Iggy on Lebanon
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a government this lucid and intelligent? Can you imagine a standard political statement on this topic being anywhere near as, well, good? Now, we may not all agree entirely with him, but at least it's something we can disagree with, instead of the standard "clean up our get tough on street crime doesn't pay for the love of god bless america" crap. That's why, more and more, I'm thinking that this is the dude I want to lead the Liberals so that we can, eventually, have an intelligent prime minister. If we want to raise the level of political discourse, we really have to endorse the people that are already at that level.
(Here's looking at you, NDP - stop trading principle for marketing, and find a candidate with brains and boldness instead of the clean-paper-napkin vanilla pretty face.)
Comments?
(My comment checklist for this post is Brendan, Avian Democracy, Grrr'off, and at least one other TBD)
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a government this lucid and intelligent? Can you imagine a standard political statement on this topic being anywhere near as, well, good? Now, we may not all agree entirely with him, but at least it's something we can disagree with, instead of the standard "clean up our get tough on street crime doesn't pay for the love of god bless america" crap. That's why, more and more, I'm thinking that this is the dude I want to lead the Liberals so that we can, eventually, have an intelligent prime minister. If we want to raise the level of political discourse, we really have to endorse the people that are already at that level.
(Here's looking at you, NDP - stop trading principle for marketing, and find a candidate with brains and boldness instead of the clean-paper-napkin vanilla pretty face.)
Comments?
(My comment checklist for this post is Brendan, Avian Democracy, Grrr'off, and at least one other TBD)
14 Comments:
ok. I'm biting. but only because you have the wrong link.
Fix the link!
Cheerios,
some parliament of pigeons.
Link fixed.
Round two: now you can read the statement! Go - I only espouse absolute views to encourage rebuttal - if I wanted to be unilateral, I'd disable comments and equivocate more.
It's like he took our opinions and backed them up with logic somehow!
Cute. idealistic. fantastic with rainbows and unicorns even. but really, not that it really matters. There's not a lot he or any Canadian government official can do.
Until there's a major policy change in the US (not even political parties - as it stands right now it doesn't look there's any democratic leadership to go the 180) from withusoragainstus to multi-lateral cooperation through the UN or other international diplomatic agencies, none of the current posturing will amount to anything.
The Bush admin has taken rugged individualism to a new low and being the only superpower in the world, what it chooses for its foreign policy pretty much shapes the rest of the world. Sure, Harper pissed me off and of course I think he's making Canada into some sort of blight on most of the world stage. But none of this really matters on the ground.
On the other hand, even if we got Iggy (ie?) into majority position, passing 0.7% towards foreign aid, and moving the army towards new and exciting peacekeeping directions, it would only make us sleep better at night. And I'm absolutely up for that. But I think it's a mistake to think it's some sort of miracle cure for the rest of the world.
(or even raising the level of political discourse in Canada. clinton was one hell of a erudite guy. and then the population who voted him in also voted in Bush. )
((of course the argument can be made that the people who put Bush in office never voted before ever. But it counts - with the overall climate and everything.))
Cheerio,
some birdie ballots.
There's nothing practical in there that I find wildly disagreeable. But most of what he's saying seems just to be standard "do some good in the middle-east, x," where Canada is x, but also there could be inserted the US, Britain, the UN, etc. So, no, this doesn't seem that much more lucid or intelligent than our previous (and current) governments so much as it seems more straightforward than anyone actually sitting in office would dare to be. Also, the fact that your point of comparison is the American administration doesn't bolster well your argument that Canada needs Michael Ignatieff so much as an argument that the US does, but that's another kettle of fish altogether.
At any rate, before and after Clinton was in office, he said all kinds of lucid and erudite things, as Jiayi pointed out, as have lots of other leaders who are nevertheless ineffective or just schmucks when in power. That statement of Ignatieff's seemed unremarkable in that context. The question of whether he'd be a better political leader is no more resolved for me by having read that; I just now know that he's the kind of leader who would say that kind of thing in this kind of context. Drawing once again from Jiayi's Clinton example, he was highly educated, a Rhodes scholar and what have you, though I'll grant you not a professor of anything, and that didn't change the fact that his administration moved the Democrats further right and into proto-Republican mush than any Democrat before him.
The point wasn't that it was hugely brilliant or lucid or anything - it was that it was lucid and logical at all. If you've actually heard or read any of the absolute drivel coming out of most governments, you'll see in stark relief the difference.
Birdvote: Obviously he gave a "what should happen", which is a best-possible-situation, which is not realistic, but again, it's a hell of a lot more grounded in reality than "evil terrorist killers god bless america". In terms of it's futile: obviously one fairly insignificant nation like us can't fix it entirely, but we can be a voice and a(n admittedly thin) wallet on the side of the better. If you didn't believe in people doing their insignificant part for the common good, you'd eat meat and stop recycling.
Grrr'off: obviously being in power surrounded by opinion analysts and Gallup polls and focus groups is going to erode anybody's ability to see straight, but to my mind he's already got one up on most of the "smart until elected" group because he's still being fairly smart in his campaign, as opposed to Kerry-ing it up to gain support. firstparagraphwise, yes he's not saying anything new or particularly brilliant, but what he is saying is one of the better possible courses of action, and that's more than most others. Yes, the US needs smarts more than we do, because their situation is worse than ours, but they're a valid point of comparison because they are the same problem as us times ten to the third. And their drivel is more quotable than Harper's drivel, because Harper cuts out the American bits of the Tony Snow transcript before he reads it to us.
So basically, I support Iggy because he's less of an idiot than the dudes currently in charge.
I take a lot of issue with Jiayi's comments. The logic strikes me as Canada doesn't matter --> therefore let's all kill ourselves.
If you didn't believe in people doing their insignificant part for the common good, you'd eat meat and stop recycling.
The Clinton stuff all makes sense, and I'll fit Jimmy Carter into your point. But smart leaders versus regular leaders should be a no-brainer. The best example I can find is Jean Chretien versus Paul Martin.
just to be standard "do some good in the middle-east, x
Lies. The article gave a crisp explanation of why and how.
I take a lot of issue with Brendan's poor reading comprehension.
But I think it's a mistake to think it's some sort of miracle cure for the rest of the world.
Let's quote pieces of previous comments until the cows come home why don't we.
Conclusion I've mostly hashed out with Kai via messenger: Iggy is obvious improvement. But not incremental improvement. (Up for debate: whether he'd count as incremental improvement for the liberal party.)
Another conclusion from reading his New York Times editorial in combination with the Lebanon stance: he's very good at glossing. Or maybe just in that instant glossing is required for the audience in mind and length limitations. But I'm still not particularly impressed.
Prissily yours,
abstaining birds.
Let's quote pieces of previous comments until the cows come home why don't we.
It's true that he glosses. Your comment just looked like an attack on Ignatieff (and his anonymous supporters by extension). In retrospect, it was just a cautious agreement.
It's true that he glosses. Do you know of politicians or writers who gloss less?
It's true that he glosses. Do you know of politicians or writers who gloss less?
Sure, but also of course not. The problem with his glossing in contrast to base level glossing is that it's not obvious hokey but high quality gloss. Which could be even worse in the long run. i.e: The first reaction is all hyperness and this is awesome. But once I start to google a few things, it starts falling apart.
(example I'm thinking about: the carbon tax. though I'm still going to give a lot of credit for even mentioning this hugely volatile phrase, never mind the actual slightly sketchy context)
(the other example that comes to mind: that NYT article again. I was actually really impressed while reading it. But afterwards when I started thinking over it a bit, I got really angry about the skillful way he was able to completely ignore points central to the debate (but contrary to his position).)
Sorry about the previous zing. I'm just leery about praising politicians. Even if they are intellectuals or ex-professors. And to have that interpretated as defeatism stung a bit.
Jiayi, could you give some links or specific examples? It seems like Iggy is guilty of persuasive writing and you are guilty of paranoia, but I'd love to have my mind changed.
By the way:
There's not a lot he or any Canadian government official can do.
none of the current posturing will amount to anything.
it would only make us sleep better at night.
It would really sting if this sentence were interpreted as snarky.
Apologies,
That one dude.
To Brendan:
"Lies. The article gave a crisp explanation of why and how."
(I don't know how to italicise.)
I'm pretty sure the depth to which he went in explaining his methods for achieving Middle-East peace are wildly insufficient a set of instructions in and of themselves, equivalent to responding to the question "How do I solve for X in this quadratic equation?" with "Use math, silly!" (That's somewhat exaggerated in scale, because I'm like that, but you get the idea).
Example: "It should call for an immediate cease-fire, authorized by the Security Council. It should line up with the Europeans and moderate Arab states issuing the same call. Under such a cease-fire deal, Israeli forces would withdraw, aerial bombardment would cease and Hezbollah would stop rocket attacks and incursions into Israeli territory."
So, we have the assumptions that a) any such security council resolution would indeed be passed, b) Europeans and moderate Arab states would be united in their preferred terms for the proposed cease-fire,
c)The preferred terms would be those listed by Ignatieff and followed judiciously by all parties.
As a further example, Ignatieff then proposes various international forces to be deployed by the UN at various points in the area. Sounds great, except the practical reality has proven far more difficult: the national composition of the UN's forces in the area is being heavily resisted by Israel by being formed of soldiers from mostly Hezbollah-friendly countries.
To Kai:
Listen, I love smart people. That said, academics have not always proven better leaders than non-academics, or, rather, quality of presidential performance hasn't necessarily directly correlated with level and quality of education. Ignatieff being cogent puts him far ahead of many American politicians with which you've compared him. Jack Layton ain't too bad, neither, and Kim Campbell was a full professor of politican science at U of T (or wherever one of my profs went for his degree). All of the above clearly aren't idiots, but no one would accuse Kim Campbell of doing much of anything particularly impressive, either while campaigning or in her two months of governance.
So here: while I think not all academics are necessarily great leaders, I agree that most total idiots probably aren't. I really don't think that changes anything for me at this point. Your enthusiasm for Ignatieff notwithstanding, my opinion of him has not really changed at all. Basically: lucid and intelligent government is a great idea, and I would put the probability of Ignatieff bringing it to us, based on this article, not much higher than the chances of any other prospective Liberal leadership candidate with which I've passing familiarity at this point.
In terms of my being picky with words, I wouldn't go so far as enthusiasm. It's not to the point that it makes me smile, much less dance in the streets. I mean, a lot of the guy's writing leaves an unpleasant yankee-doodle aftertaste. It's just the closest thing to potential positive Canadian political change that I'm aware of, and even a remote chance of positive change in current Canadian politics is a rarity worth comment, hence my comment. Rephrased: I support his bid for Liberal leadership, but that doesn't necessarily mean I support him entirely, just more than I do Dion or Rae. Come election time, I don't know whether his party will win my vote.
He was mentioned in the news today. He released his environmental plan. When I heard that, I went and read it on his website. On reading the summary, I thought it was brilliant because I agreed with it. On reading it in full, I realized that there wasn't much there. Like, if my Pictionary clue was "Free Market Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy" I would draw up that plan before the time ran out.
I'm playing a lot of a game called "bubbles", which is basically Bustamove ported to a geek'd iPod. It is so much more fun than greenhouse gas reduction and smiling political candidates. Also more fun: listening to music and dental work. And, perhaps, it seems, Joseph Heller.
Cheery yo.
btb, italics are less than i greater than italicized text less than forward slash i greater than, as pictured above the commenting box.
Like this?
Post a Comment
<< Home