[news/報導/新聞/評論] 英語聽力/BBC Debate/辯論 /民粹主義

此為BBC討論民粹主義、政治、菁英主義的辯論節目，當時美國正值川普（Donald Trump）崛起、與歐洲政體由右派勢力橫掃，加以英國脫歐（Brexit） 。

以下有我聽完之後，整理出：活動文章記錄報導，分析，與個人意見。

Title of the program, the length, the varieties of English used, and the link to

the program:

○ Politics of Fear or a Rebellion of the Forgotten? in BBC World Debate

○ Length: 53 minutes

○ Four kinds of English

■ French or Deutsch or German accent English (Guest, Belgian,

Alexander De Croo, Deputy of Prime Minister of Belgian

Administer of Development of Cooperation and an economist)

■ American English (Guest, American, Eric Cantor, Republican

Party, was a majority of House of Congress who lost his seat in

2014, also a supporter of Donald Trump, now a Vice-Chairman

of Wall Street at Moelis & Company)

■ British English (Guest, Dominic Raab, Conservative MP, the

heart of the leave campaign in the Brexit referendum)

■ Turkish accent English (Guest, Elif Shafak, a writer and a

political commentator, female guest speaker of this panel)

■ German, American and British accent English (interviewees)

○ the Website link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p04q4dcx

● A brief summary:

The purpose of the debate is to discuss how politicians nowadays can deal with the

real-life problem when the voters are fed up with traditional elite leaders with

elections happening in 2017. The debate has not reached a clear, solution-orientated

conclusion with the debate, interview, and the live QA in the program.

The debate has its beginning with the awareness of “the new movement” which was

defined later as populism, by the host, inviting different perspectives and

interpretations on the phenomenon around the world.

The first section of the debate focuses on the identification of populism and the

background information to evoke it.

Eric Cantor agreed the political landscape, “populist nature,” in the U.S, and has

concluded it comes from the people’s frustration against economical and climate

changes.

Alexander De Croo, however, aims at other changes related to the new movement,

such as social media, refugee flow, migrant flow, and technology. Moreover, he has

explicitly pointed out that the Brexit situation is different from the U.S problem, which

foreshadows the fierce debate between the two participants. De Croo further turns to

another factor: people feel anxious because they don’t see the progress they expect

in the world.

Elif Shafak goes back to the populist movements and refers to “populist nature”

especially as the global trend. The new argument she has brought up is that the

community often self-claims as “outsider” even if they are political parties. But what

she has inclined to De Croo’s point is that she observes that people in better

condition do not be aware of ones in worse condition in this polarized world.

Deminic Rabb, who strongly, firmly initiates and ends his speech that he disagrees

that people can fully compare the elections in US and other West European

countries. “Homogeneous” movements in these areas do not exist.

De Croo, however, jumps in and draws attention to the similar strategy of populist:

racism and shaming wording. But Cantor has followed De Croo’s speech and

redefines the “similarity,” that is, “free market” policies are under attack by the

movements. He even offers his testimony that people even attack the opinion

leaders under the movement no matter how hard they are trying to modify the

policies for a country.

The first section of the debate has its pause with the presentation of the interview

with the German, UK, and US interviewees to the audience and the participants. The

German, UK, US interviewees have demonstrated some raw, first hand political

intentions to represent the people’s opinion to the politics.

A German woman lists untrust, anxiety, and anger in the society, when a German

man calls the name “far right politics” on immigrantion and minorities.

As for the UK, an English man has shared his national pride and nationalism, which

can be one of the reasons why Brexit happened, because other countries are too

eager to “tell England what to do.” the other English man shows concern because

people have been “disenfranchised” and been unheard for years and leaders do

things for their own good. another English man lists, “immigrantion,”

“unemployment,” “feeling a sense off,” and “xenophobic.”

An American woman, different from the European fellows, portrays the mentality

living in a country with two big parties of North America. She has admitted that

people vote for the other party when a party becomes a majority to flip the

government for potential changes, and it has highly contributed to why Donald

Trump becomes a winner.

The second section of the debate then began.

After the showing of the interview, the host has summarized some of the points that

interviewees have offered, such as fear for immigration and unemployment, and she

asked Rabb if the anti-establishment move is “politics of Fear or a Rebellion of the

Forgotten.” The debate has finally gone straight to its topic.

Rabb partially agrees that immigration is a heated topic in the Brexit discussion, but

he justifies the Brexit decision with the statistics--50% of the English people would

like to “take back the democratic control of the law,” which resonates with one of the

English man’s national pride and nationalism. He also sticks his fingers to 

international banks and IMF (International Monetary Fund) for the public fear and

anxiety and refuses to accept that the gloom people have come from a political

failure of the UK government.

Shafak is asked about “Fear cannot be the political action”. However, she does not

respond to the host questions directly but make She sharply points out that

popularist leader is just another elite with different ideology when people just use or

criticize the concepts so easily, such as elite, expert, and establishment, and doesn’t

think much about it. However, she also reminds us that some of the values, such as

diversity and multiculturalism and cosmopolitan heritage, should not be taken as

granted from her observation or her living experiences as a Turk.

The host then refers to De Croo for some more concrete opinions. He argues that

two tools in popularist movement: fear and identity. The mechanism of the mixed two

tools is “toxic” because the ideology polarizes communities into extreme goodness

and extreme badness. The example he takes is the hostile attitude, including name

calling and shaming toward Mexican in the US resulting from “White supremacy.” His

position stays still.

But, Cantor, of course, jumps in to beg De Croo’s defer as the Belgian govern

criticizes the America’s affair. He attacks Hillary Clinton’s name calling on Trump

supporters, “The deplorable,” and insists that name calling is two-way instead of an

approach of certain groups.

The host refocus and tries to get down to the business of “White supremacy,”

however, Cantor continues to talk about the theme of people’s “fear” and propose

different ideas from the interviewees in the previous transition--people want stronger

leader and the importance of national identity.

Cantor’s speech is cut by the host for Shafak’s turn to express. She keeps a rather

neutral tone and shows empathy for Brexit supporters and Trump supporters

because they don’t deserve name calling such as racist. But she shows concern

about the reality that people are living in the world of “angst.” She proposes that

education is important and people should not be led by “fear.”

Robb then cut in to differ. He has accused that most democrats are not listening to

the needs of people and the extreme resorts are expected under such a situation.

The third section begins with the host’s quotation on a post on social media,

“populism is about concern about people” and refers to the election outcome of

Trump in America and the invitation for the audience to ask.

The question from the audience:

(1) What are some things that leaders can do to regain trust? He even specifically

asks how Cantor would re-run the election in Virginia?

The first question session:

De Croo then started to differ with Rabb's justification on Brexit. De Croo claims that

an easy resort, such as closing the border, is how people believe to resolve

everything. He has raised some questions: How can the politicians bring a moderate

message in a radical way? How can the politicians find a “clear” language but not a

“radical” language?

The host then cuts in and asks if De Croo can answer the question from the

audience. That is, how can the leaders regain trust?

Cantor picked on the question and expressed his own running dilemma. He neither

agrees with the immigration policy of the previous Obama government nor the block

of the “dreamers,” the first-generation kids. However, this does not answer the

question of “gaining trust” either, so the host invites Shafak to talk about another

sub-topic, “listening to the people’s say.”

Shafak reminds us that we should be aware of the usage of “real people,” which

suggests that there are some other “unreal people.” The other people who are

unseen cannot vote for issues such as Brexit. As she has mentioned the importance

of education, at this time she emphasizes on the importance of the individual’s effort

on diversity and multiculturalism.

The fourth section of the debate begins after the advertisement and some BBC

news.

The second question session:

(2) The person has a clear standpoint on the ugliness of popularism's

response, and would like to know why the politicians are overlooking it and

have the poor defense.

Rabb was assigned by the host to respond with the background of a decadence of

an immigrant to the UK.

Rabb first clarifies that he has zero tolerance on hate crime. But he constantly

justifies that Brexit is the way people react to having self-governing even if they still

want to befriend Europe. He also stresses he is not against refugees and

immigration but the local community is prioritized in his concern.

The host asks follow up questions to the audience and the audience has added on

some more information and criticizes that the camp of Donald Trump has been

racist, which Cantor is strongly opposed to.

Cantor speaks for himself, saying he was one of the first to stand against Trump’s

racist language because the remarks are against the institution. He even refers to his

background of being a Jew and will stand up if any person has said something rude

about Jew.

De Croo has disagreed. He thinks that the Trump camp/popularist has been flip

flopping all the time and doesn’t provide any value. And the two gentlemen have a

fierce argument, and Shafak is invited by the host again.

She states that although there are some differences among the popularist in different

countries, we should mind the similarities as well. That is, “us and them,” which is

mentioned in her previous argument and De Croo’s argument.

She further delivers that “us and them” might be the confrontation of the “corrupted

elite” and “real people.” Among the four participants, she firstly pointed out the

overconfidence among people that the international incidents happening around

2017 were said impossible to happen, such as the Trump election and Brexit.

She also says that gut feeling is driving the popularist when they start to untrust the

experts. “Evidence based thoughts” are important, added and responded to by the

host.

Cantor then turns into free market and individual rights again in this global,

connected society. However, he then speaks for Donald Trump again. First, he

focuses on economics, and guarantees they can create 3% growth for the U.S to

“make America great again.” He denies that the nation will take up more protection,

and has his second point out. Second, he focuses on the fear of the people. That is,

the fear of the terrorists.

To make it clear, the host asks what are the exact practices of the

popularist/populism?

He replies that leadership of America in the world is important and expected to be

built. However, he cannot answer the question that Hilary Clinton has won more

votes than Donald Trump but says that Donald Trump has won millions more votes

in some counties (which I guess are more of the Democrats’ area).

The host then invites Rabb to talk about the topic of popularist/populism.

Rabb first points out that it is no use to deny globalization and capitalism, but to find

a way to work for the “ordinary people.” Just as Cantor, Rabb cannot overemphasize

the importance of free trade. But Rabb has his point that the government and the

post-Brexit situation is trying to make globalization and capitalism work not only for

the middle class, but also low-income families.

After the Rabb’s speaking, the host asks De Croo about the British-EU economic

relation.

De Croo partially agrees with Rabb’s idea that globalization and trades should be

good for the people, but the reality is that some of the trades are not good, such as

the trade with China with dumping. He warns that people are going easy on “solving

it and gonna be great,” when negotiation and the understanding of the interests will

“bring the real answer.” The viewpoint argues against the previous arguments of

Cantor’s and Rabb’s and creates more tension.

The third question session:

(3) The question is specifically for De Croo, Shafak, and the future: What kind

of society will be seen in the five years?

Shafak responds with the idea of “inter-connected destiny” for the big question, such

as the refugee problem and 911 terrorists. She has shown understanding for

patriotism, but she also warns that once populism takes over, it will become more

powerful according to history. Extremes are seen. She also won applause from the

audience by asking the question: how can people regain trust in democracy?

The host then asks De Croo’s opinion with the background information that

Netherland’s and German’s key and regional election has to do with “anti-Islam” and

“anti-immigration.”

De Croo admits he cannot foresee the future but he can tell the audience some

elements coming up. He has, again, told us the danger of the divisiveness of the

good and the bad. He is against the political strategy with divisiveness and propose

people should follow the certain rules no matter who is in the government: non-

discrimination, equality in chances, and non-determination based on one’s

background.

The fourth question session:

(4) How has social media contributed to populism?

Cantor answers the question with a term, “fake news.” The new media will bring a

filter, and the thing people can do is to ensure the facts. He refers to Rabb’s words in

the debate and reminds the politicians to “listen to the people.” However, he is not

totally pessimistic and sees the opportunity that can expand the arguments

supporting free trade and democratic institutions with social media.

Rabb is more suspicious about social media if the discussion on the internet can fully

represent the debate and the people from his observation in the UK.

De Croo is more progressive on the opinion wars on social media. He argues that “it

is not about fake news, it’s about fake arguments.” The example he provides is the

argument that the money that is going to the EU is going to the NHS (The National

Health Service is the publicly funded healthcare system in England) and “has nothing

to do with social media.”

Rabb refutes De Croo that the huge budget that the UK government put into the EU

is not working and the backup is unsure, which triggers the sentiments of Brexit.

The last section is the time when the host invites the four participants to give a brief

commentary on populism and the anti-establishment movement.

Shafak pleads to the audience that “democracy is fragile” and it should not become

the means for power and “oppress different voices”.

Rabb, as an MP, cherishes leadership and responsibility and shows kindness and

agreement to most of the things that participants have brought up in the debate.

De Croo humbly calls for the attention that he and all politicians should stop

pretending they know everything to take control.

Cantor, for the third time, emphasizes the importance of free market capitalism,

individual rights, and the supporter of democracy to make the world better.

● A list of the individuals taking part in the debate:

○ US - Eric Cantor - Former Republican Congressman

○ Belgium - Alexander De Croo - Deputy Prime Minister

○ UK - Dominic Raab - Conservative MP

○ UK - Elif Shafak - Turkish writer and commentator

● Critique of the program:

The topic is really interesting but I actually don’t find this program informative

and appealing with the two reasons but also with one highlight.

First, the definition of terms is not clear. I would say that the host takes more

responsibility. In the beginning, she brings up a really vague question about

“what are some of the new waves” when she already expects the participants

to talk about populism and the recent incidents at the time such as Brexit and

Trump’s election. I don’t see both sides doing well in the beginning of the

program. The definition of popularism of the conservative (Robb and Cantor)

is more of a wave against traditional elite ruling, while the definition of the

democrats (De Croo and Shafak) is more of a post-truth, emotional leading

actions.

The word “fear” is also brought up so many times. When Cantor would say the

fear is the fear of the people because the elites were not listening, Shafak

would say the fear is the fear of the people because they are afraid of the

trends and changes in the nation. The definition of other terms such as

“people,” “elite,” “establishment” are absent as well.

Second, I don’t see them debating at each other but throwing different

speeches to the audience, the host, and each other. The only participant that

would actively confront other perspectives is De Croo, trying to interact with

Cantor and Rabb. I find most of the time the participants would not face the

questions but try to escape and answer the questions in their way. For

Cantor’s case, he obviously drifted from populism in America to the

arguments that populism is everywhere in every camp, which doesn’t really

explain and justifies Trump supporter’s populism in a persuasive way. Shafak

also would give really general and scholarly suggestions with a passive

position, which doesn’t fit into the expectation of a third person as a writer and

commentator to challenge people in or was in the administrative system. The

program, with the feature, is like the stage for the politicians to do propaganda

on their side but does not present any in-depth discussion.

The third thing, also the only great thing I appreciated, was the high quality of

the content provided by the interviewees and the audience. They seem to

prepare with some study and research on the topic of populism, Brexit, and

the Trump election. I think I learn more from the interviewees and the

audience because they have provided some of the most concrete testimony,

observation, and even some on-point demands than the participants in the

debate, but not word playing as the participants are mostly doing in the

program.

● A reflection of the issues:

My reflection of the issues is gloomy. I would like to agree with the sad truth

that both parties (conservative and liberal) are not good enough. That is, from

the debate, I totally understand why people are saying that the conservative is

rude, and the liberals are arrogant.

Sometimes the audience and the participants who are more of a liberal

respond as if the other part of the participants are bad thinkers on certain

issues such as immigrant and multiculturalism. However, the audience and

the participants who are more of a conservative respond with a really self-

centered nature and defame the other part as their instinct.

My reflection of the issues on populism is that I don’t see any change in the

politics and any commitment of a better environment with solution-oriented

minds. Either it is populism or anarchism, conservative or liberal, I think

people are resisting something happening right now.

Attacking is not the best defense. Solution in the long term is something I

would like to hear from the program but unfortunately, I am not fully

persuaded by any side of the participants. I feel that I was listening to different

speeches and issues were not successfully narrowed or reframed. When I

was picking on this program, I was expecting to have a tentative, or a

progressing solution for the trend of populism. However, I don’t think the

program has met with any of my expectations and I am more confused if the

governors really know what they are thinking, speaking, and doing.

● A reflection on listening to a program on this nature:

The reflection on listening to a program of this nature is hard because of the

two reasons. I actually have listened for over 5 times to get what the four

participants are trying to say and would appreciate it if they had spoken in a

more organized way.

I think listening to a debate with multiple accents in English is hard because I

can barely focus with duplicated speech tempo in English as the linguistic

features of some speakers’ first language. For me, I have to constantly

change my speed of thinking to follow up with the conversation. If all parties

speak in a similar accent of English, listening to a debate contest would be a

much easier task.

Also, as I have mentioned in the critique, the participants are not debating

with others. The arguments are randomly coming up to transit into something

they want to say. Therefore, it is hard to go with the flow of the debate

because the back and forth are not meaningful so it takes more time to

consume and clarify their main arguments, intention, and the tentative

conclusion in every section.

The solution I have come up with for the first concern is to pick on the

keywords. It is hard for me to be that sensitive to the language when the

tempo of the language itself is unstable. Thus, I would rather focus on the

keywords as we learn in the speech and the debate class.

The solution I have come up with for the second concern at the moment is to

not take every word in the debate too “seriously.” However, when I say not

seriously, I mean we need to examine the repetitive or contradictory usage of

words and arguments to check the speaker’s credibility. A responsible

speaker does not change his basic arguments, shift the meaning of the words,

or suddenly add up some random details to sound great easily. If the speaker

is doing the opposite thing, then we need to listen carefully. However, if a

speaker is repeating certain terms, we need to be suspicious if they are using

some ideas as disguise to avoid the conflicted interest and some topics.