I see that Scotland has won the World Schools Debating Championships, held in Belgrade. The Scottish team, drawn from Dollar Academy, Portobello High School, Broxburn Academy, and St Columba’s in Kilmacolm, had defeated New Zealand, Pakistan, England, and Qatar, to meet Bulgaria in the final. They won on the motion, “This house regrets the glorification of champions”. It wasn’t given much publicity, so maybe they argued their case rather too well!
There is a long history of healthy debate in Scottish schools. My school in Glasgow had a thriving Literary & Debating Society. There would be a motion. “This house believes that censorship in all its forms should be abolished.” There would be four principal speakers, a proposer, given the floor for ten minutes, followed by the opposition; then the motion would be seconded, and again, the opposition backed up. The chair would preside, but only intervene to ensure that rules of fair play were adhered to. Then the debate would be opened up to the house. The topics were wide-ranging – political, moral-ethical, social, local, national, international. Nothing was off limits. People were taught to mount a cogent argument, to back up assertion with evidence, to be open-minded and, above all, to listen. People who went on to be very effective in the political world first cut their teeth, in various schools, in “The Lit” – Robin Cook, Charles Kennedy. The tradition continued at university level. I remember at Glasgow, visiting politicos were given a very hard time. I wondered then why many of them bothered to put up with the harangue. But a few were very effective at wooing and courting the crowd. Jeremy Thorpe. That was before his spectacular fall from grace.
But a chasm has opened up between civilised discourse, and political point-scoring in the real world. You see it, and hear it, in BBC debate programmes such as Any Questions? And Question Time. Politicians, constrained by the whip, shamelessly spout humbug. They talk over their opponent when the opponent expresses a view they do not wish to hear, or to be heard. The chair is partisan.
In the US, political debate has become coarse, tribal, and vicious. The vitriol is fuelled by social media. Last week, Mr Trump called Ms Harris “a bum”. I presume that was a US rather than a UK bum.
Bum (1) the buttocks; the anus.
Bum (2) (chiefly N American slang) a dissolute fellow, tramp; a sponger. Adj, worthless; despicable; dud; wrong, false.
I don’t think Mr Trump backed up his assertion with any evidence. In her memoir, The Truths We Hold, I don’t recall Ms Harris spending a significant amount of time on Skid Row. And even if she had, would it matter? In the debating world, Mr Trump’s assertion is known as an argument ad hominem. It is a slur. We can expect more of them. Ms Harris’ statement, on the other hand, that Mr Trump is a felon, is a statement of fact.
I recall that in 2016, Mr Trump deployed similar tactics in debating with Hilary Clinton. He would prowl about the stage, and position himself close right behind her. That the chair did not put a stop to this was really a dereliction of duty. “Go back to your lectern Mr Trump. I won’t tell you again.” In response to the attacks, Hilary Clinton said, “When they go low, we go high.” It will be very interesting to see how Ms Harris handles Trump. I think she should go low. I don’t mean by that that she should descend to his level. Heaven forfend. Rather, changing the metaphor, I think she should get under the radar, and catch him unawares, in debates, at points at which he is vulnerable. She needs to fact-check him, on the spot, in real time. Mr Trump reminds me of a character in John Buchan’s Greenmantle, that great Prussian bruiser, Stumm. When Richard Hannay punches him on the nose, Stumm blinked. Stumm is a bully, and like all bullies, he does not expect to be hurt. Not that I am suggesting that Ms Harris punch Mr Trump on the nose. But I think Ms Harris could rattle Mr Trump. I think she already has.
On this side of the Pond, compared with all of that, political discourse seems almost civilised. At least for the moment. The first PMQs after the General Election was rather decorous. Mr Sunak was self-deprecatory when he remarked that the Team GB Olympians might not value his advice on how to win. Sir Keir concurred in wishing the athletes in Paris all the best. He certainly doesn’t regret the glorification of champions, or aspiring champions. But Sir Keir is enjoying a honeymoon period, which I dare say will not last long. Shortly we will return to business as usual, to Ya-Boo politics. It’s a far cry from the Literary & Debating Society.
jamescalumcampbell 