I AM WRITING WRODS AT YOU

Here is an example of communication of some sort. I'm quoting an e-mail exchange I had with the owner of another blog back in the fall. He's the head of the Richmond Hill federal Liberal riding association, worked on Stephane Dion's leadership campaign and went to Trin with me back in the day. It's a bit of light on where he and I were five-or-so months ago and maybe you'd like to give it a read. Believe me when I say I am continually a better person than I was.

I begin:

Dear Jason,

It's Michael Bailey---AKA Captain Beefheart. Perhaps you remember me as a little frosh and fellow Botticellian. I certainly remember you. For the last few months I've been infrequently following your blog as a source of informed opinion on the Liberal leadership contest, which has proven unexpectedly exciting to me; this, even though I'm not a party member and haven't even voted for the Liberals in my three federal elections (local issues). However, I was expecting, given the bent of the current government, that I was going to vote Liberal in the next election.

Besides, I'm subject to the vague (possibly inaccurate) impression that a lot of what I found distasteful about the old Liberal power structure has kind of faded away, and (with some notable exceptions) the slate of leadership candidates seems very strong to me. (In fact I was quite pleased that we didn't seem to get the paid-their-dues old party hands who were presumed to be front-runners originally.)

Let me say hello then, and wish you and the party well in the next few weeks, and commend you for your work building an online community for rank-and-file Liberals. I can sometimes still be spotted in Strachan Hall at lunchtime, since I'm going for my third degree now, and I even saw Bill the Div there today. Anyway, perhaps our paths will cross and we'll see each other sometime in the coming years.

I admit that what prompted me finally to write was this whole "war crimes" thing.

In kinship with your latest blog entry I'm disappointed with the way the media covers these races. I don't know if my complaint is exactly the same as yours. The coverage is political rather than substantive---sometimes even metapolitical. What I mean is that political advantage attained and the popularity (rather than defensibility) of policy are what come first in the coverage. Whereas you were concerned that the media weren't reporting that Dion had won the debate (and maybe that is real prejudice on their part) I was concerned that the reporting was chiefly focused on who was the winner.

In a debate participants are presumably talking about why they're right and why the others are wrong (or less right, or less qualified) but nowhere whatever have the mainstream media given voice to the substance of this. It is all points scored and knockout blows and did he keep his head above water. I can quite understand, given that this is what political coverage amounts to these days, that you're disappointed that Dion got the short end of it, but as an outsider watching it bothers me much more that we don’t see our media taking up the debate itself. I imagine that average citizens are being trained in this mode of analysis as well, and I sadly encounter more coffee-table conversations about the candidates’ political successes than about their essential merits.

Of course I shouldn’t imply that you’re part of this, since you’ve quite clearly said that you support Dion for his ideas. I have to take exception with some things you’ve said, though, and this is really the heart of it:

Your letter in Monday’s Globe said “We cannot have a leader who would accuse an ally of committing war crimes.” While the sentence was lovingly constructed, when parsed carefully I wonder how it is defensible. What is the alternative? A leader who shuts up? Why didn’t you instead write a letter discussing the merits of the accusation, as almost no one has? For his whole adult life accusing governments of war crimes was practically Ignatieff’s stock in trade, and you’re asking for him to be diplomatic to the point of silence. Personally I don’t know what the merits of Ignatieff’s claim are, though to call it “without evidence” is a bit rich, but my ability to believe that the agents of a democratic ally are capable of committing war crimes when forced into a difficult situation certainly doesn’t mark me as crazy. The belief is justified by history. (In my opinion the “Hezbollah forced them into it” isn’t exactly germane to the issue and “Israel gave fair warning” is a very contentious point, but probably both you and Ignatieff know better than I do about this.) Also, I’ve seen you try to score some cheap political points off of Ignatieff’s having multiple opinions, points so generically made that I must assume they’re as invisible as wallpaper in modern political discourse.

Of course in a race based on expected performance as Prime Minister Middle East issues would be nearly irrelevant, so maybe none of this really matters.

You’re a Liberal party delegate. Through your own voting and the persuasion you exercise over your colleagues you gave a good chance of deciding the next Prime Minister of our country. So I guess that’s one of the reasons I’m writing to you---to ask you to think things through from my point of view for a few minutes and to have some small sense of responsibility to me and my views personally. But don’t let me tell you to vote Ignatieff; I don’t know if he’s the right one. The other reason is merely that I wanted to engage you intellectually on these few small points, person-to-person; though we’re mercifully far from the American discourse, I’ve made clear some of my problems.

You know what the Liberals need to do, Jason? They need to choose the right leader for the country and to hell with the party. They need to take that risk and stop cherishing their institution, as lovely a thing as it may be. I’m very serious about this. The most odious things I ever heard coming out of Chretien’s mouth were when he talked about his loyalty to the party. Of course if you really think Ignatieff would be a bad Prime Minister rather than just a political liability then by all means vote against him. On this issue please don’t be a “realist”---it would sully the honourable word.

I say all this with the greatest of respect and as a likely supporter in the next election. Once again I wish you well, and hope one day to hear from you and even see you.

Regards,

Michael

Jason replies:

Cptn. Beefheart, J

Of course I remember you. How could I forget?

I think you are missing an important point. A prime minister has international responsibilities. His comments affect the international dialogue. For a world leader to pre-judge another country on a criminal accusation is simply unacceptable. You should not do that sort of thing unless you plan to take action on it. This is the same principle that should stop politicians from accusing people of “murder”. Countries, just like individuals, are innocent until proven guilty.

As for the details, I did not think such details would make it into the letters section. I was trying to make a very specific point about Canadian International Relations. As far as the details are concerned, there is not nearly enough evidence to determine whether Israel committed a war crime. Indeed, there is a good chance that the real war crime was committed by Hexbollah. The international organizations cited by those who supported Igantieff’s opinion tended to call for an investigation – not an accusation. Although her group took somewhat of an extreme point of view due the voting by the membership, Lousie Arbour made the same argument for restrain in words.

On the more general issue of ideas, I agree completely. That is why, in large part, I am such a strong supporter of Stéphane Dion. Of all the candidates, he is the one who is putting forward a coherent Liberal philosophy with policies to back him up. Ignatieff does have some good policies, but he has failed to create a coherent plan where everything interacts. For some of my opinions, feel free to take a look at my web site. In my view, Dion is right for both the Party and the country.

Hope all is well with you.

Jason

MB:

Jason, thanks for writing.

I like some of the things you’ve said about Dion and I would certainly vote for him if he were to win the leadership. I also like the fact that you’ve pledged on your blog to talk critically about him. Regarding Ignatieff’s comment, you have such a clean argument but it’s unsustained.

First of all I agree that Hezbollah committed war crimes in the recent conflict, in particular by firing rockets at civilians and, I gather, by hiding among the civilian population. We’d probably both be comfortable saying that, and if you wouldn’t be I’ll put it down to diplomacy. Or perhaps the presumption of innocence you’ve spent the last few years learning about really does constrain your everyday thinking that strongly.

An accusation of war crimes is very different in practice if not in principle from an accusation of murder. Such an accusation certainly does affect the international dialogue, and for a Canadian Prime Minister to say such a thing, especially about an ally, certainly would be unusual (though for a Prime Minister to have said such a thing would be slightly less notable).

Of course Dion rose to prominence as an intellectual---later a politician---making forceful arguments about international law, taking our government into a position of prejudice about an issue that was very much before the courts. I’d like to argue that what Ignatieff did, as a politician and a specialist in the laws of war, is analogous, but I don’t know how well the analogy holds. You might say, war crimes are different from a secession question; they’re much more serious. Precisely.

It’s unusual for a war to go by without war crimes being committed by both sides, perhaps in great disproportion, and most of the time they won’t be prosecuted. Personally I find it very important that war crime be called what it is, when a reasonable person, be he politician or citizen, believes that he’s seen it. I won’t argue that established practice is on my side, since I don’t really know, but I was unaware that accusations of war crimes by one country against another were taboo, much less accusations by a politician campaigning for the leadership of a party.

This is very much unlike a domestic criminal allegation, for example because there is little likelihood that Israel would actually participate in an international criminal case. Because Israel (arguably with good reason) does not submit to the International Criminal Court, there is effectively no means for citizens and governments of other countries to hold it to account, other than political means. If Americans or Israelis, their governments having backed out of the court, commit war crimes, the first thing we can do, and unfortunately perhaps the best thing, is to say so.

Also it’s very much unlike a domestic criminal allegation because of the kind of parties involved. There really is a difference between accusing an army or government of wrongdoing, and accusing a private citizen. It’s a totally different universe. The citizen needs protection against the power of the state. If you point out that Israel needs protection right now then I’ll agree, but of a different sort. Israel can take it if an ally tells them they’ve broken international law; America can take it if Canada tells them, repeatedly, that they’ve broken international law; I personally can take it if a friend tells me I’ve committed a crime or done something wrong. Presumption of innocence may apply here only as a sound reasoning principle, which for all we know Ignatieff has spent the summer studiously observing. Though he’s obviously unable in the context of a political campaign to make---god forbid---an argument

I’ve gotten into a thicket here trying to make the essential point that what Ignatieff did wasn’t totally outrageous. If it turns out he was right, then in fact I think it was admirable. Is your claim about what accusations are or are not acceptable for a prime minister to make established international law or even just established diplomatic practice, or is it just an argument that’s circulating? Is it just your personal sense of principle that has led you to believe he has done something far too grave? Possibly you really are better educated than I on this point. It seems like the presumption of innocence is a mighty high perch from which to take exception to this particular accusation.

At what point does the presumption of innocence cease to bind us? As a person, not a diplomat, I prefer frankness in this situation.

Maybe as Prime Minister Ignatieff really does intend to do something about this accusation he’s made. As you’ve observed, a whole lot of countries, for various reasons, have pushed for an investigation, which is about the strongest action that could be taken at this point. Maybe Canada under Ignatieff would be among them. Or maybe he’s just giving his opinion, and will leave it up to the gears of justice. If that’s the case, as he seems to be arguing, it is impossible for me to feel that his comment was worse than mildly impolitic.

You know what, Jason? Either you’ll correct me on all of the errors in fact and opinion I’ve displayed in this letter or, since you’re a busy man, you’ll let me educate myself on my own time. Actually, you have much more useful things to be doing and I hope you make good stuff happen. By the way, if Ignatieff is no longer your second, might I be another voice suggesting Rae? Once you get past the very real possibility that he’s just using the Liberal party, you might find you like him. Actually you among all writers I’ve read were so even-handed about Rae before this whole thing that I’d be surprised if you weren’t listing that way already. And remember, you too are just using the Liberal party (for the good of the country I hope!).

Keep up the good work. I suppose you have a real job apart from your political face. One thing I like about academia is that we’re allowed to have more than one opinion, and to make more than one argument.

Thanks again for writing,
Michael

JC:

The problem with your analysis is that there is not enough information to know whether Israel committed a war crime. If it should turn out htat Hezbollah lunched rockets from the roof of the building, or did not allow the occupants to leave for hours after Israel bombed, then Hezbollah commited a war crime in Qana. If Hexbollah threw dead bodies into the rubble of a building, then nobody committed a war crime. That is why world leaders should not make such judgements in public – they do not and cannot have all the facts. Leave it for international institutions to make such judgements.

Ignatieff himself has all but withdrawn the remarks, you will note. He said something in French without thinking because in the academic world, what he said has no reprecussions. However, he recognizes that leaders cannot say such things in public. The media reaction itself should be proof of that.

Jason

MB:

Well you are right to question the facts of the case. I emphatically disagree with the media reaction being proof of anything much.

JC:

But the media reaction is part of being PM. If you can’t get your message out, then it doesn’t matter what you say. Just ask Paul Martin.

MB:

That’s an unfortunate view. Good governance depends on a certain healthy disrespect for media reaction. Perhaps if politicians are interested in having a more frank, open, thoughtful, nuanced and honest dialogue then the media will eventually get over it.

JC:

But if you can get your message through the meda – thus making it easier for people to understand you – aren’t you being more honest with people?

MB:

That may be a good thing, but it seems kind of a separate issue from honesty. In fact, I can’t be the first to suggest the controversial idea that media-friendly messages tend to err on the side of dishonesty when compared to media-unfriendly ones. I really will put my foot down here and insist that we can’t always have win-win, or at least that sometimes the win-win strategy will be unpopular.

JC:

Hold on – being able to get out the message is not the same as getting out a popular message. I think one the worst problems with politicians is when they are “honest” yet mislead people because the people don’t understand what they are actually saying.

MB:

Fair enough, but this has shifted a bit. Whereas before we were talking about messages that provoked a media reaction (or conversely, were carefully calculated not to), now we seem to be talking about messages which merely present a difficulty in translation for a passive, neutral media. Nonetheless I prefer either a provocative message or a confusing message to a comfortable message, and---hey---I’m a citizen too. I want their messages to challenge me, and all of us, and to be all of those other nice things I mentioned.

Since I’m forced to make such a stark choice I could be accused of naïveté, of sacrificing what good could be done on the altar of helpless principle, but really all I’m asking for is an incremental raising of the tone, and for the politicians to take some personal responsibility and some political risk in order to make shift the paradigm the next little bit. Sure, bad communication is bad communication, but good communication can also get a bad reaction, so media reaction can’t be the final judge. When I put it that way it seems totally reasonable, but there must at least be some essence on which we disagree, if not some words, and on this disagreement you’re at an extreme disadvantage, being part of something institutional in which your sense of self is partly bound up, and which you’d presumably like to defend.

You’ll pardon me if I break from this lively chat for the evening, as I also have many duties. Please feel free to write back and I’ll read it sometime in the next little while.

JC:

Let me try a different tack.

What did Iggy mean when he said that Qana was a war crime? Did he mean Israel is legally responsible for a war crime? Did he mean that somebody commited a war crime, but not necessarily Israel? Did he mean Israel did a bad thing? Did he mean that, as an academic, he believes that Israel probably committed a war crime? Did he just misspeak in French and, now, cannot admit it?

The fact that there is no way to know the answers to these questions means that no matter how much he might have provoked debate or caused people to think, he failed to communicate an idea. Politicians need to avoid complicated legal judgments that are easily misunderstsood. Otherwise they leave everybody taking what they want from the statement and, thus, ultimately mislead the majortiy

And that was it. At some point either before or after this exchange I attended a talk by Ignatieff and found myself irrationally charmed for all the worst reasons. I write letters to change minds and fail, but some writing gets done. You can leave a comment on the substance of this, or the quality of my rhetoric, or just to say hi.

The Salon II

Well the salon happened---a babe, not yet full grown. The next one will be as different from the last as the last was from the one before it, which is to say it will be quite different.

I feel like a lot else has happened recently but I wonder if it really has. As much as I like to say "fuck existentialism" these days, its eponymous crisis follows me around like the goddamn Zeitgeist. The paradox is that learning to be happy in a state of permanent crisis is what defeats it. Well, I seem to be a happy guy, don't I?

CASE IN POINT: I thought the other day that if I can learn to talk a bit more about myself, even the barest, concrete details, then I can feel more socially real. Why don't I feel pursued the way I'm pursuing? Of course, my friends for whom this anxiety doesn't seem to exist are probably better off. Why build a theory when you can do without?

There's the old vain hope that increasing success in sufficiently culturally and metaphysically rich endeavours---scholarship, art, partying---will provide fuel to drive greater personal and social engagement and greater satisfaction. I don't really think of this as vain, and I mean to prove it as my achievements mount in the coming months and years (which I've promised myself so many times), but at some point this personal and social greatness has to be realized, and it's up to me to do it. This makes me think of the paradox of compatibilism. I'll think about that some more in the future.

Quoting myself quoting Prince:

OH GOD prince makes the most gorgeous coos and squeals

this is what it sounds like when doves cry

IEEUH!!!

heuHOOAeh

Does modern heterosexuality as practiced preclude entire regions of taste? Actually that's a pretty prejudiced thing for me to think. I should feel free to indulge (pander to) my most ridiculous predilections. HEUOOHaahi!

Vega's going to become a nun. Who's going to tell her?

Annat's chronically in need of repair and I love her for it.

(Psst. I wish I could dance like Mike.)

James and his... things.

Anyway, this blog is going to get going again. While I'm going to get a bit more serious about dumping my big projects here, I also won't shy away from the personal documentary stuff. Simply having to write, I have to write something worthwhile.