“Would you like to have made a difference?” RTL journalist Frits Wester asked Mark Rutte during the Prime Minister’s weekly press conference. The parliamentary committee of inquiry on gas extraction in Groningen had just presented its conclusions. Rutte has not made a difference for the people of Groningen, the committee concludes.
Ruth did not answer. Before he enters a debate he puts fences. He never steps over those gates. Not even last Friday, saw Robbert Wigt, author of the book Super cool, which is about Rutte’s use of language. He had to study the almost 2,000 pages of the report first, was the line. Eight times he named the number of pages. He felt “shame”, and thought that “we really have to do something”. It didn’t get much more concrete, and Rutte does that deliberately.
The compliments were also characteristic, Wigt noticed. He had “great respect” for the commission. Called it an “impressive presentation”. Wigt teaches Dutch at the Vossius Gymnasium in Amsterdam and graduated in political rhetoric. His book is an analysis of Rutte’s language and a lesson in rhetoric and the recent parliamentary history of the Netherlands. Wigt draws major conclusions based on the book, such as: “Without his rhetorical qualities, Rutte would not have survived the April 1 debate.”
Political interpreters that Wigt spoke to for his book often praise Rutte the debater. They call him “the verbal Houdini,” “the Muhammad Ali of political debate,” or “verbally untouchable.” And Wigt agrees. “Nobody is better at speaking convincingly than Rutte,” says Wigt. He doesn’t mean that too generously. “It doesn’t mean I approve of it morally,” he insists. “I hope that my book will make people listen more critically to politicians and understand how they convince people.” Especially in the coming weeks, when Rutte has to respond to the Groningen report.
Superlative staircase
Rutte is so good because he is exceptionally gifted verbally, explains Wigt. With a large vocabulary, good switching ability and a sense of which word is needed at what time. He uses his humor cleverly and clearly enjoys the debate.
What he is perhaps best known for: his empowering use of language (hence the book title Super cool). “Watch an interview with him and it only takes a few minutes for the superlative to fall.” As a result, something quickly seems extra good, large or heavy.
If you think about it longer, it’s not too bad, Wigt discovered. An example: Bill Clinton is perhaps – next to Barack Obama – the best living former American president, says Rutte. Sounds good. But how good is that if five former presidents are alive at the time? And then Rutte also adds the condition ‘maybe’ and ‘next to Barack Obama’.
Read alsoRutte’s ‘lying’ was not certain and neither was ‘function elsewhere’
Rutte deliberately uses difficult words to disrupt opponents
Ruttes also typically juggles with definitions when he is having a hard time. “In Rutte’s language, a memo is different from a VVD piece, as became apparent, for example, during the debate on the abolition of the dividend tax,” says Wigt. And a memo, which Rutte had not seen. Daily newspaper Fidelity then tracked down pieces, but according to Rutte these were VVD pieces. No memos.
Wigt calls it ‘Ruttelen’ when Mark Rutte quickly responds with many words but does not address the other person’s point. Or Rutte deliberately uses difficult words such as ‘excuse’ or ‘mitigate’. “To disrupt the opponent.”
Ruttelen is reminiscent of Lubberian, named after Ruud Lubbers (CDA). Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA) was also able to tactically lull the listener to sleep. But according to Wigt, there is no equal to Rutte among the Dutch prime ministers either. “Lubbers could raise smoke screens, but that was mainly because his sentences were difficult to understand. And Balkenende was also not clear.” Wilders, who is known as a strong debater, cannot match Rutte either, Wigt thinks. “Wilders only kicks against the established order. Rutte has to take much more into account. Europe. Coalition parties. His own party. That is much nicer.”
Intuition plays a role in his debating skills, says Wigt. But based on years of experience and good preparation. “He was already practicing interviews with a friend at the age of seventeen,” says Wigt. And Rutte has been watching political debates all his life from which he draws inspiration.
And if he doesn’t know something, he admitted to NOS, he deliberately gives a long, vague answer. “Then they won’t broadcast it, was his thought.” With compliments he encapsulates opponents and in the face of mistakes he displays great humility. “Sometimes admitting is more convenient, then you don’t have to argue.”
According to Wigt, there is a good case for thinking carefully about a government response to the Groningen report. To prevent chaos that Rutte saw earlier at Balkenende, for example. But it’s also painful because it feels like a trick to control the commotion surrounding the report, says Wigt.
Not from his heart
Rutte tends to convince people in a rational way. And not always from the heart. That is a weakness and Wigt saw, for example, when Rutte faced Kristie Rongen, one of the victims of the Supplements scandal, in an RTL debate in 2021. Rutte rattled about reports and administrative errors. “He brushed past her feeling.”
Without his rhetorical skill, Rutte would not have survived the April 1 debate on the ‘position Omtzigt, function elsewhere’ memorandum, says Wigt. “Rutte can ensure that such a debate ends with a fizzle.” Wigt describes in his book how Rutte did that. He also put fences in advance. The minutes showed that the memorandum was based on statements made by the VVD party leader. Rutte says in the debate that he does not remember having said such a thing – and it is difficult to debate memories.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of February 28, 2023