Teacher’s pet
With every step on the way to the top, the one who is known to Super One as Doctor Joseph Muscat appears determined to prove the accusation that he is the quintessential teacher’s pet, rather than his own man. His career progression has been marked by a process of sucking up to the party leader and other senior figures who he has described as his mentors. If he were a woman, the psychological pundits would have said that he has a sugar-daddy fixation. But he’s not a woman, so we’ll just have to say that he’s a teacher’s pet.
Teacher’s pets aren’t just boys, of course. Lots of them are girls. In my class at school, the teacher’s pets sat in the front row, hung onto every word, turned round to shush the disruptive girls talking in the back row, wore a permanent air of superiority and always rushed to play guitar for the nuns during – yawn – yet another mass. The approval of authority figures was, to them, far more important that the approval of their peers. They didn’t care a hoot that by actively currying favour with the former they incurred the mocking wrath of the latter.
Does this remind you of anyone? It certainly reminds me of Doctor Joseph Muscat, who at the grand old age of 34 is still hunting down the approval of a series of male authority figures. He is the Teacher’s Pet of the Year, which is not quite the same thing as the Playboy Playmate Pet of the Year, but you get my drift. First it was Doctor Alfred Sant, whose lapdog poodle he famously became, then it was Doctor George Vella, then Mister Godfrey Grima, then Doctor Anthony Licari – all were hauled into the forum to vouch for the credibility, sanity, ability and intelligence of the man who, like Doctor Alfred Sant before him, has made Doctor the first component of a three-word moniker.
Now the teacher’s pet has been at it again, with a flying visit from Mister (alas, not Doctor) Martin Schultz, the chairman of the European Socialists, who just so happened to be in Malta. A press conference was called, and Doctor Joseph Muscat sat at Mister Martin Schultz’s side, wearing his best teacher’s pet expression – one that I last saw on the smug face of one of those front-row girls as she was being praised by the teacher for always doing her maths homework perfectly, unlike Daphne over there at the back who never even bothers pretending to have done it at all (oh baby, I had the last laugh).
The press photographers caught images that perfectly encapsulated his immaturity: he beamed uncontrollably with pleasure and self-satisfaction as Mister Martin Schultz praised him. He doesn’t know that it is appropriate for all those of us who are older than 12 to wear a deadpan, indifferent or ever-so-slightly embarrassed expression when being subjected to fulsome or gushing praise. It is even more appropriate to attempt to get the person doing the praising to stop, by passing some sort of self-deprecating remark. It is highly inappropriate to encourage praise, and more so to ship in people and hold press conferences for the express purpose of allowing journalists to hear them praise you. Do Doctor Joseph Muscat and Mister Martin Schultz know the meaning of the word ‘cringe’? I doubt it.
Doctor Joseph Muscat actually believes – at the age of 34 and a married man with two children, who is attempting to become party leader and thence, prime minister – that drafting in senior politicians to give spoken testimonials to his suitability for the post is an immensely good idea. This makes me want to lie down and weep. Real men, real leaders and real politicians are taken at their own worth. The minute you feel you need to bring in some public testimonials as to your character-worthiness and your suitability for the post for which you are applying, like a job applicant asked for a reference from your last employer or departmental professor, you’re done for. The message the public receives (the intelligent public, at least) is not the one you want them to receive, but another one altogether: that you alone are not enough to convince us, that you must be bolstered by the testimonials of others, that you have the mentality of a job applicant and not of a statesman and a leader.
Mister Martin Schultz said at the press conference: “I am here to express my support for my friend Joe, a very important member of our parliamentary group. I know Joseph Muscat as a deeply convinced pro-European.” Do you see what I mean? That’s a dead ringer for a reference written for somebody who is applying for a job. For heaven’s sake, you don’t expect to see it done for somebody who is applying for the job of prime minister. Doesn’t Doctor Joseph Muscat realise this? Apparently not, because the entire Santian wing of the Labour Party suffers from a massive social inferiority complex masked by an intellectual superiority complex, and depends heavily on the reassurance of academic qualifications and public testimonials by Important Persons. We have an unusual political situation in that the Santian Labour Party is composed almost entirely of teacher’s pets, when it is usually rebels who are attracted to Labour and the left wing. Oh but I forgot – the Labour Party is now rightwing, xenophobic, conservative and inward-looking, and therefore a perfect stomping-ground for bottom-licking creeps and teacher’s pets.
So Mister Martin Schultz thinks that Doctor Joseph Muscat is a deeply convinced pro-European. That’s interesting. Does he know that Doctor Joseph Muscat abstained, spoiled his vote or voted No in the referendum on membership, in line with his mentor’s orders? Does he know that Doctor Joseph Muscat spent the entire referendum campaign writing newspaper articles that sought to convince us how EU membership would be disastrous for Malta? Does he know that Doctor Joseph Muscat, in his other incarnation as a Super One ‘journalist’ a mere five years ago, barracked politicians who favoured EU membership, and even shouted over the prime minister as he was trying to speak during a Broadcasting Authority press conference? Apparently, the ‘diplomatic skills’ that Mister Martin Schultz noted in him are a very recent acquisition, too. I do hope a reporter asked these questions at the press conference, but I have scanned the reports thoroughly and found nothing to indicate that somebody did. If Doctor Joseph Muscat is a deeply convinced pro-European then five years ago he was – what, a dumb blond obeying sugar-daddy’s orders to ensure that he wasn’t kicked out of the Playmate Pet of the Year mansion?
Let’s put it this way. I can’t for a moment imagine Lawrence Gonzi (or the other contenders, for that matter), flying in a Euro-politician to say how jolly good he is in the Nationalists’ leadership election four years ago. It would have been seen correctly as an erroneous strategy that detracted from his strength rather than bolstering it. The valid reasoning would have been that if you need to draft in the support of third parties to tell the public how fantastically suited you are to the post of party leader and prime minister, then you are not fantastically suited to that role at all, but rather the opposite. The public can see this. Not everybody has a pumpkin for a brain, even in the Labour Party.
Now, in the classic mode of the teacher’s pet, Doctor Joseph Muscat is mocked, derided, resented and despised by the rest of his class. It won’t be long before they corner him in the lavatories and give him a big wedgie. This is what happens – or used to happen, anyway – to teacher’s pets. Somebody holds them down and somebody else, in one swift movement, jerks their pants up so that – well, let’s not be too graphic. And incidentally, this is not bullying. Bullying is what happens when the weakest children are picked on. Teacher’s pets are not the weakest members of the class but those in the strongest position, because they have chosen to align themselves strategically with authority rather than with their fellow pupils and peers.
Doctor Joseph Muscat’s classmates have written to the President of the Party of European Socialists to complain about Mister Martin Schultz’s behaviour in singling out the teacher’s pet. “We are sure you agree that it is deeply offensive, totally irregular and highly unethical (and uncalled for) to have an official of the Party of European Socialists endorse one particular candidate, to the detriment of the other four,” they wrote. You see, this is the funny thing: in a more normal state of affairs, the testimonial of a Political Big Cheese would work against a candidate and, by default, in favour of his rivals. Testimonials merely make one look ridiculous when one is seeking the leadership of the country. Leaders are not supposed to seek the public approval of figures they believe to be more senior, important or credible than they are. They are supposed to seek the approval of the electorate by appearing strong enough not to need the testimonials of others.
Doctor Alfred Sant’s control of the Labour Party was a textbook case of the Revenge of the Nerd. Now we are going to be treated to the Reign of the Teacher’s Pet. What thrills – and giant wedgies – lie in store.
This article was published in The Malta Independent on Sunday yesterday.
31 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
How come JM didn’t tell Schultz to bite his tongue?
For your info Mr Martin Schulz is the same Martin Schulz , who felt he should criticse the Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi. Mr Berlusconi who is not renowned for political correctness responded to Mr Schulz in no uncertain terms:
The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia (Silvio Berlusconi)
“On 2 July 2003, one day after taking over the rotating presidency of the EU Council of Ministers, he was heavily criticised by the German SPD Member of the European Parliament Martin Schulz because of his domestic policy and his alleged links to the Mafia. Berlusconi responded: ‘Mr Schulz, I know a movie producer in Italy who is making a movie about Nazi concentration camps. I suggest you play the role of a Kapo. You are perfect for the part!’. ”
Daphne please note that Mr Schulz did not endorse DoctorJosephMuscat on a personal basis but he did so in his capacity of chairman of the European Parliament Socialist group , which therefore includes John Attard Montalto and Louis Grech !
It appears that this maestro of German politcs cannot control his yapping tongue !
“We are sure you agree”. How about that for a classic piece of an arrogant choice of words?
@David S
I think we can go a step further than that. Because all of the MLP is a member of the PES, so by ryour reasoning it includes the official position of all the members that are part of the PES, including MLP. Unless of course the members disassociate themselves from those comments.
I am pretty amazed of how unprofessional and unethical everyone that comes close to the MLP is. This Schultz hero came over here to endorse Muscat in his position as a chairman, which means that he was viewing PES’s official position. If that wasn’t the case, with a simple sentence he could have separated his position from his personal opinion, as is done whenever any chairman of any organisation expresses any views that were not decided by the board of directors.
William James once said: “Human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.” How true!
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.I forgot who said that but it might help all.
Taking a chance and going the opposite way gives you a chance to see what you are made of.It gives self confidence too. Try it Daphne!
@Peter Muscat: I am a very self-confident person who already knows what she is made of, but thank you for your concern.
Wouldn’t it be nice to read insightful comments on the MLP “why we lost” report? (rather than this drivel on poodles and pets?)
[Moderator – Who took the jam out of your doughnut?]
Here is what ALFRED MIFSUD wrote yesterday on a Times blog. Surely he knows JM better tha Schultz!
Finally how come you pasted a black St Bernard’s(?) rather than a white poodle!
[Moderator –
Joseph Muscat always took the seat closest to the teacher:
]
‘The message the public receives (the intelligent public, at least) is not the one you want them to receive, but another one altogether: that you alone are not enough to convince us, that you must be bolstered by the testimonials of others, that you have the mentality of a job applicant and not of a statesman and a leader.’
Actually I would think that the intelligent public is aware that political endorsements are commonplace nowadays. The intelligent public will recall that Muscat used, and perhaps abused of, political endorsements in the MEP campaign to great effect. The intelligent public will be aware that political endorsements can also be divisive in the short-term and that the fall-out from Schulz’s endorsement is rooted in envy as much as anything else – the intelligent public will surely realise that every other leadership contender pursues explicit and tacit endorsements with varying degrees of success. The intelligent public might also suspect that Daphne, presumably a columnist well-versed in current affairs, is well-aware of the power of endorsements in contemporary politics; the intelligent public might think that Daphne was visualising the look on Barack Obama’s face when he is endorsed by high-profile politicians when she said that ‘those of us who are older than 12 to wear a deadpan, indifferent or ever-so-slightly embarrassed expression when being subjected to fulsome or gushing praise’.
Finally, I would hope that the intelligent public is not impressed by schoolyard taunts and insults to its intelligence.
@Justin BB
I think you must have read Anna’s comment above, showing that Alfred Mifsud and Daphne agree that Schultz’s endorsement is wrong since the impression is given that all Socialist’s MEP’s are endorsing JM.
Indeed endorsement is normal, but when the endorsee is head or leader of a group of sorts, he must underline that his endorsement is in a personal capacity. In fact leaders like Heads of State go through great pains to ensure that they do not endorse anything which can be divisive or not agreeable with their group members (or people) views.
BTW, sorry about this all, but the surname Schultz brings to mind the thick soldier in Hogan’s Heroes. I’m sure our friend Europarl will agree with such assonance….
[Moderator – Saviour Balzan’s comparison was good: imagine the prime minister of Malta were to suddenly make a trip to Strasbourg, to hold a press conference during which he will declare his support for a ginger, goatee-wearing 34-year old candidate for the European People’s Party presidency. I’d think he were a nonce. And that’s not even a direct comparison – look at the situation in its context, which is that of the leader of an organisation which has many more times more political clout than our state, patronising us with his recommendation. Patron-client relationships are perfectly normal among employers and their employees, but the medium is the message, and because Martin Schulz is the leader of one of Europe’s most powerful political parties and Joseph Muscat is a potential prime minister of Malta, that patron-client relationship enters an international dimension. I don’t think anyone here wants a government that is a client of the Party of European Socialists.]
Maybe he has a thing for bald men :)
[Moderator – Or ginger boys.]
amrio, you do have a point regarding the inappropriateness of this particular endorsement, although I think that it reflects badly on Schulz rather than Muscat. I’m not sure that Schulz’s endorsement gives the impression that all Socialist MEPs are supporting Muscat, but you’re quite right that, given the post he occupies, Schulz erred in endorsing a candidate.
What I take issue with is the argument that the intelligent public should view endorsements as a sign that the candidate cannot stand on his own two feet. That is why I quoted the following excerpt of Daphne’s article: ‘The message the public receives (the intelligent public, at least) is not the one you want them to receive, but another one altogether: that you alone are not enough to convince us, that you must be bolstered by the testimonials of others, that you have the mentality of a job applicant and not of a statesman and a leader.’
@Zizzu – insightful comment for you: the MLP lost because the MLP was led by Alfred Sant.
I loved Lino Spiteri’s tongue-biting comment in his opinion piece of today!
Mr Schulz introduced unnecessary controversy into the MLP effort to elect a new leader. Ironically, aside from being lucky that there is no longer anyone around who might bite off his tongue, he did so without gain for anyone. He is a respected MEP who came up through the German social democratic ranks but not exactly a towering political figure in his homeland. Dr Muscat should be presumed to have enough going for him without the need of the German’s unethical intrusion.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080526/opinion/a-clumsy-mistake
@Peter Muscat
William James once said: “Human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.” How true!
Well, Peter or whoever, attempting to quote William James. Let me give you another quote from William James that applies both to yourself and to DoctorJosephMuscat:
“So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our supposed potentialities; a fraction of which our pretensions are the denominator and the numerator our success: thus,
Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions .
Such a fraction may be increased as well by diminishing the denominator as by increasing the numberator. To give up pretensions is as blessed a relief as to get them gratified; and where disappointment is incessant and the struggle unending, this is what men will always do.”
It seems you, and others, have not yet given up their pretensions, yet.
Hello Edward,
Would you please contact me if you are related to Ann Clemmer of Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Sincerely,
Kim
kimhouvener@att.net
@Zizzu:
Hasn’t the “stupid witch who should mind her own business because she’s evil & not part of the party” been making comments like those found in the Why-We-Lost report all along?
It’s like whoever wrote the report took notes off her blog.Imbasta they call her all those names.
Let me rephrase …
My point was this: I’d rather read people’s takes on the CONTENTS of the MLP “Why-we-lost” report (everybody and his brother knows that MLP lost because of reality-perception issues) than read “poodle” reruns and permutations which are beginning to grate a bit, quite frankly.
Andrew Borg Cardona’s latest post in his blog is an example – an illustration, as it were – of what I had (have, actually) in mind.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
P.S. the black dog in the picture is a Newfoundland (not a black St Bernard)
@Zizzu – I have been making ‘insightful comments’ on why Labour lost since before they actually did lose. I could have written that ‘why we lost’ report blindfolded and without doing any research or talking to anyone. I was sitting across the barbed wire divide during the battle and watching the enemy carefully, remember.
At least this time round they won’t have to use the vernacular diminutive form of his name to add a syllable. Il-Mexxej tal-Maltin u l-Ghawdxin kollha is already called “Jow-Zeff! Jow-Zeff! Jow-Zeff!”
The quality of an organization can never exceed the quality of the minds that make it up. (McAlindon)
It isn’t the incompetent who destroy an organization. It is those who have achieved something and want to rest upon their achievements who are forever clogging things up.
(Sorenson)
@Daphne – my primary objection to your efforts is that they tend to be a “tad” subjective. Your views on the MLP, although not necessarily inaccurate, are clouded by an inordinate animosity towards the MLP.
I agree that you were scrutinising every turn the battle took, but your observations gave me the impression that you were more concerned with the shininess of the combatants’ buttons than with the strategy employed.
I would have enjoyed a more “clinical” approach …
@Zizzu – rest assured that it was a clinical approach. The mistake that you and others make is to imagine that the shininess of buttons, as you put it, is a matter of insignificance. When it comes to election campaigns, mine is a professional opinion, and not the subjective opinion of yet another newspaper columnist.
Funny but when we had the European Onion website (a sort of European version of the maltafly) we always depicted Herr Schulz as an angry looking rotweiller (no ‘t’ in Schulz, btw, unlike comandante Schultz of Hogan Heroes fame).
So it’s uncle Rotweiller helping his ilk in poodle format.
What a bunch of lackies the PES! DoctorJosephMuscat found his perfect niche.
@DCG :-
Professional opinion??
I thought it was more like common(ish) sense. There’s nothing professional about telling it like it is.
@M – communications consultancy is my line of work. The column is just a sideline.
And so the man who was once advised to play the part of Kapo’ felt the need to come over to help and give a push. Or did JM deem it fit to “impress” the 900 or so delegates by having MS sit by his side and immortalise this on photos ( This remindes me of is-Salvatur calling on to the Pope before the 1981 election ) This must have been a brainwave of JM himself or someone about to be kicked out of his place as SuperOne TV did not give us a shot of Martinu. So we could also say that either JM does not have friends at superone or that his contenders have a footing in there !!
Hope the delgates are wiser….
Another thought. This act really makes me shiver. So JM needs a “parrinu” to make it to the top post – just as prospective university students back in the 80s due to AS heading the selection board. If JM is making use of this system now, I have little doubt that should he and his party be returned to govern us in 2013, that is precisely how we would be treated. Thanks, but NO THANKS JOE.
Finally, both as Maltese and as well as a voter, I would like to ask and understand why all this paranoia – by a limited few – to have JM and no one else elected as leader. Is there something really wrong which has been kept under wraps till now ? The replies which Michael Falzon gave on Saturday spoke volumes. For the sake of the party and its supporters, any secrets need to come out….urgently.
Daphne, you mention certain people here.
It is interesting to have alook at
http://www.josephmuscat.com/grfx/backing_pics.jpg
You’ll find that some of them already endorsed Joseph Muscat (now Doctor Joseph Muscat) way back in 2004.
One might notice that he has also the backing of one of the wise men and women who drafted the 99 pager.
back @ DCG:
Fair enough, I didn’t know that but even so, in my last comment I didn’t really intend to demean your opinion, professional or not, in any way.
It is (and somewhat was) clear to me that you had all right to defend your analysis in your response to Zizzu like that but my arguement still stands.
Would you’re opinion of the last elections and current events now be different if you were never involved in your current line of work?
Isn’t what you write about stuff like the MLP common sense to you and others?
@M – maybe it’s commonsense with the benefit of hindsight, but in the panic of a campaign lots of people are unable to see things clearly. Also, the Nationalist Party uses the services of people trained in a variety of fields to build a campaign. It doesn’t rely on commonsense. The Labour Party relied on what it taught was commonsense and what ‘it was feeling’ and ended up in a mess. It was the equivalent of going to a witchdoctor or faith-healer to cure it of a fatal illness.