|
Disrespect Bush at your peril: Ignatieff
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
Interesting article in the Toronto Star today. Aside from his intial support for the Iraq war, I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything Igantieff has to say...I may have to pick up that book :)
Michael Ignatieff is not in the best of moods. A double espresso helps. A bit.
On this brief lecture tour of Toronto, the Canadian historian, prolific author and Harvard professor has clearly been encountering people who dismiss the newly re-elected president of the U.S. as "a dumb, ignorant Texas hick," and it raises his hackles because he says underestimating George W. Bush is a monumental error, as the Democrats learned for the second time on Nov. 2, and that Canadians, for the sake of their own sovereign futures, should start to take on board double quick. Though he's the one to bring up her name, the mere thought of Carolyn Parrish, the newly ousted Liberal MP who's made a career of Bush-bashing, incenses him.
"She makes me cringe," he says, cringing. "That attitude is so embarrassing."
Don't misunderstand him. Because Ignatieff originally supported the invasion of Iraq, there are people who think he's become some sort of apologist for the administration. Not so.
Ignatieff is no fan of the president or, for that matter, the entire Bush clan, whom he refers to as "the Corleones of American politics."
It is simply that "it never pays, never, to underestimate this president, intellectually or politically," he says. "He is not the cipher of Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, or Condoleezza Rice. He is the boss. There is absolutely no question about it. Sorry."
He adds that the only way to beat an "enemy" is to treat him with respect.
Not that he had a vote, but Ignatieff is still intensely rankled by the outcome of the U.S. election. As a "tax-and-spend, Pearsonian, Trudeau Liberal," he is, by proxy, a Democrat, he says, and he believes John Kerry could have won, and would have, had he been a better candidate.
"Bush was very vulnerable and beatable, on Iraq because it's not a popular war, on the deficit, on the economy. But he is a highly effective politician. He was the better candidate with the better machine."
No, Ignatieff doesn't buy the morning-after theorizing that a cultural shift in America accounted for the Republican victory. Kerry had the numbers to win, he says. But he allowed himself to be victimized by "the most disgraceful political smear in 30 years" — the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations that his war record was trumped up.
In public, Bush praised Kerry's Vietnam service, but his election team's financial paw prints were all over the smear campaign, says Ignatieff.
"I was at the University of Toronto in the 1960s and the town was full of draft dodgers. It was extraordinary that Kerry even went to serve in that war when so many others, like Bush, got out of it. It was a very courageous thing to do, the only great thing Kerry has ever done."
When the Swift Boat accusations hit the media, the Democrat camp took nearly a month to respond. Tactical mistake. Ignatieff acts out what Kerry should have done, with attendant ferocity.
"He should have got up and said, `Excuse me, excuuuse me, my war record is under attack, my record, when you were flying loops over Texas and absconding from duty in Alabama?'
"A great politician knows how to deck an opponent. Kerry could have landed a punch and put the president on the floor. And he didn't do it."
That's what the election turned on, he says. Well, that, and Bush's Bill Clinton-like ability to understand and appeal to minorities and immigrant groups who are family-oriented, Christian and aspirational.
"He hoovered up the Hispanic vote in Florida, while the Democrats condescended to them, offering welfare. They don't want welfare, they want a piece of the American pie."
Bush's victory was political, not cultural, he says. "That's why politics are so important. These idiots who walk around saying they don't matter ought to really look at this election."
Ignatieff lists the consequences now en route: A Supreme Court under huge pressure from the White House to endanger women's rights and further encroach on civil rights. Social policies that will increase inequality, with more tax breaks for the well-off but more people on the streets. And more people than ever in emergency wards needing treatment but with no insurance.
Young Americans don't understand that, he says, which is "another thing that makes me pissed off with the election. The youth vote was only 17 per cent, the same as in 2000. Where are the kids? How did we allow this kind of cynicism about politics to get this far? To let idiot comedians get up and say, `It doesn't matter, politicians are all the same.'
"They're not all the same. There were huge differences in this election. It was ours to win."
Ignatieff left Canada in 1976, first for Britain and then, in 2000, for Harvard University in Boston, where he is director of the Carr Center for Human Rights. The pronoun "we" frequently creeps into his conversation and into his books — the latest of which is this year's glowingly received The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in the Age of Terror.
It's simply less cumbersome than having to use "Americans" all the time, he explains. "I still carry a Canadian passport and always will."
In fact, the son of eminent diplomat George Ignatieff is a vociferous Canadian.
In the midst of the interview, he takes time to trace the country's record in two world wars — fighting in both, he pointedly notes, before the U.S. deigned to show up.
He's proud, too, that, in its 400-year history, Canada has established "political institutions and an extraordinary Charter of Rights as a safeguard" that make it distinct from its neighbour to the south.
Therefore, knee-jerk anti-Americanism disguised as patriotism irks Ignatieff mightily. Not, of course, that Canada shouldn't be wary of the folks down below.
"I love America, I love American freedom and liberty — most Canadians do. On the other hand, give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
"No other country in the world has the challenge Canada has, which is that the chief threat to our independence is our best friend."
Managing the relationship may be inherently complex, but it is manifestly clear how Canada should proceed, he says: it must have strong military and intelligence capabilities, strong border patrols and immigration policies.
He applauds former prime minister Jean Chrétien for instituting "Smart Border" policies after 9/11 terrorist attacks.
"People think I've turned into some Bue Republican when I say all this. But if Chrétien hadn't done that, our independence would genuinely be jeopardized. The U.S. would say, `Okay, we'll do continental defence' and, if they do that, we cease being a country."
His function, says Ignatieff, is to remind people of that. Down there and up here.
"I don't want Canada to surrender an inch of sovereignty."
With him in situ, it wouldn't dare.
source: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...tacodalogin=yes |
|
|
| starsearcher |
Hmmmm interesting :)...
See that's the difference between intellectuals and people like Parrish :p
He can clearly articulate himself and provide some good discussion points...Parris, really is embarrasing
Anyways, good read :) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Well the guy they interviewed definitely sounds intelligent, but why do I get the feeling that this...
| quote: | | Ignatieff lists the consequences now en route: A Supreme Court under huge pressure from the White House to endanger women's rights and further encroach on civil rights. Social policies that will increase inequality, with more tax breaks for the well-off but more people on the streets. And more people than ever in emergency wards needing treatment but with no insurance. |
is something that the Star themselves tacked on as a little "embellishment"? I can't help noticing that it was one of the only things they didn't actually quote him on.
Count on the Star to spin any article into a commentary on how every other country in the world needs more Socialism like Canada has.
But aside from that one idiotic paragraph, very good article. Should make some people think, hopefully. |
|
|
| drewfactor |
I think this is a very reasonable and well rationalized position on Bush. Very unusual for the Star IMHO.
| quote: | | "People think I've turned into some Bue Republican when I say all this. But if Chrétien hadn't done that, our independence would genuinely be jeopardized. The U.S. would say, `Okay, we'll do continental defence' and, if they do that, we cease being a country." |
This is an important point. Many people seem to think that Canada can retain it's sovereignty by simply being a reactionary anti-American and just doing whatever is opposite to American security interests. By acknowledging that the war on terror is real, that terrorist threats are real (and also threaten Canada), and taking proper course of action, Canada can increase and retain it's sovereignty. Otherwise, we just forfeight our independence in the attempt to go against America because they will do it themselves anyway, and if that is the case we have no hope of even being at the negotiating table where decisions are made. |
|
|
| MarkT |
can't find offhand my previous post on his potential Liberal party candidacy...but it looks like it's going to happen. I, for one, am happy to see him venture into politics:
| quote: | Michael Ignatieff has decided to run as a Liberal candidate in the upcoming election, the Toronto Star has confirmed.
Ignatieff, director of the Carr Institute for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, has not indicated where he will run.
Ignatieff, 58, was unavailable for comment last night.
Speculation about his possible entry into Canadian politics — perhaps even with an eye to succeeding Prime Minister Paul Martin as Liberal leader — began last March when he gave the keynote address to the Liberal party's national convention.
Fluent in several languages, with a PhD in history and several books to his name, the Toronto-born Ignatieff is seen by some as a potential candidate who "addresses the nostalgia in the party for (Pierre) Trudeau," one Liberal insider told the Star earlier this year.
In August, it was announced Ignatieff would return to the University of Toronto in January to become the Chancellor Jackman visiting professor in human rights policy. |
source: Toronto Star - Nov. 25, 2005 |
|
|
| lexclu |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
I think this is a very reasonable and well rationalized position on Bush. Very unusual for the Star IMHO.
This is an important point. Many people seem to think that Canada can retain it's sovereignty by simply being a reactionary anti-American and just doing whatever is opposite to American security interests. By acknowledging that the war on terror is real, that terrorist threats are real (and also threaten Canada), and taking proper course of action, Canada can increase and retain it's sovereignty. Otherwise, we just forfeight our independence in the attempt to go against America because they will do it themselves anyway, and if that is the case we have no hope of even being at the negotiating table where decisions are made. |
But whats the alternative... being a proactive sycophant? The fact of the matter is that in the eyes of the US we are not holding up our end, specifically with regards to security and immigration... but by harmonizing our immigration policies we do stand to jeapordize part of our national image.... and with regards to security you will find that the average canadian doesn't want to put money into an armed forces, who's effects will be a net zero... or put more money into a border security force... remember that 9/10 terrorists in the 9/11 attack were legally admitted to the US... through their custom dept... that does not seem to be a canadian problem....
The war on terror is real... and the british government has chosen to go about things by being the lapdog of the US... and look at tony blair's ratings these days... not so good... the canadian government has also admitted that there is a significant threat.. but how we go about dealing with it need not be the same way that US does... and should not be just because 'they say so'... we didn't goto war in iraq because we were not allowed to conduct actions in a manner fitting of a sovereign nation... rather we were going to be supporting the US and anyone who knows anything about canadian military history knows why this is not a good position to be in...
yes canadian sovereignty is being jeapordized by some policies... but this is nothing new... the important thing is to find middle ground... this is a give and take... and until we get some give... whats the point of needlessly letting the US take...
ps. i've worked for many different bosses... the fact that they have that title doesn't make them any less of an idiot... |
|
|
|
|
