that? Never.” That was John Major in 1992, just before he won more votes than any Prime Minister at any election. He was the last Conservative to win a general election outright. Mea culpa.

Food for thought for John Key, food for thought.

Breaking The Taboo (Trailer)

On December 7th, a documentary will be released on YouTube (yes, released on YouTube, not MSM).

Narrated by Morgan Freeman, this groundbreaking new documentary uncovers the UN sanctioned war on drugs, charting its origins and its devastating impact on countries like the USA, Colombia and Russia. Featuring prominent statesmen including Presidents Clinton and Carter, the film follows The Global Commission on Drug Policy on a mission to break the political taboo and expose the biggest failure of global policy in the last 50 years.

Bookmark this page if you like to view it.

 

Tories ditch no poofters rule

The Conservative party is getting with the times:

George Osborne last night placed same-sex marriage at the centre of the Tories’ bid to win the next election.

Invoking the politics of Margaret Thatcher, the Chancellor urged his party to get in step with “people and how they want to live their lives” if they wished to stay in power.

His call came in an analysis of why Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney in the US election despite rising unemployment and even polls suggesting that the Republican candidate was trusted more to turn the economy around.

Mr Osborne said that the Republicans had lost “swathes of voters” because of their traditionalist positions on social issues.

His comments represent a break from conventional political wisdom about what wins elections summed up by the strategists behind Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid”.

He said the Republicans’ position on abortion had alienated women voters while Mr Obama’s gamble on publicly endorsing gay marriage appeared to have paid off.

Julia Gillard is a big girl’s blouse

Julia Gillard and her supporters like Anne Summers are acting like big girl’s blouses:

I agree with Summers it is ”terrible” to call the Prime Minister a liar. However, when I asked her if she had expressed such a view when Howard was called a liar, she declined to answer the question. Summers also takes offence that, on occasions, Gillard is referred to as ”she” or ”her” and maintains that ”previous prime ministers were accorded the basic respect of being referred to by their last names”.

This is manifestly not so. Moreover, last Thursday Gillard used the words ”he” and ”he’s” in one sentence when referring to Abbott.

This is normal conversation.

It seems that Summers’s evident sensitivity has had an impact on Gillard. Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister complained that Abbott was ”now looking at his watch because, apparently, a woman has spoken for too long”. In the 1992 US presidential campaign, George H.W. Bush was criticised for looking at his watch when debating Bill Clinton. This is not a gender specific act. Nor is being told to shut up. Nor is being called a ”piece of work”. Last year I was called a ”piece of work” by the Sydney University academic Simon Chapman. It took me a full eight seconds to recover.

The problem with such over-readiness to take offence is that it can lead to setting impossible standards. Last Tuesday, Gillard stated Liberal parliamentary members who were present when Alan Jones made an offensive comment about her late father should have either left the room or walked up to Jones ”and said this was not acceptable”. Yet neither Wayne Swan nor Tanya Plibersek took either course of action last Wednesday when a comedian at a trade union function they attended made an indefensible reference to a senior female Coalition staffer.

Clinton does standup

Quite funny. Slick Willie should go on the road as a comedian.

Tagged:

This could easily apply to Len Brown

Len Brown is like Barack Obama in many ways. Elected on hope and change, and delivering nothing in particular, and during the first debate exposed as a hollow man. Dana Milbank explains why Obama was so exposed.

Barack Obama received a valuable reminder in his drubbing at Wednesday night’s debate: He is a president, not a king.

In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush. Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, Obama has shied from mixing it up with members of Congress, too. And, especially since Rahm Emanuel’s departure, Obama is surrounded by a large number of yes men who aren’t likely to get in his face.

Good money for a blowie

Monica Lewinsky is scoring good money for a tell all book about her now infamous blowies…$12 million is a lot of hooter for someone who didn’t swallow.

Monica Lewinsky may be planning a return to the public eye with new memoir about her relationship with former President Bill Clinton, according to reports.

The former White House intern, who turns 40 next year, is reportedly writing a book that could be worth $12 million.

As a 21-year-old intern Miss Lewinsky was at the centre of a scandal that engulfed Mr Clinton’s presidency and nearly forced him from the White House.

She co-operated with the British author Andrew Morton on a previous biography called “Monica’s Story” which was published in 1999.

Reports suggest that the new book would include more salacious material about Mr Clinton, and her love letters to him.

Rumours of a book project surfaced a week ago when the New York Post reported: “We’re told Lewinsky has been making the rounds with major publishers, who were all asked to sign nondisclosure agreements to take the meetings,” A representative for Miss Lewinsky told the newspaper: “I cannot comment on anything at this point.”

The National Enquirer reported this week that a publishing deal could be worth $12 million.

The Blood and Guts election

The Guardian

So much for hope and yes we can, now it is all about running up and punting the opponent squared in the goolies. ‘The Axe’ looks set to do just that:

Axelrod had good news. According to leaks from the closed-door meeting he assured those present that the campaign was ready and willing to pour tens of millions of dollars into negative ads attacking Romney in key states such as Florida, Virginia and Ohio. Indeed, they have already been doing just that. Masterminded by Axelrod, the Obama campaign has been airing brutal attack ad after attack ad. One of its latest efforts featured Romney singing an off-key version of America the Beautiful.

Finally a pinko that will man up.

Bush had Karl Rove, Bill Clinton had James “the Ragin’ Cajun” Carville and Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush both had Lee Atwater. These are men for whom politics is more of a knife fight than a battle of ideals.

Yes that’s what we want…a blood and guts election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Good on ya Barack

CNN

The current situation is noteworthy because the Democratic Party seemed to have the exclusive franchise on piteous bleating dating back to Richard Nixon’s victory in 1968 and throughout the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush years. Truth be told, the Democrats managed to keep whining throughout most of the triumphant Bill Clinton years.

The game changer clearly has been Barack Obama, whose surprising taste for bloodying the noses of domestic critics and foreign adversaries seems to hark back to the last time the Democrats were unashamed political warriors.

That would be 1960, when John F. Kennedy and his snarling little brother Bobby made political “ruthlessness,” unrestrained campaign spending, Teamster support and Mayor Richard Daley’s vote-counting techniques into virtues. The era of bullying Democrats pretty well ended with Jimmy Carter’s cardigan sweater and “malaise speech.”

Pity the Labour Party whine so much and don’t just try to bloody noses too. Any half decent opposition MP would be hammering John Key on his tacit support for domestic violence, having a party president who has been accused of using slave labour on his fishing boats or asking who Mr B is and why Mr B’s dogs need suppression orders.

Instead they let Trevor show his early onset dementia by not remembering an opponents name.