A Short Plea For "Question Time" In America
I have been saying for many years, and it's high time I did so in print, that it would be in our best interest to import the wonderful British practice of "Question Time" into the otherwise desolate rhetorical landscape of American politics.
For anyone unfamiliar, "Question Time" is the practice observed by the House of Commons where a government minister (typically the PM) is sat in front of his MPs and subjected to a barrage of questions which he or she is "forced" to answer with no purpose of evasion or euphemism.
This seems idyllic in America, where the general form that the political discourse takes is riddled with artful doublespeak, intellectual evasion and flat out non-compliance. Spin alley has truly become an rhetorical ghetto in America.
This is by no means a new idea. In 1991, Representative Sam Gejdenson introduced a proposal that provided for a two hour question period each month. In the early 1970s, Senator Walter Mondale proposed various forms of a “question period” for executive branch officials. During World War II, Representative Estes Kefauver offered a series of similar proposals, but none was ever acted upon by the House. Similar inaction took place regarding proposals offered by President Taft in 1912, and by George Pendleton, a Representative and Senator during the late 19th century.
Oh, the mere thought of this in action awakens my dormant sense of optimism over an otherwise rather dreary political landscape. Too often I see politicians of all stripes plant themselves firmly in semantic quicksand and stay ensconced until they see fit to exit which is typically at the end of an inquiry. Truly a game meant for the idiosyncratic and dialectic types.
Imagine, for instance, my great political foe, Bill Clinton, coming up under Question Time and finally being asked, once and for all, about his litany of sexual-psychopathy? Alas, I suspect he would have done fairly well given his reputation as a glib and swift falsifier.
I wonder how President Trump would do? I would desperately like to know. He can be asked pointedly about the wall and pressed on it until there is a satisfactory answer.
Over the pond, the great Harold MacMillan confessed to becoming physically sick at the thought of QT-scrutiny from the MPs. You would never know it from seeing him actually do it which speaks to his infamous unflappability for which "Supermac" was known for.
Former MP George Galloway has stated that by far the best performer under question time that he had seen was Margaret Thatcher, whom at least half the country despised.
So, Question Time can at least to this extent be non-partisan.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34599.pdf
For anyone unfamiliar, "Question Time" is the practice observed by the House of Commons where a government minister (typically the PM) is sat in front of his MPs and subjected to a barrage of questions which he or she is "forced" to answer with no purpose of evasion or euphemism.
This seems idyllic in America, where the general form that the political discourse takes is riddled with artful doublespeak, intellectual evasion and flat out non-compliance. Spin alley has truly become an rhetorical ghetto in America.
This is by no means a new idea. In 1991, Representative Sam Gejdenson introduced a proposal that provided for a two hour question period each month. In the early 1970s, Senator Walter Mondale proposed various forms of a “question period” for executive branch officials. During World War II, Representative Estes Kefauver offered a series of similar proposals, but none was ever acted upon by the House. Similar inaction took place regarding proposals offered by President Taft in 1912, and by George Pendleton, a Representative and Senator during the late 19th century.
Oh, the mere thought of this in action awakens my dormant sense of optimism over an otherwise rather dreary political landscape. Too often I see politicians of all stripes plant themselves firmly in semantic quicksand and stay ensconced until they see fit to exit which is typically at the end of an inquiry. Truly a game meant for the idiosyncratic and dialectic types.
Imagine, for instance, my great political foe, Bill Clinton, coming up under Question Time and finally being asked, once and for all, about his litany of sexual-psychopathy? Alas, I suspect he would have done fairly well given his reputation as a glib and swift falsifier.
I wonder how President Trump would do? I would desperately like to know. He can be asked pointedly about the wall and pressed on it until there is a satisfactory answer.
Over the pond, the great Harold MacMillan confessed to becoming physically sick at the thought of QT-scrutiny from the MPs. You would never know it from seeing him actually do it which speaks to his infamous unflappability for which "Supermac" was known for.
Former MP George Galloway has stated that by far the best performer under question time that he had seen was Margaret Thatcher, whom at least half the country despised.
So, Question Time can at least to this extent be non-partisan.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34599.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment