Not with a bang, but with (an opponent's) whimper - Macleans.ca
 

Not with a bang, but with (an opponent’s) whimper


 

This excerpt from Tony Blair’s memoirs, quoted in the New Yorker review of that book, stood out for obvious reasons:

So I defined Major as weak; Hague as better at jokes than judgment; Howard as an opportunist; Cameron as a flip-flop, not knowing where he wanted to go. . . . Expressed like that, these attacks seem flat, rather mundane almost, and not exactly inspiring—but that’s their appeal. Any one of those charges, if it comes to be believed, is actually fatal. Yes, it’s not like calling your opponent a liar, or a fraud, or a villain or a hypocrite, but the middle-ground floating voter kind of shrugs their shoulders at those claims. They don’t chime. They’re too over the top, too heavy, and they represent an insult, not an argument. Whereas the lesser charge, because it’s more accurate and precisely because it’s more low-key, can stick. And if it does, that’s that. Because in each case, it means they’re not a good leader. So game over.

Sound familiar? Open discussion in the comments.


 
Filed under:

Comments are closed.