Courtesy--how quaint; how refreshing

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

The Times Feb 9, 2001

Bush puts politeness back into politics

SIMON JENKINS

Astonishing news from over the pond. The new American President is winning friends and influencing people by his “demeanour”. Plaudits pour in from all sides, not least from Democrats whom he so dubiously defeated last November. Europeans may regard George W. Bush as embodying pre-Darwinian America. He hates abortion, social security and English grammar, and loves handguns, electric chairs and his momma and poppa. Yet he arrives in the sophisticated corridors of Washington and even his enemies purr with delight.

The key has little to do with policy. Rather Mr Bush is practising a technique all but defunct in democratic politics. It is called courtesy. The new President is putting the polite back into politic. The Washington Post reports that he employs “the gaze into the eye, the back clap, the clubby habit of addressing his pals by their last name”. He listens, talks quietly and does not swear. Casual clothes are forbidden and foul language is a sackable offence. The impact is proving hypnotic.

Most devastating is the President’s shameless use of punctuality. He runs to time. Such titans of Capitol Hill as Richard Gephardt and Trent Lott have reeled from meetings with Mr Bush gasping that “it started on time and it ended on time”. He does not make them cool their heels for an hour outside the Oval Office. The President greets them warmly, rations pleasantries and skips through his agenda by not talking too much or dominating the discussion. When he asks for their opinion, he appears to want it. They cannot recall such behaviour “once in eight years with President Clinton”. Under Clinton an appointment at the White House was a half-day gone.

These are early days, but I wonder if Mr Bush is quietly recrafting politics. Suddenly the macho school of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair seems dated. Those late-20th-century leaders who grinned and yelled and polluted their conversation with four-letter words are old hat. Mr Clinton, with his greed and dubious cronies, is like a character from Primary Colors and Wag the Dog. Tony Blair is guilty by imitation. Downing Street’s conversational pleasantries, reported by Andrew Rawnsley in Servants of the People, mimic those of lager louts on the terraces at Highbury. It all seems as archaic as the Pallisers.

The new politics hail from the heart of Texas, of all improbable places. Connoisseurs of Southern etiquette know how to distinguish a gentleman from a redneck. They know an Ashley Wilkes from a Rett Butler. The Texan male may wear silly boots and hats, go about armed and demand the electric chair for every crime short of speeding. His politics may be antebellum and his Europeanism ethnic rather than cultural. Texas is more fundamentalist than anywhere west of Saudi Arabia (it must be the oil).

But Texans know breeding. Breeding still says yes sir and yes ma’am. Breeding helps a lady through a door and into a chair, and is hurt when she fails to say thank you. Breeding’s vices are legion, but they insist on public decorum.

Such Texans are appalled by much of the new South and by its reductio ad horrorem in the shape of the former Governor of Arkansas. They hated Lyndon Johnson’s bad language and his habit of undoing his trousers to straighten his shirt in front of guests. With the rise of Bill Clinton, Arkansas has to be swiftly redefined as “not South but South-West”. It was a redneck tribal reserve, a land of backwoodsmen and “cedar-choppers”. There could hardly be a wider gulf in Southern-ness than between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Mr Bush’s father was a New Englander who migrated to Houston and remained a worldly and urbane Yankee. But he dealt in oil and brought up his boys as Texas gentlemen. Young George sowed wild oats and behaved like a spoilt fraternity brat. He spent money, took drugs and suffered a more than normal drink problem. Anyone who wants the muck on G.W. need only read a few pages of Shrub by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose. But from the standpoint of modern Washington, these seem the initiation rites of a postponed puberty, like a prodigal awaiting the moment of repentance. With good breeding, Texan boys settle down. Houston ladies still nod: “Oh those Bush boys, they were so well brought-up.”

There is no greater Southern compliment. Stupidity, corruption, alcoholism, even poverty can be forgiven if one is “well-reared”. As the writer Florence King remarked of her upbringing as a “failed” Southern belle it was one long lesson. “No matter what the subject of conversation, Granny turned it into a sermonette.” Girls should cross the street to avoid firemen. Never remove fluff from a man’s sleeve or you will excite him and have to move to New York. Honeymoons should be suffered “as cheerfully as possible, and remember to exclaim over special treats”. As for men, they were bundles of uncontrollable urges held in check only by “good breeding”. Mr Bush had breeding, Mr Clinton did not.

I have read nothing about the new President that suggests he is ideally suited to office, and much to suggest otherwise. His rule in Texas was undistinguished. His fondness for executions and his opposition to abortion seem medieval. But policy is a matter on which Mr Bush is happy to be flexible. Above all he has “family”, and that is the object of his loyalty. Half the Cabinet is drawn from his father’s circle of friends. To a Texan, nothing could be more natural. Middle America likes the unusual idea of a son so eager to do his father’s bidding.

In politics means are as important as ends, if only because time so often runs out before ends are achieved. Charm is an essential means to democratic success, but with the old politics, it was charm that could be turned on at a tap. The Bush version is different. It is not the charm of self-confidence or brash manly virtue, and goes beyond the artless smile. Mr Bush seems eager to eschew the locker-room laddishness of his own past. He says with Henry V: “Presume not that I am the thing I was.” His is a schooled courtesy, drawing on a domestic culture where manners are the outward portrait of the man. To modern Washington, this clearly comes as a shock.

Such style could hardly be further removed from the “in-your-face” attitude of conventional politics. There is in Mr Bush’s regime so far no trace of the pre-emptive rebuttal, the let-it-all-hang-out, the “F you!” to opponents. The new politics are those of the drawing room, not the press room. Calls are returned, letters answered, rudeness avoided, appointments kept. Above all appointments are kept. Punctuality is remembered as “the politeness of kings”. Ask a busy man to see you at 10 o’clock and let him find you waiting, and he will be inclined to do your bidding. Keep him waiting and he will feel diminished and seek to reassert his status through opposing you. This has nothing to do with snobbery or class. It is psychology. Yet how many executives, believing to boast their importance by running late, understand?

Courtesy is the adherence to rules intended to avoid causing personal offence. But not causing offence has its own potency. A leader’s objective is achieved by embracing his victim in a behavioural code. It ensures that a refusal to co-operate implies not just disagreement but social solecism. Equally, discourtesy in public life implies things out of control. It is like graffiti on the wall, a sign of indiscipline, cheapness and power abused. People were genuinely shocked that John Major as Prime Minister should use a word like “bastards” of his colleagues. We hate to think of surgeons or airline pilots running late and shouting obscenities at each other. Efficiency is somehow wedded to dignity. Why should we think otherwise of rulers?

Washington appears to like the new style. Mr Bush cultivates humility, even forbidding the playing of Hail to the Chief wherever he goes. He seems worlds away from the peacocks flashing their tailfeathers, the martinets and magazine fodder of those he succeeds, and from the tacky European politics displayed at the Nice summit. Will it make a difference? Who knows? The Bush revolution is one of style, not substance. But the style is applied to substantial effect. Above all it is new. If I were a politician I would mark it well.



-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), February 08, 2001

Answers

I do recall President Bush using the word "asshole" on one occasion. I don't buy that he doesn't curse..but maybe he does it very quietly? I curse so often, I don't consider words like "shit" a curse anymore. It's just something you say when you drop a glass or whatever. :-)

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), February 09, 2001.

True cowboys were supposedly good mannered and I think it's fitting that such a nice cowboy is herding Americans around.

The herd never stirs until the grass grows thin...

-- Will (righthere@home.now), February 09, 2001.


I admire GWB very much, and after 8 years of ‘trailer trash’ leadership he looks extremely good by comparison. Clinton, for all of his outward charm is still a pathetic lounge lizard who continues to embarrass ‘hisself’ and shame our nation. Now that the trash has been taken out it’s time to fumigate.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 09, 2001.

Barry--

Don't be so hard on us lounge lizards.

Yes, I agree. The Clintons have so debased our national dignity that even a squinty Dubya looks like pure class in comparison. I think W is off to a great start.

A very unimportant observation but somerhing I notice again and again. Dubya has teriffic posture. He holds himself straight, head up, and moves like a man in charge. I like it.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 09, 2001.


Yes, good posture. He is especially good at getting on his knees and kissing the ass of corporations.

-- (Dumbya@piece.of.shit), February 09, 2001.


Good evening Lars,

You have made a great point with your call on GWB’s ‘projected’ demeanor. He IS a man in charge and the people around him LIKE IT. This is a person of high character that is a good friend to have and a great boss to work for. He is an easy person to get to know and you just watch how this man will pilot this country back to our deserved status in the world community. By comparison, very few people will say they really like Bill Clinton and he is not known as a man of principal or high moral standards. He will continue to prove that fact, over and over.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 09, 2001.


"skips through his agenda by not talking too much or dominating the discussion"

Of course, because he does not know what the hell is being talked about! We really DO need God to bless america for the next four years.

-- DamnIt (another@new.anon), February 09, 2001.


Remember during the 1988 Dem convention when a little known pretty-boy Governor of AR gave the keynote address? He rambled on and on and on and on. They finally hooked him off the stage.

Let's not confuse logorrhea with intelligence.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 09, 2001.


Never underestimate the eye of the beholder factor. This... reporter... seems pre-disposed in some of his positions, especially the "kindly southern cowboy/gentleman" farce. It's like he's projecting an image onto Bush that he wants him to have, that he needs him to have. I think the truth about Bush's punctuality, which Jenkins keeps gushing about, is probably more attributable to Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity than anything else. If you can't think of questions to ask, are incapable of challenging points, every meeting ends on time.

I've had meetings with managers who were very "punctual", and also very dim.

Anyway, it's not a bad trait to have, in itself. I just suspect Jenkins is seeing what he wants to see. And we did never once, to my knowledge, ever hear Clinton call someone an "asshole". If anything he was smart enough to know that microphones are often used in public to amplify voices, something dub'ya looks like he just learned. :^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 09, 2001.


All of the villains played by Claude Rains had impeccable manners. Come to think of it, so did Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs, after a fashion. This always made them more sympathetic, more ironic and more horrifying when they plucked your liver out with their teeth.

Think GWB has been taking lessons?

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), February 09, 2001.



OK, leave out the politics. IMO, the nation would benefit from better manners. That's right, old-fashioned, boring, good manners and courtesy.

Think of it as a way of showing respect to another. Until that "other" demonstrates he doesn't deserve respect, we should extend respect.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 09, 2001.


Amazing. I never expected otherwise intelligent people to start badmouthing basic courtesy solely on the grounds that Bush exhibits it.

C'mon now, people. Can't you see that you are not setting standards and then judging Bush by them, you are *prejudging* Bush, and then trashing your own standards as required to fit your prejudices. And when you reach the point where you can justify dismissing courtesy, you look plain silly.

Bush may not be perfect, but why not admire his good qualities? Lord knows he has few enough of these.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 09, 2001.


When discussing the subject of ‘good manners and courtesy’, I am reminded of my past residency in the Deep South. In the one year that I lived in New Orleans I was impressed with the legendary southern hospitality that comes so naturally to those of the area. All ladies and people of age are given the highest outward respect and the rest of the country could take a lesson from those folks. My favorite was the courtesy of addressing ladies as Miss Jean, etc. Texan's should be included in this group and it should come as no surprise that GWB exhibits these wonderful traits. Arkansas however…………………………………………

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 09, 2001.

I'm for Manners as long as we're not talking about that little creep that would sit in your lap and play with your napkin.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 09, 2001.

I think W is off to a great start.

Well, you're in the minority. Bush has the highest initial disapproval rating of any President since polling began. Since he attained his Presidency by coup and was sorely lacking in the overall popular vote, this shouldn't be too surprising.

And in view of his recent moves to repeal certain environment protections, ban federal aid for family planning clinics, promote tax cuts favoring the wealthy, and enthrone the Uber Conservative Ashcroft as Attorney General, I anticipate his disapproval rating will continue to climb steadily as time goes by. It may end up being the only thing he truly excells at - pissing off the *majority* of the American Public.

-- Truth (Hurts@NumbersDon'tLie.com), February 09, 2001.



While figures don't lie, liars still figure.

Without question, the long drawn-out battle for Florida polarized a lot of people. People who couldn't make up their minds before the election became, after weeks of legal battles, near-fanatical supporters of one candidate or the other.

Given this background, the surprising thing is that 57% approve and only 25% disapprove (after only 3 weeks). And this for an election that was a statistical tie. One only need look above at the agonies required of polarized people trying to find *something* wrong with good manners, simply because Bush has them. Why, they say, some movie villains have had good manners, sort of, and therefore good manners must really be somehow bad after all! What a gas.

Meanwhile, Bush continues to be polite, and appoint Democrats to important positions, find middle grounds, and actual listen to peoples' opinions. You have to be polarized indeed to believe this sort of behavior will *increase* a disapproval rating.

Simon Jenkins seems to have learned all he knows about Bush from reading Molly Ivins. He writes, "His rule in Texas was undistinguished." Of course, he didn't rule, he was elected and he governed. And was re-elected by the largest margin in the history of Texas. I guess this doesn't count as a distinction. But it says volumes about the disapproval rating of those who had both the knowledge and the opportunity to express it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 09, 2001.


Flint: "...trying to find *something* wrong with good manners, simply because Bush has them."

Heavens, no! I was simply trying to indicate precisely how meaningful good manners are to policy differences. A man may cut out your liver, while still preserving the social graces, he may even write an apology to your survivors, regretting the inconvenience caused them.

Just as a wild example, you, Flint, often follow the formulas of social grace, while violating their presumed meaning. This you see as a form of irony. Of course, you may be perfectly right about that.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), February 12, 2001.


cookie:

I agree that attributes like courtesy and punctuality are peripheral to the import of most government policies. But Jenkins' goal here was modest -- simply to observe the striking contrast between a new atmosphere of polite respect, and a prior one of cool-your-heels arrogance. Nothing more.

So what interested me was, whether anyone who opposes Bush would be willing to recognize even a trivial virtue if it were obvious enough. And the answer seems to be no, if he's considerate and polite then these traits are overrated and/or irrelevant!

The administration is very young, but Bush has demonstrated a remarkable willingness to admit and correct error, to be polite and thoughtful, to compromise, to appoint an amazingly broad range of viewpoints to his cabinet (relative to most new presidents), and to tread very lightly. His major policy push (taxes) isn't where there is most bipartisan agreement by accident. Bush seems to recognize that the election left a lot of rigid polarization, and he's trying to ameliorate that as well as he can.

So as I wrote above, let's at least appreciate what small but clear virtues Bush has.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 12, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ