Then, towards the end of the debate, Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn, son of the famous left-wing politician Tony Benn, made his speech. At around fourteen minutes in length it did not seek to run over the allotted time, but managed to fit quite a lot of content in nonetheless. Supposedly Benn had been writing it during the debate and did not think it was up to much himself, but his principles demanded he make in nonetheless. The result was rapturous applause from much of the Commons and, most notably, the final swaying of opinion towards voting in favour of air strikes for many who had been undecided, or, at the very lest, uncertain. It was lauded in tweets and in news articles for its clear, yet simple rhetoric, its compassionate opening and emotive conclusion. People were even commenting - within minutes - that Benn was now the clear candidate to replace Corbyn as Labour leader.
It went the other way too of course. Many hard-left supporters were decrying Benn as a traitor and much abuse was subsequently heaped upon him and upon the 65 other Labour MPs who voted for the strikes. This was hardly fair and references made to his father birling in his grave were particularly underhanded (not least because it seems like Tony Benn would have been very proud, even in disagreement), but at the same time I can understand their anger - indeed, before I had heard the speech I felt some of it myself - for here was a man changing minds and being hailed as some kind of political apotheosis upon the basis of just one speech, and, most notably, primarily on the quality of the speech itself, not, necessarily, the argument being made
Here's that speech in full:
There is no denying, even from the position of one who disagreed (and continues to disagree) with the motion of which it was in favour, that this is a good speech. Benn hits all the right notes, from emphasising his friendship and respect for Jeremy Corbyn at the beginning, through making a clear moral case for some kind of action, to even including arelatively short, but powerful argument in favour of that action being the extension of British air strikes into Syria. There is much that he says that I can agree with and it is clear that he is making his speech out genuine principled belief that this truly is the right thing to do. Part of the problem for me is that the argument he makes, and which persuaded many, is disproportionate in its components, and in the impact they are intended to have.
The strongest and lengthiest part of his argument is the moral case for action against ISIS (my preferred acronym, incidentally, since they all essentially mean the same thing and this is by far the easiest to remember, although it does make them sound a little too much like Bond villains). There is no doubt that when he makes this argument, both in the main body of his speech and in his highly emotive conclusion, the vast majority of the house must have been in agreement with him, even if they knew he was leading them towards points of contention. It is, of course, completely right that we should do something to act against terror and against those who cause so much suffering and death. It is absolutely right to listen to UN Security Council resolution 2249 (paragraph five of which Benn quotes) and take all necessary measures against the Islamic State, but it is important to note that this is not necessarily an argument in favour of extended air strikes, or even for continuing the strikes we are already making in Iraq.
Benn does address this, of course. At about 7:40 in the video above he switches from making a moral case for action to making a specific case for extended air strikes. This continues only for another four and a half minutes and includes within it numerous points in agreement with those who propose alternative measures to the air strikes. He even makes it clear that there are many reasons why other MPs may still choose to oppose the strikes, a step which, whilst conciliatory, actually undermines his argument quite a bit. The points he makes in favour of the strikes are good ones, but left out of the context of the many arguments against strikes, are not necessarily convincing. They certainly do no answer concerns of increasing radicalisation, or the fact that western intervention in the Middle East over the last fourteen years (if not much longer) is a major reason for the rise of ISIS in the first place, nor do they address legitimate concerns that, far from increasing national security, increased bombing of ISIS targets may well increase the threat of terror against our nation.
Of course it's quite natural that Benn would leave these things out - they do not work in favour of his argument and it's possible he himself does not consider them strong enough arguments in opposition, but their absence, in the context of his speech makes his argument seem stronger than many believe it to be.
But the real coup de grace is yet to come. The final two minutes of the speech, addressed to the Labour party and evoking the fight against fascism in the early twentieth century, is the point where I lose all sympathy for Mr. Benn's arguments and begin to wonder if we need to react much more strongly against rhetoric in modern debate.
You see Benn's concluding remarks are designed to stir up emotions: pride in the Labour party's achievements and principles, hatred towards fascism, guilt for inaction, and many others besides. By dredging up comparisons to the fights against Franco, Mussolini and, of course, Hitler, Benn is aiming to stir up a kind of self-righteous and patriotic pride which is the inevitable consequence of harking back to that era. Never mind that, once again, it is only an argument in favour of action, not for the specific action for which Benn is calling on his colleagues to vote. Never mind that, whether it is right to call them fascists or not, comparisons of ISIS to the right-wing movements of Europe in the early 20th century - and similarly the kinds of action which are needed to be taken against them - are completely inappropriate.
That Benn reaches this point, at the end of his speech, at the end of the debate, is actually vaguely amusing. It's reminiscent of that which is known as Godwin's law, stating that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1". A corollary of this law also states that the first person to make such a comparison automatically loses the argument. I think there are good reasons for adopting such a corollary and Benn's use of such a comparison last Wednesday evening demonstrates it as well as any I could cite. The issue is that such a comparison fails to appeal to reason - it appeals to emotion, to patriotism and to the threat of being accused of fascism yourself.
There is a difference, of course, between an online discussion, where the Nazi comparison is usually the last resort of a deeply frustrated and angry individual and, more often than not is a direct insult to their opponent, and Benn's speech, which is calm, carefully worded and well thought out. I fear the impact, however, is much the same and that the insult of the online discussion forum is still implied in Benn's words. He does not say so outright, perhaps would not even believe he had implied it, but within his comparison is the accusation that those Labour MPs who would vote against the strikes would not be 'doing their bit' against fascism, that they would be allowing 'the Nazis' to get away with it, that - despite his opening argument against Cameron's direct statement to the same effect - they were somehow on the wrong side.
And yet, as I have already said, this speech was praised for all the things I have just discussed. That's because it was was a collection of very well-chosen words, delivered just as skilfully, and in the world of debate - indeed in its long history, since the time of the ancient Greeks - how an argument is made matters more than whether or not it is a good argument, or even correct when put under scrutiny. It is the same in the Houses of Parliament as it is in our newspapers, blogs (this one included), debating societies, and even our daily conversations an arguments with each other.
Of course some of this is just natural human behaviour. Words are powerful. If you've read any of my blogs before you'll know how much I believe in the power of words to make real, important change. We can be swayed by words very easily if we're not thinking critically about what we're hearing and I know I am just as guilty as the rest of humanity when it comes to taking a speech or a text at face value rather than spending the time to question it and decide whether there is any truth contained behind the careful turns of phrase. If we're really to have a nation which engages politically, and political class which represents us and the issues of the world with full truthfulness and integrity, then I think it's time we started to react against rhetoric in our debates. We need to train our citizens to be more critical, to engage with arguments at all levels and to make sure that, no matter how impressed they are by the works of great word-smiths, they do not let it sway them into making decisions for the wrong reasons, or not backed up by sufficient evidence.
And the next time you hear someone make a Nazi comparison - don't applaud them until your sure it fits.
Further Reading:
Were you carried away by Hilary Benn's 'electrifying' speech? This is political theatre, not democracy. - Rachel Shabi, The Independent.
