Cross-dressing, ..., the end of tribal politics

avsp · 07-31-2006, 10:40 AM

OK, so global political lickspittle Tony Blair was out & about currying favour with the rich & powerfull & of course needed an eyecatching soundbite to keep his profile up. This time he was brown-nosing World Citizen Rupert 'Keep your fingers out of my media pie' Murdoch.

So his soundbite may sound the death-knell to those with a deep & abiding love for arguing about their favourite colour

Originally Posted by Guardian

'Cross-dressing' on political policy is here to stay, says PM

· Era of rivalry between left and right 'is over'
· News Corp executives told of need for boldness

Patrick Wintour, political editor
Monday July 31, 2006
The Guardian

The era of tribal political leadership is over in Britain with "rampant cross-dressing" on policy set to become a permanent feature of modern politics, Tony Blair told News Corp executives in conclave in the Californian resort of Pebble Beach yesterday.

In an elegiac survey of his nine-year leadership, Mr Blair claimed the true divisions opening up across the world were now not between left and right, but between advocates of modern, open societies and closed, traditional ones.

He also insisted he had "complete inner self-confidence in the analysis of the struggle" the world faced over terrorism and security.

He defended boldness in his political leadership, saying: "In these times caution is error; to hesitate is to lose", adding that his worry has been that he has not been radical enough in his leadership.

His speech, including a strong defence of the Anglo-American alliance, an activist foreign policy and a revival of his attack on the forces of conservatism, will have delighted Mr Murdoch, who has been Mr Blair's staunchest media supporter over the past three elections.

Mr Blair, who flew by helicopter from San Francisco to the exclusive Pebble Beach resort to make his speech, argued that modern political debate in Europe and the US was "no longer between socialists and capitalists but instead between the globalisers and the advocates of protectionism, isolationism and nativism", which he described as issues of migration and national identity.

The prime minister argued: "Most confusingly for modern politicians, many of the policy prescriptions cross traditional left-right lines. Basic values, attitudes to the positive role of government, social objectives - these still divide among familiar party lines, but on policy cross-dressing is rampant and a feature of modern politics that will stay.

"The era of tribal political leadership is over."

The prime minister insisted: "I am loyal to and proud of the Labour party as any Conservative leader is of his party. But across a range of issues, there is no longer a neat filing of policy to the left or the right."

He admitted the new divisions confused natural supporters and as a result the resistance was very strong, from the left and the right.

"In these conditions political leaders have to back their instinct and lead. The media climate will often be harsh. NGOs and pressure groups with single causes can be benevolent, but also can exercise a kind of malign tyranny over public debate.

"For a leader, don't let your ego be carried away by the praise or your spirit diminished by the criticism and look on each with a very searching eye. But for heaven's sake lead."

He raised the primacy of modern foreign policy, including the battle to combat climate change and help Africa, and the need not to relapse into passivism over the Middle East. But he argued these battles were integral to the fight to defeat terrorism.

In a marked difference of tone from some American hawks, the prime minister said: "My concern is that we cannot win this struggle by military means or security measures alone, or even principally by them.

"We have to put up our ideas against theirs. But our cause will only triumph if people see it is based on even-handedness, on fairness, on a deep and genuine passion to help others."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labou...833967,00.html

We could discuss various points he made but I thought we could concentrate on his 'cross-dressing' comments

Is this already reflected in the US with the notion of 'liberal reps', 'conservative dems' & the split between ones economic & social positions on the liberal/conservative scale?

Its certainly the case that theres a rush to the centre here in the UK. Theres also a reluctance to state policy 'in case the other side steals it'.

Blairs 'New Labour' publically & deliberarely did this to the previous admin of the Conservative party led by John Major, rejecting only its percieved sleaze, but keeping the splits on the future of the EU whilst claiming to be less Euro-skeptic

To me theres little point in just adopting policies just to get elected.

Is 'cross-dressing' becoming rampant in US politics?

ibavswithmakeupabound

Stylerod · 07-31-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by avsp

OK, so global political lickspittle Tony Blair was out & about currying favour with the rich & powerfull & of course needed an eyecatching soundbite to keep his profile up. This time he was brown-nosing World Citizen Rupert 'Keep your fingers out of my media pie' Murdoch.

So his soundbite may sound the death-knell to those with a deep & abiding love for arguing about their favourite colour

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labou...833967,00.html

We could discuss various points he made but I thought we could concentrate on his 'cross-dressing' comments

Is this already reflected in the US with the notion of 'liberal reps', 'conservative dems' & the split between ones economic & social positions on the liberal/conservative scale?

Its certainly the case that theres a rush to the centre here in the UK. Theres also a reluctance to state policy 'in case the other side steals it'.

Blairs 'New Labour' publically & deliberarely did this to the previous admin of the Conservative party led by John Major, rejecting only its percieved sleaze, but keeping the splits on the future of the EU whilst claiming to be less Euro-skeptic

To me theres little point in just adopting policies just to get elected.

Is 'cross-dressing' becoming rampant in US politics?

ibavswithmakeupabound

I think the majority of people are "cross-dressers". Most people don't agree 100% with the total liberal and total conservative arguments.

It's just that those who do (or get close to it) are usually the ones we get to hear on the tele (that one was for you ASVP) or the radio.

Phantom · 07-31-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by avsp

Is 'cross-dressing' becoming rampant in US politics?

ibavswithmakeupabound

without a doubt - a good indicator is the issue of illegal immigration. There are representatives from both political parties in favor of, and against an open, globalized society.

This is causing serious problems for any resolution to occur since the traditional "round up the party members" attitude is not working - this isn't a democrat vs. republican issue, it is a protections/nativist vs. open/globalization issue.

avsp · 07-31-2006, 11:54 AM

Firstly its spelt telly & pronounced t'telly if one is north of my location.

Moving on

I accept that many/most of those here describe themselves as taking each issue in turn, ..., however typically discussion is very often very red v blue orientated, ..., or is every mention of Clinton & debates over his responsibility for this or that merely a joke?

This is not to say the question of policy history isnt valid, .., but not just at diac/ll but all over the net American political discussion is very party political partisan & often very veherment. I've often suspected that this is a spill over from necessecarily 'absolutist' religiously inspired positions.

Is there a 'rush to the centre' & parties stealing each others centrist policies?

If so, does this tend to increase political apathy amongst the politically less-engaged?

avsp · 07-31-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

without a doubt - a good indicator is the issue of illegal immigration. There are representatives from both political parties in favor of, and against an open, globalized society.

This is causing serious problems for any resolution to occur since the traditional "round up the party members" attitude is not working - this isn't a democrat vs. republican issue, it is a protections/nativist vs. open/globalization issue.

Yes, this does appear to be a 'cross-party' issue. The claims by some that others positions are motivated by the desire for the hispanic vote may be due to " confused natural supporters and as a result the resistance was very strong, from the left and the righ " to use Blairs terms.