 |
| -by Darth Banana |
Britain is in uproar. There was a leak of a highly sensitive document proposing a radical change in social policy that has the Tories, and much of the public, fuming. The government is embarrassed but looks determined to enact the new policy anyway. A storm of protest is inevitable as the opposition gathers the political will and public opinion to scuttle the plan. The controversy? A plan to ban drinking on buses and trains.
Now when I say drinking, I of course mean the consumption of alcohol; presumably one can still imbibe water, cola, and various fruit juices, not to mention milk, which I hear from various sources, does a body good. However, there has been an apparent increase in public drunkenness, and this has concerned many transportation officials. They surmise that the obvious way to cut down on drinking is to prohibit it.
This was the state of things when I visited the U.K. on a recent trip. As I am the epitome of the average Brit on the street, the media naturally wanted to know what I think. A reporter confronted me with a microphone and demanded my opinion. Unfortunately, I was unable to come up with any Onion-style witticisms on the spur of the moment, but fortunately I was semi-aware of the issue, having watched a segment on Sky News the previous evening.1 Like anything I watch on the news I spent some amount of time thinking about it until I came to some sort of conclusion: I don't care. Living in the United States, the problem doesn't affect me. Frankly, I was surprised to hear that they allowed drinking on public transportation in the first place. Furthermore, even if I did live in England, I doubt the issue would affect me either. Taking shots of vodka on a double-decker isn't exactly the way I would plan to spend an evening.
But apathy is not the best way to deliver a soundbite. I had exactly two seconds to take a position and then state that position eloquently to stake my claim on British radio. Needless to say, my first attempt left much to be desired:
"Well, uh, I think it would be a good idea...'cause it would really cut down on public drunkenness, um, and assaults and, er, other things."
Unable to think critically on the fly (partly due to other things on my mind, like catching the bus to the airport), I had taken a sort of default American position, figuring that whatever we did in the U.S. was good enough for the rest of the world. We don't allow open liquor in public in America, and I never heard much of a complaint against that, so it seemed like a good idea. Then I simply stated this with as much awkwardness as was possible with only the bare minimum of coherence.
The reporter looked about as satisfied with the response as I was. Noticing the obvious luggage surrounding me as well as my American accent, he decided to rephrase things slightly and make it personal:
"Would you be annoyed if you really wanted to have a drink on an airplane and weren't allowed to have one?"
The few extra seconds required to restate the question allowed me time to regain my composure and come up with a decent soundbite.
"I believe that if I wanted a drink that badly, I could wait a few more hours until the plane landed to have one."
This was far and away the superior statement. It indicated that if I could resist the temptation to drink while trapped on an airplane, anyone else should easily be able to wait until a bus stopped at a pub or residence before binging. It plainly stated that this was a matter of willpower and not all that much was required. Furthermore, there was an implication if you couldn't hold out that long then you had bigger problems on your hands. The reporter seemed to reach a similar conclusion, thanked me, and left to solicit someone else. My footprint on national radio was now secure, even if it wasn't my nation.
There was only one problem with the soundbite I gave: I'm not sure I agree with it.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Ralph Waldo Emerson sure knew how to deliver a soundbite. The above quote is a masterly result by being short, succinct, and to the point, whereas I just took two words and a phrase to say the same thing. Beyond that, he's able to communicate a deep thought while rhyming and simultaneously bashing politicians. It is truly poetic. However, I'm actually more concerned about the substance of the statement rather than the style.
I'm pretty sure the only reason I said what I did the second time was due to my desire to be consistent with my first statement. I couldn't easily contradict what I said earlier by saying, "Yes, I would be annoyed if I couldn't have my martini mid-flight. I paid a lot of money for these first-class seats, and I'll be damned if I can't get sloshed as I cross the Atlantic." While that would have also been a good soundbite, mostly for use of PG-13 language, I would appear hypocritical. Why should I have more of a right to a drink at 38,000 feet than some poor homeless guy underground in one of London's tube stations?
The problem with the soundbite is that by being short, it leaves no room for nuance. The fact is, my situation in a plane is different from those kids who want to spend a night on the town. First of all, my loutish behavior won't disturb the pilot, unlike the bus driver, who must constantly yell at loud drunks to sit down and shut up. Secondly, I probably wouldn't get to that point anyway, since the flight attendants would cut me off before then, and it is illegal to consume personal alcoholic beverages on a plane. The scenarios are entirely different, so there is no need to apply a higher principle evenly.
Ironically, the position I took in Britain happens to be a position I fought against while in college. When I first arrived at college, the administration turned a blind eye to underage drinking, only charging individuals who had the most blatant disregard for the law. I thought it had a rather enlightened view on the issue, promoting the ideal of personal responsibility instead of being a caretaker institution. This changed midway, as the university realized it could be sued for negligence and started to crack down. I fought hard against the shift in policy, and spent not an inconsiderable amount of time talking to various school officials explaining that this change exacerbated the problem. If liquor could not be distributed in a controlled environment at parties, then students would "frontload" by drinking heavily in their rooms beforehand, and then go out in an inebriated state, posing a greater danger to themselves and others than if they drank watered-down beer at the various Greek houses. But my arguments fell on deaf ears, and I vowed that I would always support a sensible alcohol policy should I ever come across it.
Then in Britain I'm forced to confront my beliefs by some roving reporter instead of contentedly ignoring the whole situation. This brings up the point that a good soundbite should be prepared well in advance instead of on the spur of the moment. If one is asked a question, one should ignore the question and simply give a statement of that sounds elegant. Otherwise, you'll be caught like me and be forced to change your thinking in the name of consistency. I was for the policy before I spoke against it. Now I just look insincere and can be labeled a flip-flopper. Gee, I guess I really am a Democrat.
There is no time to carefully weigh the pros and cons and give a balanced response. One must choose a side and be forceful about it, otherwise you'll just be ignored. True, there are concerns of the government acting as a nanny state. This could be the thin end of the wedge as the government expands its rules and regulations to cover other aspects of society that should really be governed by a sense of personal responsibility. There's the similar issue of prohibiting smoking in pubs, but I'm for this, mostly because I dislike smoke. Maybe this is all just a matter of cultural relativism, where I find little problem with the regulation simply because I live in a place where it's normal. Perhaps if I grew up in the U.K., I would be vehemently against this new government intrusion, despairing at another liberty lost in the name of societal welfare.
After all, is it so wrong for me to enjoy a quiet glass of wine as I travel on the bus across the Thames from Westminster to Lambeth? But how do you separate a law-abiding subject from those rowdy individuals who flaunt their misbehavior? If abuse on public transportation is a problem, then it should addressed in a serious manner. Legislation might be useful tool when personal responsibility fails.
As I contemplate this topic, I've come to realize that perhaps the soundbite isn't the best method to communicate ideas. Some issues simply have too many complexities and wrinkles to be contained in a few choice phrases. Sometimes you need a whole Grumble article to encompass the debate.
