Gordon Brown's latest Americanism: the Shrum speech

How could I have missed this? The heavy influence of Bob Shrum on Gordon Brown's speech. How could I have missed it?

First of all there are plenty of phrases pretty directly lifted from speeches made by Shrum clients, many of which he admits he wrote. Here are just a few, there may well be many more:

Al Gore 2000 nomination acceptance speech: I know my own imperfections. I know that sometimes people say I'm too serious, that I talk too much substance and policy.

Gordon Brown: Sometimes people say I am too serious and I fight too hard and maybe that's true......

Al Gore 2000 nomination acceptance speech: I pledge to you tonight: I will work for you every day and I will never let you down. "

Gordon Brown: This is my pledge to the British people: I will not let you down.

John Kerry 2004 nomination acceptance speech: And what can I say about Teresa?  She has the strongest moral compass of anyone I know

Gordon Brown: And this is my moral compass

Bill Clinton's State of the Union 1995: As we move into this next century, everybody matters; we don't have a person to waste.

Gordon Brown: This is the century where our country cannot afford to waste the talents of anyone

Then there's the structure. So many Shrum speeches begin with a story about the candidate's mother and father and what they taught him. So did Brown on Monday. And the pointing out John Smeaton was straight out of a Clinton State of the Union speech.

There are also some other telltale Americanisms. For instance, referring to soldiers as the pride of Britain echoes Colin Powell's description of soldiers as the pride of America.

What about those Bible references? Could have been the son of the manse, but my money is on Catholic Bible student Shrum. His client John Kerry was also famous for frequent references to the Bible.

And of course there was the focus-group populism and attempts at lyrical narrative.

The only way in which this wasn't a Shrum speech? It wasn't good enough.

Comments

[Mr Eugenides]

Of course, Shrum's record of getting his candidates elected is pretty poor - is he not "0 for 7"?

[Land of the Wine Lake]

Yes ! Yes ! Yes ! Da Fink is on da munny ! Rumbling El Goro is so funny !

[Jim]

I think he's 0 for 8.

Funny how the biggest losers have the most influence amongst the Democrats.

But I guess it's all of a piece. They want to lose wars, lose freedoms, lose, lose, lose.

[Alan]

For Christ's sake.

Example 1) permissable link at best. both politicians suffer from an image as being too serious and less charasmatic than their predecessor. both suffered towards the end of their time in office as being too frivolous. therefore sucessors (or potential successors) will stress their seriousness.
Schrum as massive influence factor (SAMI factor) of 5/10

2)"I will not/never let you down". 5 words similar in a speech of over an hour. gimme a break.
SAMI factor of 3/10

3) One same phrase - "moral compass". Google lists almost a million references, Google news mentions one in the last few days in relation to a serial killer. Hardly conclusive evidence.
SAMI factor of 1/10

4) Can't even be bothered.
SAMI of 0/10

Incredible insight; a politician giving an anecdote about their parents' moral and ethical influence. Never been done before.

Nor was pointing to Smeaton particuarly novel. It's as old as Lenny Skutnik (Wikipedia it).

And finally, a politican talking about religion. Perhaps novel for Britain in the past few decades, but find an American politican (that Shrum has worked with or not) that hasn't.

In conclusion, I've wasted 10 minutes of my life typing this.

Brown said in his speech "there is no weakness in Britain today that cannot be overcome by the strengths of the British people."

Bill Clinton said in his first inaugural address, "there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"

[Chris Paul]

Oh Come On! Do you not understand Danny that there are only so many "sayables"?

Too serious? Not let you down? Moral compass? Waste?

I thought when Dizzy pointed me to this it was going to be a bit more spectacular than one Brown speech having nine words in common with four Shrum influenced orations.

I am not impressed!

[Tapestry]

Brown's original contribution to politics is that he thinks spending money solves every poblem....even paying someone to tell him what to say.

[Azuka]

So what? This is such a non-story!

[William Mills]

Yes Jim, of course democrats want to lose wars and freedoms. Iraq and the Patriot Act would suggest that they have a lot to learn from Republicans in these areas. Alan is bang on.

Norman Tebbit talked about his father in a speech, as did Margaret Thatcher. Did they talk to Bob Shrum too? John Smeaton was easy pickings, a genuine Scottish hero who likes Brown.

What you've just unearthed, Danny, is a coincidence!

[Sunny]

Someone please tell me how the U.S. Republican Party's strategy to invade Iraq which now breeds terrorists makes that party stronger than the Democratic Party on terrorism? Please tell me how bankrupting America for this same war has made America stronger. Please tell me how not securing our borders has made America stronger? Please tell me how putting incompetent people in charge of the agencies of the U.S. government makes America stronger. Please tell me how circumventing our laws and not upholding the Constitution of the United States makes America stronger. Anyone?

[Denver Watt]

Thank you Mr Finkelstein, interesting but not an eye opener.
Just more new Labour spin.

[Oscar Miller]

The main thing Brown has stolen from the Dems is not so much the speeches (altho' he has surely studied these) but the 'righter than thou' move - that was so evident in state after state where Dems won over Republicans in the 2006 elections. The big Dem gains were spun over here as being all about Iraq, but on closer examination Iraq was not the top priority for most voters - domestic issues were and the Dems consistently outmanoevred the republicans by outflanking them on the right. This is what Brown has studied closely and is now slavishly imitating I'd wager.

[Martin]

"I will not let you down" was delivered by the Kinnock character in The Absence of War (from 1993) - a speech by a fictional Labour leader. Al Gore plagiarised David Hare.

[Nostra da mouse]

The funny thing about Brown is this: next time he talks on TV, listen carefully until he has finished. Then turn to the person next to you and ask : what did he just say? I have yet to find one person who can answer the question. The man can talk for 10 minutes and say nothing. Its the same with the sound on or off. Amazing!

[Liberty Rose]

Posted to Boris's site some months ago:

Carnal knowledge...I've been wondering if Gordon has been reinvented and given body language and speech presentation lessons by Bill Clinton or, more likely, one of his aides. Isn't that partly what Clinton was hinting at during his speech at the last nulab conference?

Watch out for Brown to try to copy the Clinton thumb - he's already had a go, dismal attempt it was too. No matter how hard he tries, poor old Broon's own - very revealing - body language and the subconscious compulsions underlying it creeps in. He just cannot keep the lid on his compulsions for long. Just wait until the nulab honeymoon's over and he's under pressure, he's going to be hilarious when the learned responses begin to unravel :)

How do I get from Carnal knowledge to Clinton? Well...the secret of Clinton's charisma and prowess as a speech maker has been said to be his ability to have carnal knowledge (presumably tantric?) with each individual in his audience.

Lord help us if old Broonie gets any ideas along those lines, since his idea of carnal is probably a good old nose pick. Yuck! Too disgusting to even think about that.

...........

[S. Britchky]

And don't forget how many of those 19th Century symphonies had four movements -- I mean **exactly** four -- just like Beethoven's! Thanks for taking time away from laundering your pajamas to stay top of these important developments.

[Chips Westwood]

Yes, I thought GB's speech, the little I heard -- was reminiscent of speeches heard in the USA during the Gore campaign -- unfortunately for GB his delivery style matched Gore's boring one, perhaps he should have copied Bill Clinton instead!
Whatever, it was utter nonsense, just repetition of the same old, same old, without the oomph delivery of Blair!

[Shelly]

He looks like a dictator!!! Receiving message from the other side of life perhaps?

[Carole]

...Brown is very much his own man...why are so many intimidated by this?

[NoLongerLeftButNotReallyRight]

I found this article amusing and quite plausible right up to the final sentence. Not good enough for what purpose exactly? By how many points is clueless Cameron, his Random Policy Generator, and crew of cats fighting in a sack trailing NuLab now?
If you (and the first comment) are right about this Shrum fellow I'm guessing he's about to break his duck.

[David Moss]

Your observation of the parallels between Mr Brown's speech and a number of others is a powerful answer to your sometime critics who do not share your interest in US politics.

I note below two other points about his speech.

THE PARTY AT THE CENTRE OF THE NEW WORLD

1. It was a recurrent theme of Tony Blair's that we live in a new world [1]. That made him sound new and modern and forward-looking as has often been noted. It achieved something else, though. If this is a new world, then it is legitimate to tear up the old rulebook -- the Constitution. And that is just what he tried to do.

There it is again in Mr Brown's speech*:
"As the world changes so we must change too [2].

May I suggest to the Conservatives that they point out that we live in the same world we have always lived in and that changes to our sophisticated, 800 year-old Constitution that are not carefully thought through are incendiary and potentially revolutionary. Mr Brown should be made to admit what is true -- that Labour have attempted to vandalise the Constitution.

2. Did anyone notice when Mr Brown said:
"New Labour: now the party of aspiration and community. Not just occupying but shaping and expanding the centre ground. A strong Britain; a fairer Britain"?

Probably not. For 13 years we have heard and read that Labour is the perty of the centre, that they have occupied the middle ground, and so on. That makes them sound safe to vote for and makes other parties sound, by comparison, extreme. It is a brilliant line.

But it isn't true. They have tried to politicise the civil service. They have neutered both houses of parliament and replaced them with a sofa. They have jeered at judges for dispensing the laws the Labour government have themselves enacted. They have now taken powers to snoop on our phone calls. They are trying to introduce ID cards ...

In what sense can they be called a party of the centre? What are they supposed to be in the centre of?

May I suggest to the Conservatives that they point out that it is they who are in the centre and Labour who are building the paraphernalia of a totalitarian state (I can't think of any other word for it).

----------
1. http://dematerialisedid.com/BCSL/Gauntlet.pdf
2. http://www.24dash.com/news/57/27881/index.htm

[William]

This story is itself a plagiarism - of the shock horror revelation of Joe Biden copying Neil Kinnock some years ago. I mean, for Heaven's sake: there's no copyright on the English Language. Time to drop this story, I think.

[David Moss]

I BOW TO NO MAN IN MY RESPECT FOR NORMAN BUT ...
Keen readers will remember that I said: "For 13 years we have heard and read that Labour is the p[a]rty of the centre, that they have occupied the middle ground, and so on ... It is a brilliant line ... But it isn't true" [1].

Open last week's Spectator and what do you read? "Neither the party workers (who are despised by the clever young people in Central Office), nor the hard core of 8.8 million Tory voters of 2005, let alone the five million lost to the growing army of abstainers, will be inspired to turn out merely to replace middle-ground New Labour Brown with middle-ground modern Conservative Cameron" [2].

And who wrote that?

Only Norman Tebbit. That's who. Norman Tebbit and his friend St Paul.

Norman Tebbit and St Paul think that Labour occupy the middle ground? Next thing you know, they'll tell us Labour granted independence to the Bank of England [3].

Come on, let's get this hymn right, repeat after me: Labour are Constitutional vandals [4].

That should inspire Lord Tebbit's 8.8 million Tory voters of 2005 and the five million abstainers to turn out. And St Paul's regiments, too, in every county in the land.

To get entire brigades into the polling booth, can I recommend a follow-up?

The Conservatives should shine a bright light on Labour's managerial shortcomings:

* Northern Rock is a testament to their financial management.
* £12.4bn wasted on computerisation in the NHS always goes down well at election rallies.
* The Times broke a story on Friday about the National Offender Management Scheme being scrapped -- that's another £2.6bn down the drain [5].
* Shall we elect the Conservatives now, or shall we let Labour stay on and waste £20bn on the ID card scheme? And pollute the political climate in the process? Not one of the harder questions for King Solomon (another FONT, by the way, friend of Norman Tebbit).
* DEFRA were fined £400m by the EU for failing to pay farmers' subsidies on time. Strapped for cash as a result, they didn't fix the drain. Cue foot and mouth.
* Who forgot to build a few more prisons?
* Who forgot to provide our troops with proper equipment?

Who thinks we shouldn't have a referendum on the EU Constitution dressed up in a Treaty's clothes?

I can't frankly see what there is to stop the Conservatives picking up the Liberal Democrat and Labour votes en passant.

Party of the centre? The party of the tongue-tied Alastair Darling? And that chap who does Foreign Secretary impersonations, you know, ... Miliband? And the Defence Secretary who disappears whenever a boatload of sailors are taken hostage? Not to mention a Prime Minister who disappears whenever a bank goes to the wall? And the Home Secretary who has just given every government official the right to use our mobile phone records to find out where we were when? (There won't be an Italian left in the country, you mark my words. And then we'll be sorry.)

Incompetent constitutional vandals, more like, Norman, begging your pardon, Sir. And you, your Saintship [6].

----------
1. 30 Sep 2007 21:00:00

2. http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/202751/part_2/cameron-should-heed-st-paul-not-his-advisers.thtml

3. This article by John Redwood was written well before the Northern Rock debacle: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/11/do1102.xml

4. You can sing most of this to the tune of the Colonel Bogey March with a raucous chorus of "vandals" at the end.

5. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2547545.ece

6. What is the correct form of address to a saint?