September 6, 2007
Fred Thompson - beware of imitations
So Senator Fred Thompson has finally declared his bid for the presidency. I saw Thompson speak back in June and I was pretty unimpressed. Aside from the fact that his speech was made up of boilerplate conservative sloganising - with no evidence of fresh thought - Thompson had an irritating line in nudge-nudge references, designed to suggest that he is the true heir to Ronald Reagan. He is a former actor, you see, and a true conservative. Therefore he must be Reagan revived.
As Clive Crook notes in today’s FT, the resemblances are entirely superficial. Reagan - despite his insouciant exterior - was a man with very pronounced views and a long track record. He stood for something. And he wasn’t trying to imitate anybody else. Thompson by trying to position himself as Ronald Reagan the re-make, merely advertises the fact that he has nothing original to say.
Politicians quite often try to sell themselves as the reincarnation of some more illustrious (or popular) predecessor. But this almost always a bad sign.
Take Britain at the moment. David Cameron, the leader of the Tory opposition, has let it be put about that he is the "heir to Blair". He too has an easy charm and a nice head of hair. He too is pragmatic and caring. The few policies that Cameron has identified himself with seem to be almost slavishly copied from the early Blair years. The Tories have all but appropriated New Labour’s "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" slogan. And their recent pledges on public spending are strongly reminiscent of the sort of re-assuring noises Gordon Brown made, in the run-up to Labour’s election in 1997.
Mind you, Brown himself is hardly immune from the imitation temptation. This year he published a book called "Courage - Eight Portraits" - profiling eight of his political heroes. This looks like a shameless borrowing from the JFK legacy. As a senator, Kennedy burnished his reputation for profundity and literarcy by publishing "Profiles in Courage". Both he and Brown were subsequently accused of leaning rather heavily on their "researchers".
It seems hard to believe that this kind of political mimicry can work. The reason that - in their different ways - Reagan, Blair and JFK were such effective politicians is that they caught the spirit of their times. They did this by being themselves - not by imitating the policies or mannerisms of a past political hero, operating in a different era.
US politics is far more personalised than UK politics. Fred Thompson is recognised and looks Presidential and is running second on the Republican side on the betting sites. He has less negatives than all the others on the Republican side. I think he could easily get on the ticket as the vice presidential candidate but it will all be no avail - 2008 is a Democrat year for the House, Senate and the White House.
Posted by: William Thomson | September 6th, 2007 at 8:18 pm | Report this commentAs for David Cameron I hope he quickly decides he is not cut out to be a PM and that the Tories become brave and elect Boris Johnson. I’d like Johnson, Hague and Portillo to grab control over the Tory party and turn British politics into the democracy of fun and intense debate again. Such a pity though that Robin Cook is no longer amongst us to represent Labour.
The run up to the 2008 US elections is the most interesting I have witnessed at this point so far; Obama is a very strong and sincere candidate but Clinton is moving from strength to strength and looks set to prevail; but what I’m really waiting for is for Mr. Bloomberg to declare his candidacy; I have faith in his capability to realign the US with its values and I don’t think any other candidate really fully appreciates the current and historical role of the US in the world the way he does. Also don’t discount John McCain just yet; it is possible that the situation in Iraq improves and McCain stands to benefit from that strongly, he also is a very sympathetic man and many Americans really like him; its hard not to like him. Whereas Thompson is an inconsequential candidate who doesn’t have the chutzpah to engage Hillary Clinton. It’s a pity and a waste of everyones time that he declared.
Boris Johnson for PM!
Posted by: Felix Drost | September 7th, 2007 at 2:51 am | Report this commentHague and Portillo are interesting enough, but Johnson? I don’t know about you, but I prefer my Prime Ministers to not have a history of racist language…
…UK politics is becoming every bit as personality led as the US - maybe more so - since neither the media nor the political classes can resist pinching every idea they come across, whether from Washington internships, network news or West Wing reruns. It’s pathetic…
…we have the laughably vacuous Cameron as a result - it’s scary he’s got this far…
…these people are like those French generals who were always preparing to fight the last war instead of the next one…
…US could be interesting - no senator has won since JFK - Obama has a short enough record to not have too many negatives, but the lack of experience could scare people…
…if it came down to Clinton vs Giuliani I’d put my money on the ex-mayor.
Posted by: David | September 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pm | Report this commentDavid, I’m aware that he’s a very controversial candidate but I found the accusations that he is racist not very convincing; his controversial criticism wasn’t racist but was in defence of freedom of speech; he says things like “If I was in charge, I would get rid of Jamie Oliver”. He is a crackpot and a loon and he also is brilliant in how he plays with controversy and contradiction.
Still Hague is the better, more rational candidate. Hopefully Johnson gets to prove his mettle in London. Having selected ‘london calling’ by the clash as his theme song he just might!
Posted by: Felix Drost | September 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm | Report this commentIt’s curtains for ole Fred. And none too soon, he was a terribly inconsequential candidate. What were people thinking encouraging him to run? Echoes of Reagan run rampant, but, hate him or love him, Reagan actually had depth. Thompson’s posters had more gravitas than the man himself.
This might benefit McCain more than anyone, Thompson wasn’t particularly appealing to the religious right, or to the Giuliani crowd; Thompson radiated the appearance of being a strong maverick, something McCain has been all his life.
So Gideon, what do you make of Mitt Romney? As far as I can tell he is all talk and little substance, the way he won Michigan was flatulent. He doesn’t seem to have the same cojones as Obama, McCain, Clinton and Huckabee. This certainly is a delightful campaign.
Posted by: felix drost, amsterdam | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 am | Report this comment