Britain and America

Fred Thompson's London Speech in Full

This is the full video of the speech Fred Thompson gave in London yesterday:

Town Hall has a text version.

Fred Thompson in London

Fred Thompson was in London today - the day on which one opinion poll made him the frontrunner in the Republican race for the White House.  BritainAndAmerica was present when he spoke at the Policy Exchange think tank.  TownHall.com has the full text.

Four video extracts from his Q&A are posted below:

• Video 1 is about his view of Iran - in which he suggests a blockage might be necessary.
• Video 2 focuses on Iraq and he warns against leaving without stabilising the country - because US forces might only have to return
• In Video 3 he identifies his American political heroes as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.
• In Video 4 he pays tribute to Margaret Thatcher - who he'll meet tomorrow.  He is also due to meet Tory leader David Cameron.

VIDEO ONE: THOMPSON ON IRAN

VIDEO TWO: THOMPSON ON IRAQ

VIDEO THREE: THOMPSON ON HIS AMERICAN POLITICAL HEROES - GEORGE WASHINGTON, ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND RONALD REAGAN

VIDEO FOUR: THOMPSON ON HIS SCHEDULED MEETING WITH BARONESS THATCHER

Giulianism

If British Conservatives had their choice of Republican presidential candidate the former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be the overwhelming favourite.  Their enthusiasm perplexes many American conservatives.  Linking to the BritainAndAmerica finding, Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO stated simply: Thankfully They Don't Have A Vote.

Although Giuliani holds a (decreasing) lead in the GOP field - dented by some missteps, the emergence of Fred Thompson (now running at 20%) and strong showings in the bellwether states by Mitt Romney - the analysts think that the resistance of Lopez and other social conservatives will eventually defeat Giuliani.  Veteran political analyst Charlie Cook has said that Giuliani winning the GOP nomination would force him to rethink everything he has ever learnt about Republican presidential politics.  Christian conservatives - who have been talking more and more favourably about Romney despite his Mormon faith - warn that Giuliani can't reach the White House without them.  Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who has criticised Giuliani's family life, has warned that Christian conservatives are as essential to any chance of a GOP candidate winning as black voters are indispensable to a successful Democrat candidate.

The socially liberal views of 'America's Mayor' certainly haven't hauled him below the water yet.  He's the national frontrunner and is competitive in socially conservative states such as South Carolina.  He may be doing well among social conservatives because of the high priority they attach to the war on terror.  All GOP voters put the war in Iraq as their top issue (31%) and 17% choose terrorism and security.  Only 7% name abortion and 1% name gay marriage.   

The Republican Party cannot afford to elevate suspicion of homosexuality into a defining feature of its identity.  The nation that has laughed at Will & Grace and filled cinemas showing Brokeback Mountain is changing fast.  Twenty years ago there was a 51% to 42% majority in favour of a right to fire homosexual teachers.  Now 66% to 28% disagree with such a right.  A nation that was once split on whether AIDS was a punishment for sexual immorality is now 72% to 23% in disagreement with the contention.

In the 21 May edition of the left-leaning New Republic, Thomas B Edsall wonders if Giuliani is best able to lead the Republican Party into this new era of public opinion and whether a wider 'Giulianism' represents the future of the Republican party.  His no-nonsense, pro-cop, anti-tax positions won him widespread support amongst lower and middle income voters in New York.  Some GOP strategists hope that this same worldview might lure Reagan Democrats back to the Republican coalition.  Unlike many other social liberals within the Republican party, Giuliani is a hardliner on other issues of importance to the Republican base.  In addition to a hawkish approach to Iraq (he has said that Bush-Rumsfeld deployed far too few troops) he is a tax cutter, a fiscal conservative and very tough on crime.  His record in New York confirms that these are longstanding positions.  His time in New York politics also show him to be a polariser, writes Edsall.  He doesn't know how to play softball.  Edsall predicts that he will use the same tough rhetoric against terrorists that he used against criminals while he was Mayor.  He has already accused Democrats of waving the white flag on defence and of wanting to return to the defensive stance of pre-9/11.  These techniques will help rally the Republican base behind him - particularly if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat candidate.  The latest polling suggests that her lead over Barack Obama is widening.

Post 9/11 hawkishness may now be the glue holding the Republican coalition together but Giuliani cannot afford to insult social conservatives.  A socially conservative running mate like Sam Brownback, opposition to gay marriage and support for Supreme Court appointments like Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas will be necessary commitments from Giuliani if he is to emerge as the Republican nominee and avoid a third party candidate from the Christian right.

Lessons from the Big Apple and the Golden State

Andrew Burkinshaw writes:

In an excellent article in this week's Time Michael Grunwald profiles Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger and looks at their careers and achievements in public office.

Both men are self-made; their hard work and determination making them rich and famous in their sector (Bloomberg) or just plain famous (Schwarzenegger). They are both Republicans whose socially liberal positions have enabled their election in Democratic strongholds. And they are both prepared to take action where they believe the federal government in Washington has failed to do so.

Take climate change. In New York Bloomberg is calling for a 30% cut in greenhouse gases by 2030 and in California Schwarzenegger has signed a cap on greenhouses gases, the first in the country. Or affordable housing, where Bloomberg has used $7.5 billion of private money to build 165,000 affordable homes. Or stem cell research, where Schwarzenegger has endlessly promoted his state's medical-research industry.

Historically many national policy solutions have come from state or city level but this process has been accelerated by the Bush White House's necessary focus on the war on terror and homeland security since 9/11. Both Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger, despite initial unpopularity (both saw their ratings drop in their first terms) have used their subsequent popularity to pursue bold measures - as Bloomberg has said "What good is a 70% approval rating if we don't take risks?".

They have also eschewed the partisan nature of Washington, working across party lines (often through necessity) to get things done. Schwarzenegger worked with his Democratic legislature to get his climate change measures through and Bloomberg formed Mayors Against Illegal Guns recruiting more than 220 mayors to lobby Congress to allow officials to share gun-trace information.

The non-partisan nature of measures like these, and of Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger, do not make them popular with the Republican base but is perhaps the reason they have both been touted for national office (in Schwarzenegger's case if the constitution is changed)!

Latest poll bad news for Republicans

Andrew Burkinshaw writes:

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that Rudy Giuliani is losing support, Hillary Clinton is gaining support and that the majority of Americans want the Democrats to win the presidency in 2008.

The poll shows that Giuliani still leads the Republican field with 29% but that former Senator (and undeclared candidate) Fred Thompson is now in second place with 20% and that former favourite John McCain has fallen level with Mitt Romney on 14%.

But will it be worth winning the Republican nomination? The poll shows that by 52% to 31% Americans would prefer the next President to be a Democrat. The poll gives the Republican Party its worst result for twenty years showing that by 49% to 36% Americans think the Democrats more closely share their values and positions.

President Bush's own popularity rating has fallen to its lowest level at 29%, with 66% of Americans disapproving of his performance. Among Republicans his approval rating has dropped to 62%.

For Democrats the picture is mixed. The Democrat controlled Congress's approval is lower than the President's at 23%. Only 41% of Americans say that their representative deserves to be re-elected, similar to the levels before the Republicans lost control in November.

But Democrat presidential candidates are doing better. Hillary Clinton, the leading Democrat, beats Giuliani 48% to 43% in a hypothetical run-off. Hillary Clinton is strengthening her position within the Democrat field, up from 36% to 39% while both Barrack Obama and John Edwards have fallen, Obama from 31% to 25% and Edwards from 20% to 15%. It appears Hillary's efforts to contrast her experience with that of Obama's is working.

Charles Groome reviews the New Hampshire debates

I had a serious US Presidential Elections '08 research binge and watched both party debates on CNN so as to develop a firmer view of what each candidate, Democrat and Republican, has in mind for their country.

Given the unpopularity of Bush I would have thought it'd be the Republicans who'd be infighting over new directions, but it was the Democrats who starting tearing chunks out of each other. A rather rambunctious and petulant John Edwards got busy point scoring over Clinton and Obama whilst trying to make the former piggy in the middle by heaping praise on the latter whenever it suited - bait Obama happily hooked onto amidst his surprisingly lacklustre performance. Of them all the two who came across professionally were Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and of them the only one to come across Presidential was Hillary.

Not to be swayed solely by a single debate I have given more thought to the value of the return of the Clintons to the White House. So often we hear of elder statesmen flitting around the world spearheading new philanthropic initiatives, trying to spend whatever political capital they've saved in the uncomfortable knowledge their tenure didn't solve half as much as they'd promised or hoped. Well a win in 2008 would give Madame President and First Gentleman Clinton a second chance to do the business. They’d have a whole load more capital to spend and the investment knowledge to do it profitably.

Petition to revoke the independence of the United States of America

For something a bit lighter, we thought it was about time we posted this infamous "petition" celebrating the diversity between Britain and America. This is one of several versions that have been floating around the internet for years (contrary to popular belief, it wasn't written by John Cleese of Monty Python!). We'll post the American rebuttal soon...

"To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories.

Except Utah, which she does not fancy.

Your new Prime Minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair MP, for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a Minister for America without the need for further elections.

The House of Representatives and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium." Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour'; skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters.

You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise."

You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to re-spell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.

Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up “vocabulary." Using the same thirty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "uhh", "like", and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

Look up "interspersed."

There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary, then you won't have to use bad language as often.

Can Politics 2.0 cross the Atlantic?

Andrew Burkinshaw and Samuel Coates write:

This morning Joe Trippi, campaign manager for Howard Dean in 2003/4 and currently senior adviser to John Edwards, spoke at a seminar in the House of Commons about the role of the internet in politics and public life: Politics 2.0.

The event was organised by Bebo whose president, Joanna Shields, spoke first. To give an example of the importance of the internet she referred to the recent Irish elections where 25% of the population are on Bebo. Not surprisingly, Bebo worked closely with Irish political parties at the last election to get their messages out.

Trippi's main theme was that you could look at the evolution of the internet in two ways, as a shift in communication and as a shift in power.

A shift in communication - He said how politicians communicate depends on the nature of the media. With radio the question was "What does it sound like?"; with TV you asked "What does it look like?"; but with the internet the question has become "Is it real?". This shift has massive implications, not least as a challenge to complacency, but Trippi argues that the important thing about the internet is the shift in power that it has initiated.

He referred to the Nixon vs Kennedy presidential debate as an example of the importance of mediums - everyone who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won, but visually he looked nervous, unshaven and sweaty. He also talked about credibility, recalling how in the presidential race between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, horsemen were sent to towns throughout the country screaming either that Jefferson was dead or that Jefferson was still alive. Which side of the story that isolated citizens believed depended on how much credibility the messenger had, based on how personally trusted they were.

A shift in power - In the past power has been top-down, but it is now shifting to the bottom. Individually, people are powerless, but through the internet networks of people who share a common cause can have real power. If you characterise the past as being dominated by "Goliaths" - corporations, politicians and the media - we now have an army of "David's" and the question is what is the sling for these "Davids"? (see the book on this subject written by Glenn Reynolds aka Instapundit). These networks depend on trust. He gave the example of a new film, the film company may spend millions on promotion but if five friends you trust tell you it's a bad film you won't pay to watch it, however much money the film company spends. Equally, if they give it rave reviews you are more likely to make the effort to see it than if you saw a bilboard proclaiming it as the greatest film of the year.

With specific reference to British politics Trippi warned that too many politicians still see the internet only as a way to disseminate information, not to build relationships with individuals and networks. But building these relationships and networks takes time and we should not expect significant changes in the next general election but in the one after that. He also compared the American experience of knowing exactly when the next election will be favourably to the British one of only knowing when it is called relatively shortly before it happens, saying that you needed more time than that to build a significant web presence.

Another interesting insight he had was that grassroots internet donations had effectively ended state funding of presidential candidacies. Bush was the first candidate to reject state funding (he had enough big money), followed by Dean (he had enough small money) and now all candidates for 08 have rejected matching funding so they can spend more than the caps that come with it. America has a much more political and philanthropic culture than Britain, but the prospect of candidates and parties being funded by the many in this way, rather than either the rich few or the state, is very appealing.

British Conservatives would vote for Giuliani

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the overwhelming favourite of grassroots British Conservatives to be the next American President.  More than three times as many UK Conservative Party members opted for him than chose Senator John McCain.

These are the full results:

• Joe Biden: 0.3%
• Sam Brownback: 0.7%
• Hillary Clinton: 10.1%
• John Edwards: 2.2%
• Newt Gingrich: 4.6%
• Rudy Giuliani: 43.9%
• Al Gore: 5.9%
• John McCain: 14.4%
• Barack Obama: 10.1%
• Bill Richardson: 0.6%
• Mitt Romney: 2.3%
• Fred Thompson: 4.9%

All of the issues that make Giuliani a difficult choice for many Republicans - abortion, gay rights and gun control - are not big issues in British politics.  His tough approach to crime, fiscal conservatism and national security credentials give him obvious appeal with British Tories.  Many Brits will also see the 'Mayor of 9/11' as the kind of competent communicator that can begin to restore America's standing in Europe.  If 'brand Bush' is toxic for many Europeans many see Giuliani as the candidate as well equipped as any Democrat to tackle anti-Americanism.

29.2% of Conservatives opted for one of the named Democrat candidates - 70.8% opted for one of the named Republican candidates.  During the 2005 Tory leadership contest David Cameron declined to say whether he had backed Bush or Kerry in the 2004 White House race.  His defeated rival David Davis said he would have voted for George W Bush.

The ConservativeHome.com website polled 1,294 Tory members from 31st May to 3rd June.

Cameron praises America's sense of identity

Joseph Willits writes from London:

Conservative Party leader David Cameron spoke of his aspiration of social cohesion in Britain yesterday. The impression that Britain sometimes lacks the necessary harmony to provide a cohesive society was articulated fervently, with the hope of such unity being idealised.  Cameron openly encouraged Britain to humbly maintain and enhance cohesion, particularly with relation to British Muslims.  “Alienation”, “disillusionment”, and the “ambiguity” between faith and nation, he said, were plaguing the nation, and disabling a frequently shared ambition.

As the US, places in the forefront of its mind, the prospect of a post-Bush America, and the UK contemplates the return of a Conservative government, a differing relationship waits to be forged between the two countries.  Cameron’s speech insinuated huge implications of the cohesion held by Britain and America, a strengthened relationship, and the need to enhance it further.  He made it clear, that if Britain’s aspiration was its own social cohesion, then it had to look towards America for advice, principle and a sense of pride.  Cameron asks us to:

"Think of America. Of course America is not perfect. But it does succeed in creating, to an extent far more evident that we have achieved here, a real sense of common identity - about what it means to be an American. Freedom. Family. Opportunity and community."