Saturday, November 15, 2008

Chomsky on Ignatieff



I've watched this week in horrified disbelieve as many Libloggers, including some very high profile ones, have talked themselves into supporting Michael Ignatieff for the leadership of the party. I imagine this may have something to do with Mr. Ignatieff's electability. After losing so hard in the last election with a less than charismatic leader, many Liberals are looking for an eloquent and engaging leader to take us into the next election. Mr. Ignatieff has these qualities in spades. He is one of the best speakers in the House of Commons in both French and English and has a very commanding presence. If he managed to run a gaffe free campaign, and that is a very big if, I believe he would have the best chance of winning the election.

Unfortunately, he is wrong about almost everything and is the last man, including Stephen Harper, who should be running the country. Mr Ignatieff, in my opinion, is the worst sort of Neo-Liberal. The type that has an almost evangelical view of the market and its ability to grow wealth and help poor people. This of course never happens. For any of you economist types who want to argue that point with me just look at your latest failure. For the last few years the free market parishioners have been telling us about the "Celtic tiger," look at Ireland they would say. They stopped their social programs, sold off their crown assets, deregulated their economy, cut taxes and increased corporate subsidies. Now foreign investment is up and the economy is growing. Same old song they sung while they ruined South America . Well, the Celtic tiger has just become the first European Union country to dive into recession. The Irish will get through it, they have seen tough times before. Of course this time they won't have any social programs to lean on.

Believing in the neo-Liberal fantasy is just one part of Ignatieff's problem. Much more worrisome is his belief in Empire and Imperialism. It is my opinion that Mr. Ignatieff feels we not only have a right to impose our way of life on other countries but a responsibility to do so. If you want Canadian troops to fight and die in Afghanistan for the rest of time never mind Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff is your boy.

These are just a few of the reasons I think Mr. Ignatieff should not lead the party or the country, but why take my word for it? I'm just a simple carpenter. What does eminent intellectual and possibly the world's smartest man, Noam Chomsky, think of Michael Ignatieff? Just check out this 2003 interview with David Barsamian. About three quarters of the way through you will find this,

"TRADITIONALLY IF you used the word "imperialism" and attached the word "American" in front of it, you were immediately dismissed as a member of some far left fringe. That has undergone a bit of a transformation in the last few years. Let’s just take Michael Ignatieff, for one. Son of a Canadian diplomat, he’s at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard where he is Carr Professor of Human Rights Policy. He writes in a New York Times Magazine cover story on July 28, 2002, "America’s entire war on terrorism is an exercise in imperialism." Then he adds, "Imperialism used to be the white man’s burden," echoing Kipling. "This gave it a bad reputation. But imperialism doesn’t stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect." On January 5, 2003, in yet another cover story in the New York Times Magazine, he writes, "America’s empire is not like the empires of times past, built on colonies, conquests and the white man’s burden.... The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights, and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." And he has a new book out, called Empire Lite."

Chomsky continues,

"OF COURSE, the apologists for every other imperial power have said the same thing. So you can go back to John Stuart Mill, one of the most outstanding Western intellectuals, now we’re talking about the real peak of moral integrity and intelligence. He defended the British Empire in very much those words. John Stuart Mill wrote the classic essay on humanitarian intervention. Everyone studies it in law schools. What he says is, Britain is unique in the world. It’s unlike any country before it. Other countries have crass motives and seek gain and so on, but the British act only for the benefit of others. In fact, he said, Our motives are so pure that Europeans can’t understand us. They heap "obloquy" upon us and they seek to discover crass motives behind our benevolent actions. But everything we do is for the benefit of the natives, the barbarians. We want to bring them free markets and honest rule and freedom and all kinds of wonderful things. Today’s version is just illustrating Marx’s comment about tragedy being repeated as farce. "

Mr. Chomsky goes on to talk some more about England and John Mill, then comes back to Mr.Ignatieff,

"I’m surprised that Ignatieff is not aware that he’s just repeating a very familiar rhetoric. And it’s true, even in internal records, when people are talking to themselves. A lot of Soviet archives are coming out, basically being sold to the highest bidder like everything else in Russia. It’s kind of interesting to see that they talk to each other the same way they talk in public. So, for example, you go back to 1947 or so, and Gromyko and those guys are talking to each other and saying things like, We have to protect democracy. We have to intervene to protect democracy from the forces of fascism, which are everywhere, and democracy is surely the highest value, so we’ve got to intervene to protect it. And he’s talking about the "people’s democracies." Well, he believed it probably as much as Ignatieff believes what he is saying."

There is more and I encourage you to read it all. I wouldn't want to be accused of taking something out of context. Now for those of you who say, "this is old news from five years ago," I guess we won't be hearing any talk about "Rae days" then. And for those of you that think I'm wrong and Chomsky is wrong because you believe in "the economic miracle" that is the free market, you just keep on believing it. As for the rest of you, take another look at Michael Ignatieff.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Red Tory said...

Boy, it doesn't take long for the "Anonymous" Rae-bashers to jump into the fray, slagging Bob with all kinds of innuendo and smears, does it? I suspect "Anonymous" probably isn't even a Liberal.

Anonymous said...

Well pointed out Militant Liberal. Well pointed out.

Gee with 37 years spent out of the country, many of those calling himself an American, supporting the war in Iraq, American imperialism in general, coercive interogation, staying in Afghanistan well forever basically, and undermining the current Liberal Leader for the last two years, what's not to like?

This man is totally inappropriate for liberal leader, even without backstabbing Dion for the last two years and organizing against him.

Militant Dipper said...

RT
Agreed, I don't know why but it still kinda caught me by surprise. I was getting ready to defend myself against free market lovers and Ignatieff disciples but not some crazy yahoo who thinks Bob Rae is the devil. I don't even think Ignatieff is the devil. I even made an effort to be diplomatic I thought.

Militant Dipper said...

Anon 1:37,
I agree with most of what you say, I dont know if I'd go so far as to say Mr. Ignatieff himself was working against Mr. Dion but certainly some of his supporters were.

Anonymous said...

At least no one's comparing anyone to Hilter as they are in the comments of James Curran's latest blog entry. It's kind of a wild west shoot out over there. Good post though, I forgot Chomsky had written about Ignatieff.

Militant Dipper said...

Isn't it funny how all angry political discussions will eventually lead to someone comparing someone else to Hitler. I've been guilty of it more than once.

Anonymous said...

First of all, show me some evidence of Ignatieff's unwavering beleif in "neo-liberal economics" that you speak of. I believe he was pretty clear that an auto sector bailout is required. It is a terrible thing to have to do, but he made clear that it is going to have to happen to keep people in their jobs. Doesn't sound to me like neo-liberal economics run amok.

Also, no one will deny his support humanitarian intervention, but what is your argument against it? When more people vote in Afghanistan/Iraq then do in Canada, the argument that people in less developed countries/different cultures are fundamentally different than we are and don't want democracy is shown to be the worst kind of cultural elitism, and downright racism, that can be spouted.

Empire-lite may be a poor turn of phrase today, but what kind of foreign policy do you propose in contrast? Let me guess: some sort of mindless bromide about peacekeeping and Canadian values?

I hope you have a better argument than, "well, Noam Chomsky says..."

Militant Dipper said...

There is no better arqument than "Noam Chomsky says", but I'll try. Nobody in the world gets elected in Ontario by saying "Lets not help the auto sector." besides neo-liberals have no problam with corporate subsidies, it's only the poor who dont get welfare. As for "humanitarian intervention" as you call it, You and Ignatieff can keep that . I like being on the right side of history.

Anonymous said...

The right side of history being what? I'm not clear on what it is you support. From what you've written, I can only make out what you think you are against.

Militant Dipper said...

I believe that for the most part Canadian troops should not be kicking down doors and calling in airstrikes in somebody else's country. Canadian troops at most should perform peace keeping duties in situations where refugees may need to be protected or order maintained. Even this minor step would only be taken when we are absolutely clear that the people we are helping want us to help and the UN is in agreement.
This is not the case in Afghanistan. The Un resolution warmongers like you always tout only dealt with the initial invasion of Afghanistan certainly not the Decade long nation building experiment going on now. In almost all cases the Invading army ends up on the wrong side of history.

Anonymous said...

"War monger"! I've always found name calling really adds to serious debate as well. Way to go.

I will concede that the long term prospects for Afghanistan and our mission there are of great concern, but the fact that NATO engaged in nation-building was a requirement of intervening, just as it is in any case following military action. You say Canadian forces should be maintaining order; well what does that even mean? It's clear you would like to think that the world is a simple place where we should always do "good" and avoid doing "bad", but I am afraid it doesn't work like that.

Just to recap, we invaded Afghanistan with the support of the UN and as part of NATO because they hosted a group that attacked our ally. It is irresponsible, and frankly illogical, to take action there to stop al-Qaeda from using the country as a base for further actions, and then not do anything to prevent them from returning. Invading Afghanistan and trying to build capacity in the country is justified and required. Tactics in doing so are open to debate - the recent aerial bombardments are obviously a mistake - just as the potential for "success" is an open question.

On the question of people wanting us there, you tell me who wants us in and who wants us out. Once that's clear, I am pretty sure that the crowd more inclined to want us out is not the one we want to agree with.

Does any of this help you realize how much more complex the issue of foreign policy is than your little rant about Ignatieff made it seem?

You may not agree with him, but don't dumb down the argument into "Ignatieff supports Bush" vs. "everything Chomsky says is correct". That is no argument at all and does nothing to contribute to the actual policy debates that this leadership should be about.

No more from me on this.

Militant Dipper said...

Nice try but I have no need for your patronising little lesson on the complexities of Afghanistan. Firstly there was no ambiquity in my feelings towards Afghanistan. There are some rare occasions when Canadian troops should keep order. Afghanistan is not one of them. There is no order to keep. Secondly I only called you a warmonger after you implied in your first Fraser Institute talking points that I was a racist.
Thirdly, You're right about one thing, Afghanistan is a very coplex issue made more so by the fact that we are already there but I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain it to you. Fourthly stop putting words in my mouth. When did I say that "Ignatieff supports Bush"? and fivethly. Who gives a fuck what my or your view on Afghanistan is? This is about a what a man who wants to run the country would do. If you think "Empire lite" is a great idea support Iggy, If you dont and you agree with Noam and I than don't. But don't try to sell me your foreign policy fantasies.

Militant Dipper said...

And you know who especially dont want us in Afghanistan. The villagers who keep ending up collateral damage. They sure as fuck dont want us there.

SteelCityGrit said...

Chomsky has been an apologist for some appaling regimes, from the Khmer Rouge on up. Chomsky has gotten international affairs so badly wrong so many times, he shouldn't be an even remotely credible voice. You like being on the right side of history? Then stay a long way away from Chomsky.

Ignatieff should 'keep' humanitarian intervention? You don't want any part, eh? Well wasn't Rwanda a victory for you! Wasn't Bosnia grand! Alright, Chomsky doesn't love genocide - but only after the fact. During, when (say) Rouge militants are murdering everyone who wears glasses, he bristles at any suggestion that we might intervene. Bunch of imperialists! Never mind that ordinary folk are screaming out for help from those who can. They're a long way away and look different, so it's not our problem. Sound right to you? Well maybe you should launch the 'draft Noam' campaign.

There is of this po-mo moral relativist to celebrate. He would've appalled a Gladstone, a Wilson, a Pearson. Smartest man on the planet? You want Chomsky to inform our public policy? Actual read him - not just his critiques. Read Chomsky on Anarchism. Understand that he offers nothing to a thinking liberal - militant or otherwise.

SteelCityGrit said...

sorry, meant to write "there is nothing of this po-mo... to celebrate."

Militant Dipper said...

Chomsky on Anarchism is on the book shelf behind me. Thanx.... Its a little dry, It talks alot about Anarcho-syndicalism or Libertarian Socialism. It is clear that we have different views On Mr Chomsky.That is fair. Again I'm proud to stand with Noam. If one thinks that he is an apologist for appaling regimes I'm hardly gonna change your mind. But if you value his opinion as many left leaning liberals do you may want to take another look at Ignatieff.

Anonymous said...

Militant Liberal, how do you take over a Party in two days exactly? Of course Ignatieff was working against Dion, which is why he conveniently misspoke all the time and contradicted the leader, especially in French. He never disassembled his leadership team and has been working against Dion the whole time.

Militant Dipper said...

Anon 6:43,
I tend to believe he was working against Dion too. I just didn't have any proof and was still trying to be diplomatic. He did say all the right things in public when ever someone tried to get him to trash Dion. Again though behind the scenes I think you are probably right.

LeDaro said...

Great post. Agree with you 100%.

Oxford County Liberals said...

Millitant Liberal:

One way to help with the anonymous comments is to use something like Haloscan as a commenting system to see where the IP address is that the "anonymous posters" are coming from.

If they know they can see your IP address, there may be less attempts at smearing via the anonymous route.

Alternatively, you can get statscounter which would allow you to see where people are coming from when leaving a comment here (while leaving the Blogger comment system intact) or you can just shut off anonymous posts.

Militant Dipper said...

Scott, most of the anonymous commenters, this time at least, had intelligent points to make. Only the first guy with his Bob Rae smear was out of line. I left it up because I think it says more about whoever wrote it than it does about Bob Rae. If you think it is Libel I will delete it.

The Mound of Sound said...

ML, I too liked Bob Rae and still have great respect for him and what I hope he can do for the LPC. But Rae's withdrawal and endorsement of Ignatieff were compelling to me. As I wrote earlier, I'm going to support Ignatieff and give him a chance to earn that. The party is bigger than him and it'll be his job to lead his caucus, not herd it as Harper does with the Tories.

sharonapple88 said...

ML, I saw your comments on MOS's blog about leaving the party. I don't think you shoulde. You don't have to be a gung-ho Iggy supporter to support the Liberal party. If Ignatieff is as bad as you suspect him of being, we need people like you to help support the next leadership candidate. No matter who the leader is, there are people it the party I respect like Kennedy, Dion, and Hall Findlay. Anyway, I hope it's something you consider.

sharonapple88 said...

By the way, interesting post on imperialism and Ignatieff.

sharonapple88 said...

By the way, interesting post on imperialism and Ignatieff.

Militant Dipper said...

Thanks sharonapple88,
that means alot coming from you. I always think of you as the voice of reason. Maybe I should take a break like Red said. I could support Ignatieff if he supported a coalition and that still remains a possibility.

Anonymous said...

Ha, ha. Now our party can move to the right. Never mind cutting a deal with the socialist and separatists, there are many more Liberals who want to work with Harper on fixing the problems Canada faces.

sharonapple88 said...

ML, I respect your position and I can see where you're coming from with regards to Iggy. I'm hoping he surprises us.

I'm thinking of taking a bit of break from all of this too. Right time for it with the holidays coming up.

(Ha, I wish I were the voice of reason. No one listens to me at work. ;) )

sharonapple88 said...

there are many more Liberals who want to work with Harper on fixing the problems Canada faces.

Harper is one of the problems Canada faces. :P

The Mound of Sound said...

Hey Todd. Just thought I'd let you know that I made up my mind about Ignatieff. His craven policy on Gaza did the trick. And... I got booted off Liblogs as well.

Beijing York said...

I really enjoyed your post and stumbled onto your site just recently. (Although I have seen your thoughtful comments on many other blogs - funny how it took awhile to actually find your site.)

I've always thought Ignatieff disingenuous to say the least. When I first heard he was entering Canadian politics by running as an MP for the Liberals, I cringed. I've been following the careers of many so-called humanitarian experts who have transformed what was once a noble cause into neo-liberal/neo-conservative advocacy industry that provides justification for a new type of imperialism. I put Soros and Dershowitz in that same group.

I certainly made my opinions on the man known when he succeeded in supplanting Dion as the leader of the LPC. If I had been in Dion's shoes, I would have relegated Ignatieff to the very back of the back benches. But I guess LPC internal politics don't allow for that.

Anyway, I'm with MoS. Ignatieff's statements on the Gaza humanitarian crisis are enough to make him a legitimate target for criticism. He is not in stride with the majority of Canadians who do seek diplomatic solutions in foreign affairs and deplore bloodshed of innocents.

Perhaps Ignatieff dismissed how relieved and supportive the majority of Canadians were when Chretien announced that Canada would NOT take part in the Iraq slaughter. Perhaps he like Harper was hoping that Canadian attitudes had shifted since 2003 to embrace a new kind of "humanitarian militarism" where it's OK to destroy lives and infrastructure in a quest to impose a western friendly (and economically controlled) democracy. I think he misread public sentiment despite the corporate media's attempt to paint a favourable impression of Israel's actions.

Oemissions said...

Rhetoric is right!
Excellent post, if you want my opinion.

Militant Dipper said...

Thanks Oemissions. Always nice to get praise from a "ragin Granny" The post is getting pretty old now, I should right something new but I'm kinda stuck in Limbo waiting to see what happens on the budget vote.

Diet Pop Sipping Leftist said...

Damn, you touched on a few themes I wanted to creatively and originally deal with in an anti-Ignatieff post!

Regardless, there's one part of the Chomsky interview you omit: the point where he calls Ignatieff's musings "garbage".

Anonymous said...

download yugioh the movie [url=http://moviestrawberry.com/films/film_emma/]emma[/url] robert deniro movie http://moviestrawberry.com/films/film_dead_in_the_water/ amanda and the alien download movie
free movie wav mp3 ringtones [url=http://moviestrawberry.com/films/film_u_s_marshals/]u s marshals[/url] buy movie once http://moviestrawberry.com/films/film_identity_theft/ movie sunglasses
halloween movie mask [url=http://moviestrawberry.com/films/film_sexy_beast/]sexy beast[/url] movie theaters fitchburg ma
movie revies [url=http://moviestrawberry.com/films/film_the_new_guy/]the new guy[/url] west side story movie poster http://moviestrawberry.com/films/film_royal_pains/ watch like mike 2 online full movie
lolitas nude movie clips [url=http://moviestrawberry.com/films/film_portal/]portal[/url] bollywood downlodable latest movie http://moviestrawberry.com/films/film_night_skies/ arena district movie

Anonymous said...

geotorelxzp consolidate credit cards
credit card interest