I've been having an incredibly hard time figuring out what I think of Michael Ignatieff, which is making it hard for me to tell you what you should think about Michael Ignatieff.
On one level, I am ecstatic that he has entered politics. He is exactly the type of person that there should be more of on Parliament Hill: highly educated, worldly, well-written and well-spoken, and intellectually brilliant. He is a humanist, anti-nationalist, and human rights advocate.
He is also very, very scary.
He is exactly the kind of leader we need, but a select few political positions - especially with regards to the war on terror - I find revolting. In ethics, he openly embraces "the lesser evil": can I justify embracing the lesser evil by supporting him for all that I like, and biting my lip over what I cannot accept?
The thing is, some of the differences are not in policy but in fundamental philosophy. As I read more of his works, I may post reflections and perhaps what pale flimsy attempts at rebuttal I can muster. I'm off to university in a matter of months to study what he is an expert in. However, he is my intellectual superior in reasoning, education, experience, and expression, just as he is to practically every other person in this country.
That is why, I think, I find him scary. Certainly, I disagree with some positions of just about every politician (or person) who walks this beauteous earth. The political manifestation of Michael Ignatieff's views, though, would be taking this country in a new direction that I am not entirely comfortable with. Further, he has the intellectual and verbal prowess to defend his views and perhaps convince a party or a parliament or a nation to go along with him.
Frankly, though, I'm romanticising this far too much. He is a first-time MP, and an ex-professor; until he sweeps to power gloriously amidst plagues of locusts and a 70% chance of scattered blood showers by midday, I have no business attributing antichrist qualities to him.
On one level, I am ecstatic that he has entered politics. He is exactly the type of person that there should be more of on Parliament Hill: highly educated, worldly, well-written and well-spoken, and intellectually brilliant. He is a humanist, anti-nationalist, and human rights advocate.
He is also very, very scary.
He is exactly the kind of leader we need, but a select few political positions - especially with regards to the war on terror - I find revolting. In ethics, he openly embraces "the lesser evil": can I justify embracing the lesser evil by supporting him for all that I like, and biting my lip over what I cannot accept?
The thing is, some of the differences are not in policy but in fundamental philosophy. As I read more of his works, I may post reflections and perhaps what pale flimsy attempts at rebuttal I can muster. I'm off to university in a matter of months to study what he is an expert in. However, he is my intellectual superior in reasoning, education, experience, and expression, just as he is to practically every other person in this country.
That is why, I think, I find him scary. Certainly, I disagree with some positions of just about every politician (or person) who walks this beauteous earth. The political manifestation of Michael Ignatieff's views, though, would be taking this country in a new direction that I am not entirely comfortable with. Further, he has the intellectual and verbal prowess to defend his views and perhaps convince a party or a parliament or a nation to go along with him.
Frankly, though, I'm romanticising this far too much. He is a first-time MP, and an ex-professor; until he sweeps to power gloriously amidst plagues of locusts and a 70% chance of scattered blood showers by midday, I have no business attributing antichrist qualities to him.
11 Comments:
Actually, one of the things he does that I find fundamentally scary is romanticisation. He speaks of the war in terror in terms of "evil", which is a dehumanizing term; how easy will it be to resort to torturing an "evil" person?
In addition, by construing something as evil, one wipes it clean of any tie to reason. This means that Ignatieff will not look at the root causes of terrorism, but only at one by one excising its practioners from society. I'm not going to debate the existence of "evil", but in terms of problem solving one must agree it is not a useful concept to employ.
That is, I will not in this post argue whether or not Osama bin Laden is, in his heart, evil; the point is that he is very clearly, in his head, rational. It is from that standpoint that we must confront terror.
"However, he is my intellectual superior in reasoning, education, experience, and expression."
How do you know? You've never debated him.
Well, Brendan, it's pretty obvious that he's got me beat on education and experience. The other two are clear in his writing and speaking; he makes connections that I wouldn't make on my own, and communicates them so that I'd swear I could have.
Obviously, though, I don't think he's an infinite quantity or anything, or I wouldn't bother arguing his points . . . anonymously . . . on the internet . . . with other people.
Really, I'm surprised that that was the bit you grabbed to discuss out of everything I wrote there.
In fact, Brendan's bit is the same I react to. To qualify him as, on the one hand, very smart, and, on the other, manifestly incorrect/morally "repulsive," and then say you just can't choose between one and the other is kind of ridiculous. You might be very smart, and reach conclusions I disagree with. I am certainly not, therefore, going to further your aims by placing you in power on the basis that you're probably right.
For example, Hitler (suspending Godwin's Law) and Stalin were, I'm sure, both very intelligent. In fact, to accomplish what each did, I would say that both were probably far smarter than I (at least thus far). That does not mean I am going to jump behind either one.
Proposing that Ignatieff appears smarter than you is no reason whatsoever to jump behind him. Presumably, if he is smarter than you, then you are somehow lacking in judgement to a greater extent than he. Given that, then, isn't the very act of judging him your intellectual superior suspect on the basis that is your inferior perspective of his intelligence?
Hard-working, intelligent, well-educated. By romanticising those ambiguous and relativistic notions in order to provide support for the supplication of your intellect to that of Ignatieff, you are behaving just as dangerously as he does or advocates.
To conclude: the accordance of someone's perspectives with my own, including the extent to which my perspectives can themselves be altered by the strength of reasoning of he with whom my perspectives do not yet accord, is the basis on which I would support a candidate.
XOXOXOXO,
Santa Claus
Put another "that" after the second "that" in the third paragraph.
No, no, no, no, no -- I've utterly failed at this communication business.
The idea that I'd jump behind someone because I thought they were clever is kinda insulting.
I'd like to support him because I agree with the vast majority of his philosophy, and I think that he'd be extraordinarily capable. The fact that he's clever is what makes him scary.
See, I disagree with large bits and pieces of most everyone's fundamental philosophy, not to mention whatever politics they build from it. I'm actually in agreement with a heckuva lot of Iggie's -- it's just that the little things that I disagree with become gigantic when they're in the hands of someone who is a)clever and b)potentially in charge inside of a decade.
So on one hand, I want to support him because he'd be an effective leader who agrees with me on many, many, many things. On the other hand, I'm scared of him, because the things that we disagree on become big issues if he gains political power.
Now, in the post, the disagreements probably seemed bigger, because I had just come across them a few hours prior to writing. Remember that he is humanist (not nationalist) and human-rights-advocate -- that's good.
Another key bit is that was understressed is that I'll soon discover if I do in fact agree or disagree with him as much as I think I might or might not from the too-small-to-be-representative sample of his work I've read.
As his policy becomes clearer and I read more of his stuff, I'll learn how much we do in fact agree on, which will be the determining factor between he-seems-good and he-seems-freaking-scary.
Consanguineously,
An Onimous [singular noun]
PS Supplication is begging or praying -- did you mean, perhaps, subjugation? I'm not one to be talking, in that this post is rambling and incoherent. I'll probably rewrite the whole thing when I'm more alert and lucid.
Indeed; I meant submission, not supplication.
Also, no worries about not making things clear: it's just as much an interpreter thing as a writer thing, and I wrote at least as hastily as you may have, if not moreso.
Anyway, I believe I get the thrust of your point. I think, though, that it is disingenuous to call one's self a "humanist" while advocating the sorts of things he does in his linked-to "Lesser Evil" publication. Whether or not his beliefs are fundamnetally "humanist" in approach doesn't seem to matter in the face of their practical conclusions, it seems to me. But I'd have to look at his stuff more thoroughly to judge the basis and clarity of his thought.
From what I understand, the scary articles I linked were a big deal because they were the exception. I know that he has done a lot of human rights work, and he is concerned in general with the well-being of people above all else. From what I understand.
Also, I think I may have thought you were someone other than who you were. Strange with this anonymity, you don't always know who people are.
On rereading, I recognize your style. Following your general editing rule, you need more semicolons in the first post and fewer in the second.
Heh. I think you've mistaken me now. It's Simon, not Brendan. Unless I passed on that technique of Brendan's (the semi-colon bit) at one point.
Cleverly disguised,
Gimon Surofsky
Oh, Simon, I thought that that semicolon bit was yours. You passed it on in Reuterscraft.
Out of curiosity, who did you think this was before you realised who it was?
Post a Comment
<< Home