While there has been a certain entertainment value in watching the US Republican candidates slagging one another off like squabbling children, it is clear these politicians have a lot to learn as regards the technique of insulting behaviour.
There is nothing inherently wrong in insulting your opponents — after all, that’s what politics is all about. But it is more effective if accomplished with an element of style, something which has been noticeably absent in those televised debates. Delivering an insult effectively is quite an art and involves a lot more than calling one another silly names like “liar”, "loser”, “basket case” or “phoney” and stooping to references to a certain appendage.
Politicians insulting one another has been going on since the birth of democracy. As far back as Ancient Greece, playwright Aristophanes noted, “the characteristics of a popular politician are a horrible voice, bad breath, and a vulgar manner”. It seems little has changed.
Those US politicians could pick up a few techniques from their British counterparts who have long mastered the art of parliamentary put-downs. One of the earliest exchanges came in the 18th century. Radical politician John Wilkes listened to Lord Sandwich as he announced to parliament that Wilkes would “die on the gallows or of the pox”, to which Wilkes splendidly replied: “That depends, my lord, on whether I first embrace your principles or your mistress.”
Misfortunes and calamities
Of course there is still plenty of name-calling in British politics too. It is not unknown for someone to be called an “idiot”, “oaf”, “buffoon”, “twit”, “nincompoop”, “nitwit”, “imbecile” or “moron”. And that’s just the prime minister.
A famous exchange came in Victorian times when Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone frequently clashed in parliament. The more articulate Disraeli invariably came out on top. Once, when asked to distinguish between a misfortune and a calamity, Disraeli responded: “If Gladstone fell into the Thames, that would be a misfortune. If anybody pulled him out, that would be a calamity.”
Feeling sheepish
Winston Churchill was undoubtedly the master of put-downs and was involved in many memorable parliamentary exchanges. He was the first to come up with the oft-repeated: “A modest man, with much to be modest about”, when referring to Clement Attlee. He also termed Attlee “a sheep in sheep’s clothing”.
On one occasion an MP was addressing the House of Commons in uninspiring style and spotted Churchill apparently dozing off. The MP asked him if he was asleep. Churchill quickly responded: “No, but I wish to God I were.”
After a rambling speech by James Ramsay MacDonald, Churchill observed: “We know that he has, more than any other man, the gift of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought.” MacDonald would have made a good newspaper columnist.
MacDonald had rather a rough time in parliament, not exclusively at the hands of Churchill. During MacDonald’s tearful farewell to parliament, Scottish Labour leader James Maxton bawled out at the sobbing politician: “Sit down man, you’re a bloody tragedy.”
Feminine touch
It would be remiss not to mention Churchill’s legendary exchange with Lady Astor after he had upset her at Blenheim Palace. Lady Astor rebuked Churchill with: “If I were your wife, I would put poison in your coffee,” to which Churchill replied, “If I were your husband I would drink it.”
But one of his lesser-known public differences with a woman was when a lady reprimanded him with: “There are two things I don’t like about you Mr Churchill — your politics and your moustache.” To which Churchill replied: “My dear madam, pray do not disturb yourself. You are not likely to come into contact with either.”
One female politician who was quite used to handling insults was Margaret Thatcher. Labour MP Tony Banks once described her as having “the sensitivity of a boa constrictor”. On a similar theme, another Labour politician, Ken Livingstone. commented: “I’ve met serial killers and assassins but nobody scared me as much as Mrs Thatcher.”
Toads and lizards
Over the years Thai parliamentary proceedings have been relatively tame, occasionally livened up by a few harmless insults. There was admittedly uproar some time ago when an opposition MP called a leading politician a “toad”. Now that really hurt and he was said to be “hopping mad.” More common insults have been MPs calling one another names like “lizard”, “buffalo” and unflattering references to assorted reptiles.
Things did get a bit lively in the Thai parliament about six years ago when two lady MPs nearly came to blows after one called the other “brainless’’. The argument degenerated with one being called “a low-class horse”, or a word sounding very similar.
One wonders what would be the outcome if someone was foolish enough to call Donald Trump a “toad”. That could be fun.
Comedy club
There have been occasional futile attempts to upgrade the standard of debate in the Thai parliament. Just before an election a decade ago, one party announced that it would field 20 professional comedians in the polls. The public reaction was that there were more than enough comedians in parliament already, without adding to the ranks.
Contact PostScript via email at oldcrutch@hotmail.com.