‘Read it. Discuss it.’

‘Read it. Discuss it.’
: The Guardian gives high praise to Tony Blair’s speech on terrorism, telling readers to read the speech and discuss it.

But it is a very serious speech, intellectually demanding and carefully expressed throughout most of its length, about an indisputably big, difficult and complex subject. It is a speech worthy of its subject, and it deserves the respectful attention of all who take politics seriously. At a time when politics is widely felt to be so disreputable, that is no small achievement. It deserves an appropriately respectful and thoughtful response that goes beyond attitudinising.

The Telegraph calls it “an eloquent case for going to war.” Even The Independent praises the speech as “one of the most substantial and genuine of his premiership.”

This is what it feels like to have an eloquent statesman as a leader.

: UPDATE: The Observer chimes in, too:

But his central argument, which we fully support, was that, given the nature of the terrorist threat, it should not have been so hard to find political legitimacy for action. The threat of terrorism, he argued, requires the international community to be able to use pre-emptive force. Again, we support this view.

The US has shown itself woefully unprepared for Iraq’s reconstruction, but that does not undermine the Prime Minister’s crucial point. Terrorism does represent a new threat and it does require new responses. The international laws that served us in the aftermath of the Second World War are overdue for reform. Mr Blair will not silence his critics by describing them as ‘cynics’ – they are not – but his call for a new world compact based on shared international beliefs and interests is a vision that supporters and critics alike should support.

16 responses to “‘Read it. Discuss it.’”

  1. Catfish N. Cod Avatar
    Catfish N. Cod

    Yet in the same newspaper, the Guardian also interviews Blix as saying Blair ‘lacked critical thinking’.
    (via AP, USA Today)
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-06-blix-blair_x.htm
    Don’t think the Guardian’s, you know, let up on Blair or anything.

  2. Scott Chaffin Avatar

    Where’s my daily Passion of the Howard?

  3. Carson Fire Avatar

    As the victim of speech impediments myself, I’m always in a state somewhere between being amused and offended that so many otherwise enlightened people judge our intellect on our occasional stutters and gaffes. Of course, I should know better, since I’ve seen enlightened people hire based on how pretty an applicant is. I thought we were supposed to be working away from judging people by such shallow criteria. Guess not.
    Oh, wait, that’s right… Mr Jarvis has been defending Howard Stern, and Stern makes it a practice to lampoon and demean stutterers and other people with defects. That’s OK, Howard’s well within his rights to do so because he’s eloquent.

  4. Tom Brandt Avatar
    Tom Brandt

    Jeff and others praising Blair’s speech are clearly praising Blair’s ability to clearly, logically and forcefully state his position on these very serious issues. They are not praising his ability to speak in public. Jeff invited his readers to read Blair’s speech, not listen to it.

  5. KMK Avatar

    Peter Hyman left in Dec. as Blair’s main speech writer. Can anyone tell me who is writing for him now?

  6. Carson Fire Avatar

    Tom, I should have said that I was referring to the slap at the end – “This is what it feels like to have an eloquent statesman as a leader.” That is clearly not a reference to the text of any Bush speech, but to the way he delivers it.
    So you are right, it’s apples and oranges. I think we agree on that.

  7. Reid Avatar

    Style usually triumphs over substance. I’m always amazed when I explain one of the many reasons for going to war in Iraq, that everyone knew about, with war opponents and they say “but Bush didn’t make that argument.”
    Like they can’t think for themselves and come up with independent conclusions without having to be spoon fed. It’s like they think they’re in a jury that has been instructed not to consider anything but what the attorneys present. Or something.
    Most of the virulent Bush opposition appears to be based on style over substance. They dislike some of his specific policies, sure but, the bulk of their mouth-frothing hatred and contempt is founded almost exclusively on issues of style.

  8. Franky Avatar

    I think Jeff has a great point here. We have, as a citizenship, allowed our public speaking to degenerate rapidly over the past quarter of a century. I’m currently reading A History of the Peloponesion (?) War, and am impressed by the great eloquence that seemed at hand to every small bit politician in ancient times. While we have Bill Clinton described as a “great communicator” – yeah, this was the guy who talked of building a “bridge to the 21st century”, so what if we don’t build this bridge, we won’t get to the 21st century? Vacuous verbage.
    Oratory is a crucial component of deomcracy, and the implication of the high esteem we hold it in is that we are rational people who can be reasoned with. When oratory is in decline, as it has been for so long (“I have three words I know Bush underastands : Bring it on!” now that one made we want to renounce democracy), it is the admission that we can’t be reasoned with.
    I’m sick of politicians framing their arguments and speaking as if they’re talking with the dumbest 15% of our population.
    Oratory is important and so is its delivery.

  9. Oliver Avatar

    President Reagan and President Clinton could teach our current crop of presidential aspirants a thing or two about how to communicate with the people. Then again, I don’t have to cringe when John Kerry is asked to speak off the top of his head – when with Bush, its a trainwreck of “Uhs” and “Ums” waiting to happen.

  10. angell Avatar

    Clinton could teach our current group how to kiss terrorist behind and how to appease terrorists. That is what he was best at. John Kerry makes me cringe big time–today he says onr thing, tomorrow the exact opposite. He is a moonbat .
    http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200403050842.asp

  11. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    Look, I like eloquence as much as anyone — I make a good living out of being the rare geek who can give a talk and keep people’s attention — but actually having a clue is better than being able to talk purty about the vacuum between your ears.
    Q: What’s the difference between Martha Stewart and John Kerry?
    A: Martha has convictions.

  12. Franky Avatar

    good joke Charlie.
    Of course no one disputes there must be substance, but it’s yet a further sign of our culutral low that we as a culture seem to have separated them. Style or substance.
    What happened to the common assumption in civilizations past that the two normally went hand in hand, and that without them both, the man was not fit for office?

  13. Ebb Tide Avatar
    Ebb Tide

    Imagine GWB doing a “Prime Ministers Question Time” … sure Tony Blair is briefed for those sessions, but he has to be able to get up there and deliver, OUT LOUD in complete sentences… I happen to admire that in a politician because it helps people who bother to listen the opportunity to see the person behind the office. GWB can be in the Rose Garden or Oval Office and hide, but he could never face a Prime Ministers Question Time or even regular press conferences. I am really looking forward to the debates he has with Kerry. That is if he decides to have any.
    Oratory is a tool and skill it isn’t the entire litmus test for selecting a candidate… but neither are photo ops like going down to a nascar race and saying “Gentlemen, start your engines.”

  14. No Avatar

    Jeez, what a short memory we have! I can remember even the most ardent Dems falling all over themselves at the brilliant speeches (and heartfelt delivery) of George post 9/11. Oh well, JJ is just getting all defensive about his original intent all along–to vote, as usual, for a Dem. No surprise. After all, for the media elite, it’s all ‘what war?’

  15. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    Franky: ever read any contemporary accounts of Abraham Lincoln’s speeches? Oh, they thought he was a good speaker, and certainly the speeches themselves were stellar — Lincoln was the best writer among the presidents, or perhaps second to Jefferson — but his contemporaries said he was weird, grotesque, uncouth, coarse, uncivilized. He talked funny — strange high voice, weird local accent. And his wife dressed him funny, besides.
    Or, if you’re old enough, think about Reagan, who was widely considered an empty suit at the time — and only now are we recognizing that he really was both a substantial thinker and perhaps the idea man of his administration. (If you want an example of that, read the collection of his on-air commentaries, all written in his own hand.)
    Would I rather that Bush were glibly eloquent? Sure, what the hell? I just wouldn’t exchange it for some of Bush’s real qualities is all.

  16. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Well, I’m one of those who sees no real qualities in Bush; he strikes me as basically Warren G. Harding on crack. But there’s no doubting that Blair has been a much better and more eloquent defender of the case for the war than Bush has.
    It would have been nice if the Iraq war had been about the thoroughgoing, thought-out internationalism and anti-terrorism that Blair now proposes. It’s too bad that wasn’t the case. But a debate does need to take place on how to reform international law and institutions to confront new realities. That it’s the British PM who has to lead the way in calling for that debate is unfortunate — especially since it’s the attitude of the US which will dominate whatever actually unfolds. It should really be America leading that debate.