Full Version: G8 'gaffe'
In the Casual Conversation forum, DaffyGirl started a lively topic on the table, and general, manners displayed by President Bush over a meal at the recent G8 Summit held in St Petersburg, Russia. Here's a link.
While I had as much fun with the potty mouth and shoulder massages as anyone else, my first reaction was:
Thinking about it some more, my last point wasn't really fair. Bush wasn't making the case that all would be sweetness and light, just that Israel probably would not feel the need to put their forces in harm's way if Hizbollah hadn't been launching missiles and ground offensives and kidnapping their citizenry across the border from their bases in Southern Lebanon.
So I can I can see another perspective, which I'd like to float as some debate questions:
Wouldn't it be BETTER if politicians spoke like this in their press conferences as well as when they think they are off the record?
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
While I had as much fun with the potty mouth and shoulder massages as anyone else, my first reaction was:
QUOTE(me)
Well, it speaks volumes that the only thread so far on this topic is in casual conversaion and focuses on Bush's table manners and his 'old=fashioned' attitude to cross-gender contact in business contexts.
I have to say the thing I find shocking is that the two free world leaders most personally committed to, and identified with, the 'war on terror' can be so casual and lackadaisical about it.
From the transcripts, Blair was asking if Bush thought it was a good idea for him to go to the region and Bush more or less said no, Condoleeza Rice is going. So much for the idea that a British Prime Minister might be able to formulate his own foreign policy - he feels he has to ask the US President first.
And Bush's expletive reference doesn't fill me with confidence that the complex Middle Eastern situation is well understood in the Whitehouse if the only thing that has to happen for everyone to live in peace and prosperity is for Hizbollah to "stop doing this...."
I have to say the thing I find shocking is that the two free world leaders most personally committed to, and identified with, the 'war on terror' can be so casual and lackadaisical about it.
From the transcripts, Blair was asking if Bush thought it was a good idea for him to go to the region and Bush more or less said no, Condoleeza Rice is going. So much for the idea that a British Prime Minister might be able to formulate his own foreign policy - he feels he has to ask the US President first.
And Bush's expletive reference doesn't fill me with confidence that the complex Middle Eastern situation is well understood in the Whitehouse if the only thing that has to happen for everyone to live in peace and prosperity is for Hizbollah to "stop doing this...."
Thinking about it some more, my last point wasn't really fair. Bush wasn't making the case that all would be sweetness and light, just that Israel probably would not feel the need to put their forces in harm's way if Hizbollah hadn't been launching missiles and ground offensives and kidnapping their citizenry across the border from their bases in Southern Lebanon.
So I can I can see another perspective, which I'd like to float as some debate questions:
Wouldn't it be BETTER if politicians spoke like this in their press conferences as well as when they think they are off the record?
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
Wouldn't it be BETTER if politicians spoke like this in their press conferences as well as when they think they are off the record?
While most people might have the knee jerk response: "Sure it would!" I am not convinced. There is a reason why certain words are not used in "polite" conversation. For one thing, the use of such a term loses meaning when it is too commonplace. For a person who uses a four letter word every sentence, the impact is reduced.
For another, there is common courtesy. Not swearing at someone adds a bit of deference and acknowledges that the other party is worthy of respect.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Politicians walk the fine line all the time. They can't even come out and say "Cut that nonsense out" without ticking off someone, somewhere. And you want to add tip toeing around semantics where it is acceptable in certain contexts and maybe less so in others?
For myself, I believe that expletives are useful in a very small amount of instances. In most cases, other words have better impact. In negotiations, swearing in only useful when you are exasperated or desperate. And who wants to admit to their negotiating opponent that that is your frame of mind?
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
"Hey Iran, stop the nuke program or plan on facing Allah a little ahead of schedule!" Yeah, that would go over really easily.
In short, no it would not. Diplomacy and negotiations are more than laying your cards on the table and seeing who wins. If everyone were blunt, we'd begin every negotiations (economic, military, or otherwise) with the statement : "OUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!".
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
Aside from some ruffled feathers? Have you considered that diplomacy is more than just stating your case bluntly? You need to schmooze, cajole, and otherwise finesse out most deals. Let's face it, the language you propose is only useful in the most over-the-top, we're-superior-to-you situations.
Let's take a common case of negotiation: you want a raise. Are you going to go into your boss's office and start dropping F bombs and expect to make your case? Come on...
In international politics, "ruffling some feathers" can cause some major problems.
While most people might have the knee jerk response: "Sure it would!" I am not convinced. There is a reason why certain words are not used in "polite" conversation. For one thing, the use of such a term loses meaning when it is too commonplace. For a person who uses a four letter word every sentence, the impact is reduced.
For another, there is common courtesy. Not swearing at someone adds a bit of deference and acknowledges that the other party is worthy of respect.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Politicians walk the fine line all the time. They can't even come out and say "Cut that nonsense out" without ticking off someone, somewhere. And you want to add tip toeing around semantics where it is acceptable in certain contexts and maybe less so in others?
For myself, I believe that expletives are useful in a very small amount of instances. In most cases, other words have better impact. In negotiations, swearing in only useful when you are exasperated or desperate. And who wants to admit to their negotiating opponent that that is your frame of mind?
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
"Hey Iran, stop the nuke program or plan on facing Allah a little ahead of schedule!" Yeah, that would go over really easily.
In short, no it would not. Diplomacy and negotiations are more than laying your cards on the table and seeing who wins. If everyone were blunt, we'd begin every negotiations (economic, military, or otherwise) with the statement : "OUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!".
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
Aside from some ruffled feathers? Have you considered that diplomacy is more than just stating your case bluntly? You need to schmooze, cajole, and otherwise finesse out most deals. Let's face it, the language you propose is only useful in the most over-the-top, we're-superior-to-you situations.
Let's take a common case of negotiation: you want a raise. Are you going to go into your boss's office and start dropping F bombs and expect to make your case? Come on...
In international politics, "ruffling some feathers" can cause some major problems.
Hmm. For clarity, my questions were less conerned with the use of a single profane word, and more with the generally infromal and direct tenor of the conversation between Bush and Blair.
Having been asked via PM for a transcript link, here is one: BBC News transcript
Having been asked via PM for a transcript link, here is one: BBC News transcript
QUOTE(Julian @ Jul 19 2006, 10:02 AM) 
Hmm. For clarity, my questions were less conerned with the use of a single profane word, and more with the generally infromal and direct tenor of the conversation between Bush and Blair.
Having been asked via PM for a transcript link, here is one: BBC News transcript
Profanity is only a portion of "speaking bluntly".
Negotiations are a delicate balance (as I said) of cajoling the other party, making them feel good about the decision they are undertaking, and generally coming to some sort of common ground.
Speaking bluntly rarely helps in diplomacy unless one party has clear superiority.
QUOTE(Julian @ Jul 19 2006, 10:02 AM)
Hmm. For clarity, my questions were less conerned with the use of a single profane word, and more with the generally infromal and direct tenor of the conversation between Bush and Blair.
Having been asked via PM for a transcript link, here is one: BBC News transcript
I think the problem with that is that you may often make stupid judgements and comments that you can't back out of so easily. See "Axis of Evil" speech.
My guess is that behind doors, in private, the direct and informal tenor take place anyway. I doubt we're telling Syria to be nice, I'm sure in the background we're letting them know what a tiny little *expletive* country they are and how we could start something they couldn't handle.
Wouldn't it be BETTER if politicians spoke like this in their press conferences as well as when they think they are off the record?
This administration has put the lie to my belief that we want our leaders to be more dignified and have more gravitas than Jim Bob pontificating at the local bar. But, putting Bush aside, I think the majority of Americans want someone to represent the best of our country, not the worst. So, profanity and rude behavior doesn’t belong in public. Granted, I’m sure they all cuss like sailors when the cameras and recorders are off (or on, in the case of Nixon), but in public, I want the main representative of America to be forceful, but respectful. It is possible to speak plainly and forcefully without being rude, crude or obscene. You can be personable without invading other people's personal space. You can be friendly and outgoing while still respecting other countries' customs and sensibilities.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Good question. Part of it, I think, comes from the fact that the words that come out of politicians' mouths these days are so carefully scripted. It seems like every word is weighed and critiqued by assistants and speechwriters and run through focus groups and squeezed dry of any true substance before it gets presented to the public by the mouthpiece. But, in Bush’s case, even the Gettysburg Address would come out sounding like an F-student schoolyard bully threatening other kids.
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
Again, unambiguous doesn’t have to mean boorish or crude. I think straightforward talk would be refreshing, but in today’s politics, it ain’t gonna happen...see above.
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
My opinion is, if you don’t accept your kids (or friends, or significant others, etc.) speaking crudely to you or acting in a churlish manner towards you, why would you want the leader of your country to act that way?
This administration has put the lie to my belief that we want our leaders to be more dignified and have more gravitas than Jim Bob pontificating at the local bar. But, putting Bush aside, I think the majority of Americans want someone to represent the best of our country, not the worst. So, profanity and rude behavior doesn’t belong in public. Granted, I’m sure they all cuss like sailors when the cameras and recorders are off (or on, in the case of Nixon), but in public, I want the main representative of America to be forceful, but respectful. It is possible to speak plainly and forcefully without being rude, crude or obscene. You can be personable without invading other people's personal space. You can be friendly and outgoing while still respecting other countries' customs and sensibilities.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Good question. Part of it, I think, comes from the fact that the words that come out of politicians' mouths these days are so carefully scripted. It seems like every word is weighed and critiqued by assistants and speechwriters and run through focus groups and squeezed dry of any true substance before it gets presented to the public by the mouthpiece. But, in Bush’s case, even the Gettysburg Address would come out sounding like an F-student schoolyard bully threatening other kids.
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
Again, unambiguous doesn’t have to mean boorish or crude. I think straightforward talk would be refreshing, but in today’s politics, it ain’t gonna happen...see above.
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
My opinion is, if you don’t accept your kids (or friends, or significant others, etc.) speaking crudely to you or acting in a churlish manner towards you, why would you want the leader of your country to act that way?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 19 2006, 10:05 AM)
Profanity is only a portion of "speaking bluntly".
Negotiations are a delicate balance (as I said) of cajoling the other party, making them feel good about the decision they are undertaking, and generally coming to some sort of common ground.
Speaking bluntly rarely helps in diplomacy unless one party has clear superiority.
I prefer the term "candid", and I think people appreciate directness. I don't believe that candidness and diplomacy are necessarily mutually exclusive. One can respect their audience and simultaneously make their point. Churchill did this very well, I think (well, except when speaking with Lady Aster
). Let's face it (though I have been deemed a Bush apologist/pundit/supporter on the other thread so this might come as a shock to some
) the main problem here is the speaker. Bush has a history of coming across badly. Period. Wouldn't it be BETTER if politicians spoke like this in their press conferences as well as when they think they are off the record?
Not exactly as they do off the record, but I would appreciate more directness. Talking around the subject isn't fooling anybody, and can come across as condescending.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Speaking indirectly is easier, and it's also how politicians garnered their votes to begin with...learning the art of telling as many people as possible what they wish to hear. I agree with Amlord that politicians walk a fine line, and being direct with his/her audience while simultaneously not appearing rude requires that one actually DOES respect his/her audience. And how many politicians do?
Wouldn't it be BETTER if politicians spoke like this in their press conferences as well as when they think they are off the record?
Nope. The politicians job is to run the state, not pander to the public. I think the gravity and weight of high politics demand a certain kind of dignity and I would never vote for some one who abused other people the way GW Bush does.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Because honesty is a measure of intellect? How many political leaders do you know are apt to stand up and apologise for getting it wrong?
Speaking honestly, or 'bluntly' as its often described, is much the same as putting your neck on the political chopping block because it exposes you to your critics pointing out when your honesty proves to be simple stupidity and no matter how much people say they appreciate a candid politician, the truth is, honesty is political suicide.
People vote for those who can instill a sense of competence, not those who demonstrate their basic human nature.
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
Nope.
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
See above.
I think we already do have a lot of politicians who speak honestly. They just never get elected to higher office because no one believes in a person who is so candid as to expose him/herself to ridicule. As human beings, like most other primates, we much prefer the infallible alpha fe/male and do not care to know the true nature of their inner most thoughts, doubts and fears.
Nope. The politicians job is to run the state, not pander to the public. I think the gravity and weight of high politics demand a certain kind of dignity and I would never vote for some one who abused other people the way GW Bush does.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Because honesty is a measure of intellect? How many political leaders do you know are apt to stand up and apologise for getting it wrong?
Speaking honestly, or 'bluntly' as its often described, is much the same as putting your neck on the political chopping block because it exposes you to your critics pointing out when your honesty proves to be simple stupidity and no matter how much people say they appreciate a candid politician, the truth is, honesty is political suicide.
People vote for those who can instill a sense of competence, not those who demonstrate their basic human nature.
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
Nope.
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
See above.
I think we already do have a lot of politicians who speak honestly. They just never get elected to higher office because no one believes in a person who is so candid as to expose him/herself to ridicule. As human beings, like most other primates, we much prefer the infallible alpha fe/male and do not care to know the true nature of their inner most thoughts, doubts and fears.
QUOTE(Julian @ Jul 19 2006, 08:34 AM)
So I can I can see another perspective, which I'd like to float as some debate questions:
Wouldn't it be BETTER if politicians spoke like this in their press conferences as well as when they think they are off the record?
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
1. Yes. Bush is an effective communicator. We don't have to "parse his words" and then hire legions of linguists and lawyers (like we did under Clinton) in order to decode what he's trying to communicate. I like his no ***EXPLETIVE REMOVED*** (sorry) style. And, he's EXACTLY right with respect to the situation in Israel. If Hezbollah WOULD stop this ***EXPLETIVE REMOVED***, then the problem would stop.
2. Why? Because they are politicians and when a politician takes a strong stance (like Bush does on a routine basis), it makes it harder to win a majority since the opposition can be galvanized. The reason Clinton won a second term so readily is that he was able to convince many Americans, who abhor his basic principles, ethics, and philosophy, that he was on "their" side on many issues due to his use of misleading and ambiguous language. It was routine, during the Clinton mis-administration, for people lobbying for opposite sides of an issue to come away from a meeting with him convinced that he "was on their side". Clinton was a great "politician". He was a very poor leader. Bush is exactly the opposite.
3. The down side is that they may not be re-elected. Like I said, people who speak frankly and from the heart can run into some busybody "activists" who have no life outside of the single issue that so motivates them. Those people dedicate their awake hours to being "against" something or someone and a clear target gives them energy and focus. That's what we see during the Bush years. It gives the reactionaries among us a convenient target to be "against". That is the life's blood of reaction after all.
Wouldn't it be BETTER if politicians spoke like this in their press conferences as well as when they think they are off the record?
No. I think that this conversation is fine off the record... expletives included - though you'd think he'd catch on after a while that mics tend to be on whenever he's around. At a press conference... I don't think a politician, representing his or her country, should speak this way. What is interesting about the exchange you linked to, is the relationship between the two. I feel bad for ya, Julian, I do. Blair comes across as the guy with the glasses... the accountant... telling the mob boss that he needs to take a look at his finances and the mob boss brushes him off with... "yeah, yeah..." Doesn't say much for Britain's leader.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
There is so much at stake. One wrong word could start a war... or just might cause some one to blow up a couple of buildings. Bush, however, seems to think he can say what he wants... some might find it refreshing... I find it a bit cocky, and arrogant, ignorant at times and certainly not in the best interests of diplomacy.
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
Unambiguous? Sure. But I think there is a measure of restraint necessary for diplomacy. You can be unambiguous and still show some restraint, I think.
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
Well, to speak in the manner that Bush has been known to can cause problems. I think he recognized, or more likely someone informed him, that saying something like "Bring 'em on!", while certainly sounding strong and unambiguous, might hinder diplomatic relations and be a problem rather than a solution.
No. I think that this conversation is fine off the record... expletives included - though you'd think he'd catch on after a while that mics tend to be on whenever he's around. At a press conference... I don't think a politician, representing his or her country, should speak this way. What is interesting about the exchange you linked to, is the relationship between the two. I feel bad for ya, Julian, I do. Blair comes across as the guy with the glasses... the accountant... telling the mob boss that he needs to take a look at his finances and the mob boss brushes him off with... "yeah, yeah..." Doesn't say much for Britain's leader.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
There is so much at stake. One wrong word could start a war... or just might cause some one to blow up a couple of buildings. Bush, however, seems to think he can say what he wants... some might find it refreshing... I find it a bit cocky, and arrogant, ignorant at times and certainly not in the best interests of diplomacy.
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
Unambiguous? Sure. But I think there is a measure of restraint necessary for diplomacy. You can be unambiguous and still show some restraint, I think.
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
Well, to speak in the manner that Bush has been known to can cause problems. I think he recognized, or more likely someone informed him, that saying something like "Bring 'em on!", while certainly sounding strong and unambiguous, might hinder diplomatic relations and be a problem rather than a solution.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
They find it hard because they are supposed to uphold a position of power and represent all the citizens of their country. They know this too, and would not like to embarass themselves, or most importantly, wouldn't want to take the heat for the possibility of being too straighforward. Regardless of this, however, many citizens use profanity and such methods of conversation daily. It's not like its a big deal over here in America
full aritcle: http://www.rbr.com/epaper/pages/november05/05-233_news1.html
so it's not like Bush is guilty of murder, we just maintain a false sense of decency, and think that as president, he is not "allowed" to use that kind of straightforwardness.
They find it hard because they are supposed to uphold a position of power and represent all the citizens of their country. They know this too, and would not like to embarass themselves, or most importantly, wouldn't want to take the heat for the possibility of being too straighforward. Regardless of this, however, many citizens use profanity and such methods of conversation daily. It's not like its a big deal over here in America
QUOTE
Most consumers today can choose among hundreds of television channels, including some of the best programming ever produced. But television today also contains some of the coarsest programming ever aired. Indeed, the networks appear to be increasing the amount of programs designed to "push the envelope" - - and too often the bounds of decency. For instance, the use of profanity during the "Family Hour" increased 95% from 1998 to 2002. Another recent study found that 70 percent of television shows in the 2004-2005 season had some sexual content, and the number of sexual scenes had nearly doubled since 1998.
At the FCC, we used to receive indecency complaints by the hundreds; now they come in by the hundreds of thousands. Clearly, consumers - - and particularly parents - - are concerned and increasingly frustrated. Time Magazine conducted a survey in March of this year that documented this trend. Sixty-six percent of people believe there is too much violence on television; 58% believe there is too much cursing and sexual language; and 50% believe there is too much explicit sexual content. Similarly, another recent poll found that 75% of people favored tighter enforcement of government rules on television content during hours when children are most likely to be watching.
At the FCC, we used to receive indecency complaints by the hundreds; now they come in by the hundreds of thousands. Clearly, consumers - - and particularly parents - - are concerned and increasingly frustrated. Time Magazine conducted a survey in March of this year that documented this trend. Sixty-six percent of people believe there is too much violence on television; 58% believe there is too much cursing and sexual language; and 50% believe there is too much explicit sexual content. Similarly, another recent poll found that 75% of people favored tighter enforcement of government rules on television content during hours when children are most likely to be watching.
full aritcle: http://www.rbr.com/epaper/pages/november05/05-233_news1.html
so it's not like Bush is guilty of murder, we just maintain a false sense of decency, and think that as president, he is not "allowed" to use that kind of straightforwardness.
Wouldn't it be BETTER if politicians spoke like this in their press conferences as well as when they think they are off the record?
To belittle another side with whom you ostensibly hope to negotiate is to risk having the other side pack up and go home and do what it damn well pleases.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Diplomacy requires tact. It is hard to be tactful with a potential foe, but it helps to keep the lines of communication, such as they are, open. At times diplomats tip their hand ever so slightly, but they always want to play their cards close to the vest.
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
Well, it would certainly allow them to let each other know exactly where they stand, but that would often make it harder to get the other side to want to cooperate. Amlord brought up a good example with the employee dropping F-bombs in the boss's office when trying to get something he wanted. It just doesn't work.
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
That's the point, though, isn't it? Not everyone is going to get used to it; they are going to refuse to enter negotiations with someone who is crude, rude, and socially unacceptable to them, unless the other side has them over the proverbial barrel. But even then, human beings have their pride, and some would still refuse to take part with someone who is verbally abusive.
President George W. Bush would do well to have a little less "spit" and a lot more "polish".
To belittle another side with whom you ostensibly hope to negotiate is to risk having the other side pack up and go home and do what it damn well pleases.
Why do world leaders of ALL countries find it so hard to be so straightforward?
Diplomacy requires tact. It is hard to be tactful with a potential foe, but it helps to keep the lines of communication, such as they are, open. At times diplomats tip their hand ever so slightly, but they always want to play their cards close to the vest.
Would it not be a GOOD thing, table manners aside, if politicians of all stripes in all countries were as unambiguous?
Well, it would certainly allow them to let each other know exactly where they stand, but that would often make it harder to get the other side to want to cooperate. Amlord brought up a good example with the employee dropping F-bombs in the boss's office when trying to get something he wanted. It just doesn't work.
If they did, aside from some ruffled feathers while everyone got used to it, what would be the downside?
That's the point, though, isn't it? Not everyone is going to get used to it; they are going to refuse to enter negotiations with someone who is crude, rude, and socially unacceptable to them, unless the other side has them over the proverbial barrel. But even then, human beings have their pride, and some would still refuse to take part with someone who is verbally abusive.
President George W. Bush would do well to have a little less "spit" and a lot more "polish".
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.