"You have to put on a mask. You have to dissemble. You have to cheat."
April 12, 2014 9:40 PM Subscribe
Failed Philosopher King Michael Ignatieff confirms Machiavelli in the latest edition [direct link to mp3] of the Philosophy Bites Podcast.
This should be required listening for every politician, and every citizen.
I lived this for a time as a municipal politician; Ignatieff is absolutely correct in that politicians are compelled to at times be morally ambiguous in order to accomplish larger goals. However, there is a tipping point one must be aware of, so that one doesn't completely compromise one's inner self, or those who have supported you.
From the outside -for non-politicians - this is very hard to understand - so people get pissed off or become cynical. Even after leaving politics, one can easily forget these lessons and becomeo cynical.
Ignatieff makes another good point about "wearing the mask" when doing necessary dirt work vs. inhabiting one's role - i.e. getting too wound up in moral certainty. It's the latter - including the projection of same - that can lead one astray, along with one's political followers.
I have always thought that there must be a better way, and there might be, but that would require far more transparency in politics - which would then take away from the gamesmanship that appears to be necessary to accomplish things.
posted by Vibrissae at 11:17 PM on April 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
I lived this for a time as a municipal politician; Ignatieff is absolutely correct in that politicians are compelled to at times be morally ambiguous in order to accomplish larger goals. However, there is a tipping point one must be aware of, so that one doesn't completely compromise one's inner self, or those who have supported you.
From the outside -for non-politicians - this is very hard to understand - so people get pissed off or become cynical. Even after leaving politics, one can easily forget these lessons and becomeo cynical.
Ignatieff makes another good point about "wearing the mask" when doing necessary dirt work vs. inhabiting one's role - i.e. getting too wound up in moral certainty. It's the latter - including the projection of same - that can lead one astray, along with one's political followers.
I have always thought that there must be a better way, and there might be, but that would require far more transparency in politics - which would then take away from the gamesmanship that appears to be necessary to accomplish things.
posted by Vibrissae at 11:17 PM on April 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
This is just Ignatieff trying to spin his utterly pathetic failure as a politician into a moral victory, right? He's just too honest to be any good at it? Give me a break.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:50 PM on April 12, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 11:50 PM on April 12, 2014 [9 favorites]
If Stephen Harper is better at something than Michael Ignatieff then it's not something as a society we should value as worth being good at.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:52 PM on April 12, 2014 [18 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 11:52 PM on April 12, 2014 [18 favorites]
As a sad, uninformed American I could use a one-paragraph recap of this guy's political career.
posted by mecran01 at 11:54 PM on April 12, 2014
posted by mecran01 at 11:54 PM on April 12, 2014
He was made leader of the Liberal party after only two years in politics. He ran the party into the ground. The end.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:59 PM on April 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 11:59 PM on April 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
He was supposed to be our Luke Skywalker, but became Jar Jar Binks instead.
posted by Kevin Street at 12:00 AM on April 13, 2014 [15 favorites]
posted by Kevin Street at 12:00 AM on April 13, 2014 [15 favorites]
As a sad, uninformed American I could use a one-paragraph recap of this guy's political career.
he gives a good quick summary of it at the beginning of the interview. He got headhunted for the leadership after a career in academia which included precious little politics (and a lot of not actually being in Canada). His hubris got the better of him and he accepted the leadership, and he ended up getting his ass handed to him by Stephen Harper's Conservatives who, among other things, knew how to play in the corners.
posted by philip-random at 12:16 AM on April 13, 2014 [6 favorites]
he gives a good quick summary of it at the beginning of the interview. He got headhunted for the leadership after a career in academia which included precious little politics (and a lot of not actually being in Canada). His hubris got the better of him and he accepted the leadership, and he ended up getting his ass handed to him by Stephen Harper's Conservatives who, among other things, knew how to play in the corners.
posted by philip-random at 12:16 AM on April 13, 2014 [6 favorites]
I was recently reading a Helmut Kohl biography, and one of the things it made me realize is that people (nomination committees, informal or not, rather than the general electorate) choose politicians like they choose lawyers. They want somebody fighting as hard as they can on their behalf. This often brings people to the top that are not exactly the kind you'd want as your next door neighbour.
posted by dhoe at 12:44 AM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by dhoe at 12:44 AM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
he may be rat, but he's our rat
posted by philip-random at 12:52 AM on April 13, 2014
posted by philip-random at 12:52 AM on April 13, 2014
all apologies to rats
posted by philip-random at 1:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 1:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
TL; DL version: "Marcus Aurelius probably couldn't have gotten elected either."
posted by quincunx at 5:41 AM on April 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by quincunx at 5:41 AM on April 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
As a sad, uninformed American I could use a one-paragraph recap of this guy's political career.
Three other posters have the gist of it above. I would add only that he brought the Liberal Party of Canada (widely viewed as "Canada's Natural Governing Party") to its worst showing ever: the first time in the country's history that it was not either the government or the official opposition. Before Ignatieff and his immediate predecessor as Liberal Leader (another colourless technocrat named Stephane Dion), becoming leader if the party was the second-to-last step in the road to becoming Prime Minister. The last Liberal leader before these two to try and fail to become PM was Edward Blake, who stepped down in 1887 -- the year the Eiffel Tower began construction, the Gramophone was patented, and the first Sherlock Holmes story was published.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:37 AM on April 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
Three other posters have the gist of it above. I would add only that he brought the Liberal Party of Canada (widely viewed as "Canada's Natural Governing Party") to its worst showing ever: the first time in the country's history that it was not either the government or the official opposition. Before Ignatieff and his immediate predecessor as Liberal Leader (another colourless technocrat named Stephane Dion), becoming leader if the party was the second-to-last step in the road to becoming Prime Minister. The last Liberal leader before these two to try and fail to become PM was Edward Blake, who stepped down in 1887 -- the year the Eiffel Tower began construction, the Gramophone was patented, and the first Sherlock Holmes story was published.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:37 AM on April 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
Although Ignatieff was coming in on the heels of a major corruption scandal that left people sour on the Liberals, no? I mean, it wasn't like he alone turned people off.
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
… but to be fair to Iggy, he had (maybe still has) awesome hair. I was on a Porter flight a couple of rows behind him once, and all conversation stopped because of it. Unfortunately, under that hair was a brain that could impress the Bay Street funding crowd, but never quite connect with the people.
posted by scruss at 7:44 AM on April 13, 2014
posted by scruss at 7:44 AM on April 13, 2014
This is just Ignatieff trying to spin his utterly pathetic failure as a politician into a moral victory, right? He's just too honest to be any good at it? Give me a break.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:50 AM on April 13 [6 favorites +][!]
This times 1000. And Ignatieff has a history of this sort of self-serving, phony retrospective analysis of why he is so great and the rest of us are fools.
Not much of a mea culpa from Michael Ignatieff
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 8:13 AM on April 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 2:50 AM on April 13 [6 favorites +][!]
This times 1000. And Ignatieff has a history of this sort of self-serving, phony retrospective analysis of why he is so great and the rest of us are fools.
Not much of a mea culpa from Michael Ignatieff
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 8:13 AM on April 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
Regarding Machiavelli, in this brief talk Ignatieff seemed to reiterate a few pretty conventional interpretations about Machiavelli's views.
What I recently found much more interesting was a side link in a post last week about Ada Palmer. Her interpretations of Machiavelli's ideas are really intriguing, sometimes kinda speculative, and often rather sympathetic to what he was really trying to get at:
Intro, Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Rousing Conclusion.
posted by ovvl at 8:37 AM on April 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
What I recently found much more interesting was a side link in a post last week about Ada Palmer. Her interpretations of Machiavelli's ideas are really intriguing, sometimes kinda speculative, and often rather sympathetic to what he was really trying to get at:
Intro, Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Rousing Conclusion.
posted by ovvl at 8:37 AM on April 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
Although Ignatieff was coming in on the heels of a major corruption scandal that left people sour on the Liberals, no? I mean, it wasn't like he alone turned people off.
It was. From his lack of political experience to his barely-Canadianness to his constant foot-in-mouth disease to his wooden lack of charisma to his hardly ever showing up to work to his cheerleading for the Iraq war, there was a lot not to like.
A lot of the reason for the Liberals' instant nosedive was that it was terrifically off-putting to think that Ignatieff (or Dion before him) was the best the party could do.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
It was. From his lack of political experience to his barely-Canadianness to his constant foot-in-mouth disease to his wooden lack of charisma to his hardly ever showing up to work to his cheerleading for the Iraq war, there was a lot not to like.
A lot of the reason for the Liberals' instant nosedive was that it was terrifically off-putting to think that Ignatieff (or Dion before him) was the best the party could do.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
The charm of Kerry, the charisma of Dukakis, the warmth of Romney. Made the HARPERTRON GX-5000 look positively cuddly by comparison.
posted by hangashore at 8:41 AM on April 13, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by hangashore at 8:41 AM on April 13, 2014 [5 favorites]
Ignatieff used to be a presenter on The Late Show on BBC 2, which was one of those wacky 80s arts 'n' culture programmes. When it started it was quite fun, lots of shortish segments, some of which could be endearingly silly, but eventually it seemed like the spirit of Ignatieff took it over. I would tune in to see what arty thing they were going to cover today and there would be Ignatieff leering back at me, enthusiastically announcing another special on Isaiah Fucking Berlin or the ramifications of the Bosnian crisis, which we already had Newsnight for. There was an awful lot of smugness on The Late Show, but no one could compete with Ignatieff's massive ego, which he used to crush all the fun out of what had been originally quite a fun programme.
I realise that ruining a late night arts programme doesn't really compete with ruining a political party, but I'm just trying to point out that he has ruinous form.
posted by Grangousier at 8:50 AM on April 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
I realise that ruining a late night arts programme doesn't really compete with ruining a political party, but I'm just trying to point out that he has ruinous form.
posted by Grangousier at 8:50 AM on April 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
Sys Rq, apologies, I think I am getting my chronology wrong - was thinking of the previous Liberal corruption scandal before Ignatieff came into power.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:01 AM on April 13, 2014
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:01 AM on April 13, 2014
Yeah, no, you were right, there was definitely a lot of residual repulsion from that, and the revolving-door leadership leading up to Ignatieff's installation didn't exactly boost morale. Still, though, Ignatieff was crummy all by himself.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:08 AM on April 13, 2014
posted by Sys Rq at 9:08 AM on April 13, 2014
The real conundrum about the political career of Iggy is: Who hired this guy?
It seemed pretty obvious to me and many other people that the moment he stepped off the plane the whole thing was destined to be a big wash-out. If you're gonna be a dark horse, you better run fast.
posted by ovvl at 9:12 AM on April 13, 2014
It seemed pretty obvious to me and many other people that the moment he stepped off the plane the whole thing was destined to be a big wash-out. If you're gonna be a dark horse, you better run fast.
posted by ovvl at 9:12 AM on April 13, 2014
The real conundrum about the political career of Iggy is: Who hired this guy?
The Liberal Party of Canada, by virtue of having been the biggest and most successful political game in town for the entire life of the country, has a collective institutional ego that is as a whole vast galaxy to Michael Ignatieff's wee dwarf star. The mostly Toronto-based minders of this enormous beast appeared to believe firmly -- and perhaps still do -- that it was an inviolable natural law that Canadians would hand the reins of power back to them as soon as they found a new leader who was clever and looked good in a suit and was completely untainted by the Sponsorship scandal.
From this perspective -- which all but totally negates all competing narratives in its purview -- Ignatieff looked like a slam-dunk restorative re-election machine. So much so, it would appear, that no one bothered even to ask whether anyone outside their circle found him the least bit likeable or charismatic or inspiring.
posted by gompa at 9:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
The Liberal Party of Canada, by virtue of having been the biggest and most successful political game in town for the entire life of the country, has a collective institutional ego that is as a whole vast galaxy to Michael Ignatieff's wee dwarf star. The mostly Toronto-based minders of this enormous beast appeared to believe firmly -- and perhaps still do -- that it was an inviolable natural law that Canadians would hand the reins of power back to them as soon as they found a new leader who was clever and looked good in a suit and was completely untainted by the Sponsorship scandal.
From this perspective -- which all but totally negates all competing narratives in its purview -- Ignatieff looked like a slam-dunk restorative re-election machine. So much so, it would appear, that no one bothered even to ask whether anyone outside their circle found him the least bit likeable or charismatic or inspiring.
posted by gompa at 9:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Oh, Michael "it wasn't my fault" Ignatieff.
There's a nice little story about how the Liberals - which is to say, Alf Apps - decided to pick Iggy.
I don't think it's fair to completely liken Dion to Ignatieff. At first glance they might look similar: professors-turned-politicians. But look a little closer and things are different.
Both are hopeless at retail politics, but in different ways. Dion is a dork. He cares about policy things but he's not "the guy you want to have a beer with." He just doesn't have that touch.
Ignatieff, on the other hand, is the "guy you wanted to throw a beer at in college." He is unbelievably pompous. Nothing is ever his fault. I mean, read his "kinda-maybe-sorry-about-Iraq-but-it-wasn't-not-sort-of-my-fault-so-mea-culpa-but-not-really" on Iraq. And try not to throw up in your mouth.
Dion did real time in Canadian politics. You may not like the what the Clarity Act says, but Dion was a big part of that. You may not think carbon taxes are a good idea, but Dion pushed hard to campaign on a policy which was a non-starter in the polls because he thought it was a genuinely important thing for Canada to pursue. He was a true believer. And unlike the true believer that's been in charge of Canada for the last eight years, he didn't have any instinct for the strategy and maneuvering that politics requires at high levels.
Contrast with Ignatieff, who can't connect with people because he simply thinks he's better than them. He's been doing the rounds with his "oh I was too good for the political game. It requires lying and cunning and all these bad things that I'm too virtuous to really be good at." What does he believe in? I think the only principle he really holds is that of his own advancement. You can talk about Machiavelli or even Plato all you want ("politics is hard! politicians are mean!"), but the reason those conservative attack ads worked so well? They were right.
He was parachuted into his riding. He had a nice cushy job at the University of Toronto (a school which has an auditorium named after his father, BTW), to which he returned for a suitably decent interval after being beaten (so it wouldn't look like he just cut & run after the whole politics thing didn't work out. "I'm not just visiting!") before tucking tail and returning to Harvard. Canada was good enough for him, if he could run it. Otherwise, not so much.
I can remember the first time I read something of Ignatieff's. I was a political theory / foreign policy student (at the University of Toronto, funnily enough) and I ended reading through his book about torture in the age of terrorism. Much like his NYTM article it's a mush of hemming and hawing with a not-very-bold conclusion: "we really shouldn't torture, because torture is bad. Unless we really really have to. Then, torture, maybe?"
There's a reason he lost the Rhodes Scholarship to Bob Rae. And I'm not saying that as a Bob Rae fan.
posted by faceattack at 9:47 AM on April 13, 2014 [11 favorites]
There's a nice little story about how the Liberals - which is to say, Alf Apps - decided to pick Iggy.
I don't think it's fair to completely liken Dion to Ignatieff. At first glance they might look similar: professors-turned-politicians. But look a little closer and things are different.
Both are hopeless at retail politics, but in different ways. Dion is a dork. He cares about policy things but he's not "the guy you want to have a beer with." He just doesn't have that touch.
Ignatieff, on the other hand, is the "guy you wanted to throw a beer at in college." He is unbelievably pompous. Nothing is ever his fault. I mean, read his "kinda-maybe-sorry-about-Iraq-but-it-wasn't-not-sort-of-my-fault-so-mea-culpa-but-not-really" on Iraq. And try not to throw up in your mouth.
Dion did real time in Canadian politics. You may not like the what the Clarity Act says, but Dion was a big part of that. You may not think carbon taxes are a good idea, but Dion pushed hard to campaign on a policy which was a non-starter in the polls because he thought it was a genuinely important thing for Canada to pursue. He was a true believer. And unlike the true believer that's been in charge of Canada for the last eight years, he didn't have any instinct for the strategy and maneuvering that politics requires at high levels.
Contrast with Ignatieff, who can't connect with people because he simply thinks he's better than them. He's been doing the rounds with his "oh I was too good for the political game. It requires lying and cunning and all these bad things that I'm too virtuous to really be good at." What does he believe in? I think the only principle he really holds is that of his own advancement. You can talk about Machiavelli or even Plato all you want ("politics is hard! politicians are mean!"), but the reason those conservative attack ads worked so well? They were right.
He was parachuted into his riding. He had a nice cushy job at the University of Toronto (a school which has an auditorium named after his father, BTW), to which he returned for a suitably decent interval after being beaten (so it wouldn't look like he just cut & run after the whole politics thing didn't work out. "I'm not just visiting!") before tucking tail and returning to Harvard. Canada was good enough for him, if he could run it. Otherwise, not so much.
I can remember the first time I read something of Ignatieff's. I was a political theory / foreign policy student (at the University of Toronto, funnily enough) and I ended reading through his book about torture in the age of terrorism. Much like his NYTM article it's a mush of hemming and hawing with a not-very-bold conclusion: "we really shouldn't torture, because torture is bad. Unless we really really have to. Then, torture, maybe?"
There's a reason he lost the Rhodes Scholarship to Bob Rae. And I'm not saying that as a Bob Rae fan.
posted by faceattack at 9:47 AM on April 13, 2014 [11 favorites]
Hello
I've been looking through Chapter 11 of Maritain's The Range of Reason, 'The End of Machiavellianism'. It's a well structured piece of writing, with thought provoking and learned insights.
And forgive me, but I can't help thinking of Palpatine when I see some of this language.
"Thus, merely artistic politics, liberated from ethics, that is, from the practical knowledge of man, from the science of human acts, from truly human finalities and truly human doings, is a corpse of political wisdom and political prudence.
His position therefore, is that of a separate artistic spirit contemplating from without the vast matter of human affairs, with all the ethical cargo, all the intercrossings of good and evil they involve.
"Ethics is here present, but in the matter to be shaped and dominated."
posted by sirlikeitalot at 10:48 AM on April 13, 2014
I've been looking through Chapter 11 of Maritain's The Range of Reason, 'The End of Machiavellianism'. It's a well structured piece of writing, with thought provoking and learned insights.
And forgive me, but I can't help thinking of Palpatine when I see some of this language.
"Thus, merely artistic politics, liberated from ethics, that is, from the practical knowledge of man, from the science of human acts, from truly human finalities and truly human doings, is a corpse of political wisdom and political prudence.
His position therefore, is that of a separate artistic spirit contemplating from without the vast matter of human affairs, with all the ethical cargo, all the intercrossings of good and evil they involve.
"Ethics is here present, but in the matter to be shaped and dominated."
posted by sirlikeitalot at 10:48 AM on April 13, 2014
The anti-Ignatieff vitriol in this thread is interesting. I didn't closely follow his political career, and don't live in Canada, so I definitely can't say it's unjustified – but the podcast itself doesn't reek of pomposity to me. Or at least no more pomposity than any interview with a high-profile academic.
In it, Ignatieff describes himself as having been a bad politician, motivated by hubris, as having done morally dubious things (rather than as having been too pure of heart to do them), and as having fundamentally misunderstood what practical politics is. I don't think he suggests it was a moral victory.
posted by oliverburkeman at 11:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
In it, Ignatieff describes himself as having been a bad politician, motivated by hubris, as having done morally dubious things (rather than as having been too pure of heart to do them), and as having fundamentally misunderstood what practical politics is. I don't think he suggests it was a moral victory.
posted by oliverburkeman at 11:39 AM on April 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
Erica Benner suggests that The Prince is actually a satire (it is not an instruction manual).
Pretty freaking awesome show about Machiavelli, featuring a lot of discussion of Benner's ideas here.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:43 PM on April 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
Pretty freaking awesome show about Machiavelli, featuring a lot of discussion of Benner's ideas here.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:43 PM on April 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
but the podcast itself doesn't reek of pomposity to me. Or at least no more pomposity than any interview with a high-profile academic.
Ignatieff doesn't actually say anything within the pod itself that I'd disagree with. But in the context of his political career, it's pretty hilarious.
posted by ovvl at 1:32 PM on April 13, 2014
Ignatieff doesn't actually say anything within the pod itself that I'd disagree with. But in the context of his political career, it's pretty hilarious.
posted by ovvl at 1:32 PM on April 13, 2014
The real tragedy in Ignatieff's rise and fall is that Bob Rae was denied his chance to run for PM. Sure there were lots of questions about whether Rae's record as Premiere of Ontario would have opened him up to attack, but I firmly believe that any man who would go skinny dipping with Rick Mercer on national TV [YT] could have withstood any criticism.
posted by Popular Ethics at 5:25 PM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Popular Ethics at 5:25 PM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
The real tragedy in Ignatieff's rise and fall is that Bob Rae was denied his chance to run for PM. Sure there were lots of questions about whether Rae's record as Premiere of Ontario would have opened him up to attack, but I firmly believe that any man who would go skinny dipping with Rick Mercer on national TV [YT] could have withstood any criticism.
Well.. Perhaps that's really the tragedy of Stephan Dion's rise.. I mean, Rae very well might have beaten Ignatieff the first time around. The Liberal Party establishment stabbing Dion in the back 40 times was another tragedy. Then the Liberal Party establishment getting what they wanted--hubris, and tragedy.
And here we are with Justin Trudeau. I don't think the tragedy is over yet.
posted by Chuckles at 7:42 PM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well.. Perhaps that's really the tragedy of Stephan Dion's rise.. I mean, Rae very well might have beaten Ignatieff the first time around. The Liberal Party establishment stabbing Dion in the back 40 times was another tragedy. Then the Liberal Party establishment getting what they wanted--hubris, and tragedy.
And here we are with Justin Trudeau. I don't think the tragedy is over yet.
posted by Chuckles at 7:42 PM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have met Bob Rae through work, and have met a bunch of other MLA's and MP's through work. Rae is a good and decent man, not like some of the others I have met.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:55 PM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by KokuRyu at 8:55 PM on April 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older Jeremy Mann | Up the Clapham Junction Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
He's also a big hockey fan. I suspect Ignatieff isn't.
posted by philip-random at 10:24 PM on April 12, 2014 [1 favorite]