Margaret Thatcher’s death this week prompts economic historian John Steele Gordon to muse for Commentary readers about the likely impact if the United States decided to import for its political process a key aspect of the British prime minister’s job.
I have often thought that it is very unfortunate that nothing like question time has developed in this country, for it has been an enormously positive force in British politics. Unlike journalists, who are inescapably locked in a mutual back scratching society with politicians and thus can’t be too tough on them, the opposite party is only too happy to force them to respond—on the fly—to embarrassing questions. This, in turn, has empowered British journalists to ask tougher questions than American journalists usually ask. The Sunday talk shows in this country are all too often softball exhibitions.
It has also forced British politicians to be very nimble on their verbal feet, and wit—which is often in very short supply in American politics—is greatly prized on the other side of the Atlantic. Many of Winston Churchill’s famous turns of phrase, such as “terminological inexactitude” and “parsimonious with the truth,” came out of question time. And then there was the famous exchange in the 18th century when one member, losing his temper, said of another, “You, sir, shall die of the pox or upon the gallows!” His interlocutor instantly replied, “And which it is to be, sir, depends on whether I embrace your mistress or your principles!”
Wouldn’t it be great if the entire cabinet and the heads of the major agencies had to appear in the House of Representatives once a week and answer whatever questions the other party chose to throw at them, while members hooted their derision or shouted, “hear! hear!”? At the very least, it would make for great political theater, once they sharpened their debating skills.
