Kieran Healy is disgusted but not surprised by George W. Bush's behavior on his visit to Britain:
Posted by DeLong at November 19, 2003 08:16 AM | TrackBackCrooked Timber: Democracy by Example : Like Tim Dunlop I am a little disgusted but not at all surprised to hear that President Bush will not be addressing Parliament on his visit to Britain. According to ABC News, "such a speech could invite the kind of heckling the president received when he spoke to the Australian Parliament last month."? One might have thought that a leader with thicker skin might have told the begrudgers to "Bring it on." Bush's aversion to explaining himself to people who might talk back is well known, of course, but it seems insulting to treat the representative body of your staunchest ally in this way.Some Tories appear to think so, too, though most of the anglospheroids seem content to bash Red Ken instead.
Needless to say, the spin on the visit--see the same ABC news story-- is that Bush is in London to "address" and "confront" those who doubt his policy in Iraq. He'll just be doing this without, you know, addressing or confronting anyone.
Come on, now. Bush has proven his Texan-American Bulging Manhood yet again. Going into an unsecured country *without* even a single division of US troops, *without* diplomatic immunity for his bodyguards, and *without* a total lock-down of all England.
NPR reported this morning that Bush will be meeting only with British 9/11 victims families, evidently not with those of British troops who gave their lives for basically nothing in Iraq.
Perhaps no one wanted to see this man, but it probably is designed to ensure no embarrassments, and continues to exploit 9/11 long after the event.
I think they are making a partisan movie comparing Bush to Reagan. Reagan has ranch. Bush buys ranch. Reagan visited the queen. Bush visits the queen. Surprising that no one is suggesting that the trip is about diplomacy.
Posted by: bakho on November 19, 2003 01:18 PMBakho - interesting. Reagan and Thatcher got along very well. Bush and Blair get along very well. Reagan talks free trade but practiced protectionism. Bush does the same. But Reagan pointed most of this towards Asia (as in Japan). Bush is China Bashing. Etc.
But I'm hearing rumors that Bush will be bashing the EU too?
Posted by: Hal McClure on November 19, 2003 01:21 PMThink of Bush as Reagan II, and following the rule of thumb that sequels aren't as good as the original.
Posted by: Barry on November 19, 2003 04:03 PMA very long time ago as a student at an English university, I learned that while students in Britain have debating tournaments, American students have public speaking competitions. The difference is subtle but significant.
Whereas the seating arrangements of the Houses of Congress - and most European assemblies - are shaped in a semi-circle facing a rostrum for a speaker to address an audience, in Britain's Parliament - and student debating chambers at universities - the seating is arrayed in parallel benches on either side of the house, separated by an intervening space.
Government ministers together with government supporters sit facing the members of the house who do not support the government. Come a change in government after a general election and the parties switch sides. It is said the early original rationale for the separation with an intervening space was to minimise the prospect of sword fighting developing between members sat on the opposing sides. The "cut and thrust of debate" is an aged expression in English parlance. The notion of recognised and accepted opposition is built in to both the language describing debates and the seating arrangements of debating chambers. Legislation of the 1930s formally recognised a salaried position of the Leader of the Opposition, which was already long established in practice over centuries although without remuneration.
President Clinton, who attended Oxford, is aware of this tradition, while President Bush is perhaps not, which may explain why he is not to address Parliament during his state visit here. I am uncertain how well American politicians would feel at ease dealing with the prospect of interventions, formal and otherwise, which regularly feature in Parliamentary debates. Some Parliamentarians have built formidable reputations on their faculty for dealing wittily with spontaneous interventions. The experience of interventions can be intimidating - and is often intended to be so.
Posted by: Bob on November 19, 2003 06:25 PMThe London police (who are controlled directly by the Home Secretary) were forced to allow today's large protest demonstration to go past Parliament, which Bush is too chicken to address. He will be shielded from the marchers as well.
The penny has dropped that Bush has given nothing in exchange for British support - and lives - in Iraq. Guantanamo? Steel tariffs? Kyoto? You must be joking, it's reelection time. The kopeck and koruna have also dropped as well: no contracts for Poland - see http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=118113&owner=(IHT)&date=20031119125018.
If there's a next time, the United States will be alone.
Posted by: James on November 20, 2003 01:37 AMBut, James, President Bush has told us how committed he is to virtue and utterly opposed to evil. By his later comments, Tony Blair was most impressed.
Posted by: Bob on November 20, 2003 06:19 AM" police (who are controlled directly by the Home Secretary) were forced to allow today's large protest demonstration to go past Parliament,"
I confess some interest in the quantification of the term "large" in the above report. A million man march? 100,000? 10,000? As many as protest the abolution of fox-hunting? As many as have died of Mad Cow Disease? (uh, as many "people" as have died of MCD -- if the number of protestors equals the headcount of the livestock slaughtered in UK epidemic-controll measures, the crowds were "large" indeed ... )
I thought the bit in Bush's speech about the U.N. -- "the UN has no stronger supporter than your prime minister " OWTTE, -- strongly suggested that Bush was (much?) less strong a UN supporter. Which isn't exactly news, mind you.
As a citizen of "the most dangerous nation on Earth", I find my own attitude toward the UN to has lately become extremely Marxist. As Groucho said, "I can't see myself joining a club that would have ME as a member."
Posted by: Pouncer on November 20, 2003 07:42 AMBlair has downgraded Parliament more than any other Prime Minister in living memory. He probably told Bush not to bother with the Talking Shop as in his view it's not important.
Posted by: PJ on November 21, 2003 07:41 PM