An Afghanistan Commission? Bah.
Frankly, I’m deeply disappointed by the reports that the Prime Minister will be appointing a commission to examine Canada’s options in Afghanistan. In particular, I have a strong aversion to the idea of warfighting by consensus – that’s just asking to lose. Seriously, while I’m sure Pamela Wallin is a (insert generic complement here), does anyone seriously think that she has anything of value to contribute in the field of military strategy?
Of course, perhaps I’m being overly harsh. We can’t forget how General Grant’s military plan was devised by a committee led by Horace Greeley and Charles F. Adams – or how the plans for Operation Overlord were originally drawn up by Walter Winchell.
I’m deeply mystified by the idea that the government ought to consider the Afghan mission a political liability. Last I checked, the Tories were (at their highest) at 35% in the polls and the Afghan campaign stood at around 50%. Even if the campaign’s popularity were to descend to the level of the Iraq War in the United States – that is to say, with support somewhere in the high 30’s or low 40’s – amid our present political topography an election fought amid such numbers would probably still yield a Conservative majority or, at the very least, a stronger minority.
Not, please God, that I am suggesting that we ought to fight wars according to the dictates of Ipsos-Reid. It is a continuing source of amazement to me that we consider the views of a homemaker and part-time hairdresser from Peoria, Illinois on Iraq or the angry and ill-informed opinions of some electrician’s apprentice from Langley, British Columbia on Afghanistan to be in the least bit worthy of consideration.
Of course, perhaps I’m being overly harsh. We can’t forget how General Grant’s military plan was devised by a committee led by Horace Greeley and Charles F. Adams – or how the plans for Operation Overlord were originally drawn up by Walter Winchell.
I’m deeply mystified by the idea that the government ought to consider the Afghan mission a political liability. Last I checked, the Tories were (at their highest) at 35% in the polls and the Afghan campaign stood at around 50%. Even if the campaign’s popularity were to descend to the level of the Iraq War in the United States – that is to say, with support somewhere in the high 30’s or low 40’s – amid our present political topography an election fought amid such numbers would probably still yield a Conservative majority or, at the very least, a stronger minority.
Not, please God, that I am suggesting that we ought to fight wars according to the dictates of Ipsos-Reid. It is a continuing source of amazement to me that we consider the views of a homemaker and part-time hairdresser from Peoria, Illinois on Iraq or the angry and ill-informed opinions of some electrician’s apprentice from Langley, British Columbia on Afghanistan to be in the least bit worthy of consideration.
posted by Adam Yoshida at
10:45 PM
13 Comments:
"It is a continuing source of amazement to me that we consider the views of a homemaker and part-time hairdresser from Peoria, Illinois on Iraq or the angry and ill-informed opinions of some electrician’s apprentice from Langley, British Columbia on Afghanistan to be in the least bit worthy of consideration."
There's this thing called "democracy". You might have heard about it, it gives everybody a say in how things are run. That means that even such worthless people as "part-time hairdressers" and "electrician's apprentices" are worthy of some respect, and their opinions on how the country should be run are taken into account--even if they're wrong.
Really, your contempt for people you seem to think are somehow losers for having low-paying jobs is appalling.
Maybe they aren't rich. Maybe they aren't even all that smart or well read. But they're still people, after all, and as such, are worthy of a basic level of respect.
Great. But there's a very large gap between being worthy of basic respect and between having opinions about war and foreign policy which ought to be considered.
You have to remember, Mumphrey, that Adam claimed to be pulling in $100,000 when he was still in his teens. God alone knows what he must be making now - one of Canada's top tycoons, I shouldn't wonder.
So it's no surprise he doesn't care that much about the little people.
"But there's a very large gap between being worthy of basic respect and between having opinions about war and foreign policy which ought to be considered."
Sorry, but that's how democracy works. If you don't like it, there's always Turkmenistan, home of the late Türkmenbaşy, your favorite Stalinist dictator.
I think Adam's biggest beef is that the hairdresser from Peoria has the vote in the US and he doesn't.
Diddums.
It's also a VERY safe bet that the hairdresser from Peoria is getting laid rather more frequently than Adam...
"There's this thing called "democracy". You might have heard about it, it gives everybody a say in how things are run."
Mumphrey writes that under democracy "everyone gets a say" and their opinions "even if they're wrong" should still be listened to. Mumphrey assumes that simply saying the word "democracy" somehow constitutes a trump-card against Adam's point (whatever that may have been - it may itself have been a redundant opinion).
But clearly, in according value to utterly worthless views, on the completely fallacious grounds of "egalitarianism" - i.e. that all people are in some way "equal" or even capable of attaining the condition of parity with one another - it is clear that democracy must itself, due to it being based on a demonstrable lie, be essentially worthless.
Due to the nonsensical chimera of "non-discrimination" and seeking "not to offend" people who have no capacity for logical argument, democracy has reduced our civilisation to the point where liars, demogogues, and outright thieves have permenantly entrenched themselves in office, essentially aided and abetted by a deluded populace. What passes for "pluralism" and "free debate" is in fact a tyranny of closed minds. The most idiotic and contemptible opinions, which the marketing gurus who control the politicians understand to be the "wisdom" of the mob, have now become the dominant and ruling paradigms of our system of government.
Resultingly, "democracy", which ludicrously accords parity between ex-felons (depending on your jurisdiction) and self-made millionaires; Britney Spears airheads and brilliant authors such as Gore Vidal; can only possibly lead to self-destruction.
What is required is the rise of a natural aristocracy of learned scholars, self-made businessmen, philanthropists and other worthies, to seize power from the crowd-panderers, corporate crooks, war criminals, demogogues and treasury thieves, and to rebuild Western governance along the lines of a truly meritocratic society that holds both liberal egalitarianism and tin-pot autocracy (often the outgrowth of democracy itself - and the direction in which America is surely heading) with the contempt they richly deserve. This will necessarily entail a restricted franchise, and an even more restrictive constitution than the one currently at hand.
Yeah, but who gets to choose who's in this wonderful "aristocracy"?
All this stuff about a "natural aristocracy of learned scholars, self-made businessmen, philanthropists and other worthies" strikes me as a call for some kind of dictatorship without coming out and saying soin so many words.
I'm a fairly smart guy; I went to one of the better American colleges and have a B.A. and an M.A.; I lived for 2 years in another country; I know a fair bit about American history and how the government works; I read a lot on lots of different subjects; I follow the news; I'm fairly curious about the world and other people. By many standards, I might be fairly passable as a "worthy," but believe me, I'm not qualified to say how others should live--or be made to live. As much as I think a lot of my ideas about things ought to be made into law that everybody would have to follow, I know that in all truth, I'm not qualified to rule the world.
Everybody has rights. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. Everybody has something to give to the world. Not everybody ever manages to use those gifts to make things better, sometimes because of their own weaknesses, sometimes because of circumstances. And everybody is worthy of respect. Nobody should ever be written off.
And it's a funny thing about those who yearn for dictatorships: they never think they, or people like them, should be the ones at the bottom. Nobody ever says, "Man I'm an idiot, and so are all of the rest of us [whatever ethnic, social, economic or religious group they belong to]. Why won't some dictator come and lord it over us and really oppress us the way we NEED to be oppressed?"
Those who want a dictatorship, oddly enough, always think they're JUST the ones to run it.
And as for this:
"But clearly, in according value to utterly worthless views, on the completely fallacious grounds of "egalitarianism" - i.e. that all people are in some way "equal" or even capable of attaining the condition of parity with one another - it is clear that democracy must itself, due to it being based on a demonstrable lie, be essentially worthless."
Well, I don't know too many people who think everybody is equal in every way. Some are smarter, some dumber; some people are useful to society, some are just leeches (G.W. Bush, for example), but we all are people, and as such, have certain unalienable rights, namely the right to life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness, as Jefferson put it. We're all equal in that way.
Now, clearly, some people don't believe that. If I believe that (and I do), and you don't (and it seems that you don't), then there's really not any point in trying to debate anymore. We'll never agree on much of anything.
I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and we'll just have to let it go at that.
And since I believe we all have the right to life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness, and since I believe that any legitimate government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, I believe any government that does not is illegitimate. Presumably you feel otherwise, which is another point we'll never see eye to eye on.
OK, if you say so.
But there was one comment you made that sparked my interest.
That was that "everyone deserves respect".
May I ask: since when was "respect" so cheaply awarded?
All right, this is my last answer, since I couldn't let that one go by.
All people are entitled to a level of respect for just being people: respect for their lives and for their political, social and economic rights. That's the least that everybody is entitled to. Now, "respect" can be a tricky word, since it can also mean a kind of admiration; that might not be quite the right word, but it's hard to think of a better one off the top of my head.
So, to give an example, I think George Bush is the worst president we've ever had by far. He seems to be a truly loathesome person, and may well be outright sociopathic. I have no respect for him, if we're talking about definition 2. He's such a wretched excuse for a man that I even feel a little sorry for him.
But even if he's a sad, pathetic person, he still is a person, and thus has some rights that we are bound to respect: life, political, legal and economic rights and so on.
I guess a better way of putting all this is that while you need not respect all people, they do have rights, and we are bound to respect them.
Post a Comment
<< Home