Thursday, May 20, 2004

I've become a big fan of watching the British Parliament on C-SPAN. Those guys understand the art of political debate. Watch them go at it for a while, then compare it our pallid imitation of political discourse, and you begin to think that maybe the Revolutionary War wasn't such a hot idea.

Last night I watched Tony Blair answering questions from the House of Commons, weaving paragraph after paragraph of perfectly turned prose, every comma in place. The rhetoric got pretty lively, and Blair took some hard shots from the opposition. Occasionally, the camera would switch from the opponent to Blair as he waited his turn to respond. I expected him to look angry or concerned or at least thoughtful, but instead he was grinning. Clearly, he not only welcomed the public challenge, he positively relished it. You gotta love that. No spinning flak, no prearranged questions, no memorized nonresponses -- just the sheer joy of competing in the public arena. When did American politics stop being fun?

By the way, Blair said one thing that struck me as news, besides the condom protest that did make the news. He was asked whether, after the June 30 turnover of power in Iraq, the Iraqi government would have full sovereignty, including control over prisons and oil fields. Blair said that it absolutely would.

In this country, I have never heard anyone even suggest that the June 30 turnover would be much more than a formality, sort of a glorified student council form of government. Was Blair sandbagging? Does he know more than we do about what will happen? Is some split looming between us and our best ally?

No comments: