A reader writes:
Good post on Ignatieff. The problem, though, is that optimism has become a sine qua non of a political career in the US today. For me, that has been the most instructive thing about the Democrats' You Tube debate the other week and the Republican debate this morning. NO ONE will admit to being at all pessimistic. Again, it's not a Democrat v. Republican thing, or, more surprisingly to me, a 'conservative' v. liberal thing (I put conservative in inverted commas because surely traditional conservatives do not fetishize optimism). It's an AMERICAN thing. And yet what Ignatieff is
calling for is for leaders who are brave enough not to act solely on their hopes, good wishes, good intentions, and best case scenarios. Good luck in these United States.And it's not just foreign policy: much domestic policy too is being made on the basis of wishful thinking. To me, both sides in the immigration debate indulge in it to an amazing degree. For liberals and the business establishment, the mantra is 'this is America, so surely it will work out.' For conservatives, it's 'we can control our borders in an interdependent economy in which prosperity depends on open borders and in an era where somehow there is to be free movement of goods, services, and money, but people will be controlled as they were before globalization.'
I believe Radley Balko wrote something the other day -- I'll try to find it and post it tomorrow, when I'm less sleepy -- pointing out that conservative anger over immigration is never going to amount to much, because the conservative base, in the end, will not put up with the costs to the consumer economy that enacting their prescriptions on immigration would inflict. If memory serves, in the same essay, he observed that Democratic politicians will huff and puff about outsourcing and suchlike, given its socially disruptive effects, but won't do anything about it for pretty much the same reason.
The left-wing dogs and the right-wing dogs bark, but the economic caravan rolls on. Luxury is more ruthless than war. So said Juvenal -- or was it Daniel Larison?
Hey Larison, come set us straight!

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Luxury is more ruthless than war.
I just wanted to see that in bold. Amen, brother.
Politicians have no choice but to sound optimistic. It's the only way they can get pass the mute button.
Poor Jimmy Carter was the last president who had the luxury of being able to command a mass audience with an address, and as we all know he blew it. Ever since, there have more and more alternatives for the public and no one is trapped in front of a television with only three channels and all of them showing the same thing any more. Even if all the cable and satellite channels were to show the same political garbage at the same time, there is nothing to stop people from popping in a video or turning on the game console.
If you send a message to people that they do not want to hear, they can simply tune it out and there is no way around that.
The older I get, the more skeptical I am of any political or social program that attempts to "remake the world." I think we could do with a few more counterrevolutionaries, since it seems to me that terror inevitably follows all "revolutionary action."
Iraq would be a good example. I think one of the qualities of the Bush Administration that has made it so unpopular around the world is the Administration's arrogance in believing it could remake the Middle East, an arrogance that was not only presumptuous but also deeply naive. I'm not a pacifist, but I think we should be a lot more conservative and pessimistic when we consider intervening in the affairs of foreign nations.
It seems to me that the people seek for optimism in their leaders, who will tell them what they want to hear, because they do not want to bother with restraining or disciplining themselves for the sake of a greater good. Thus, politics becomes largely about protecting one's own private enjoyments, which is how both the left and the right understand freedom. Both now seek largely to protect the lack of restrictions they currently enjoy, rather than to gird themselves to address the daunting problems confronting not only our society but also the whole world. Our lack of restraint is provoking jihadists from one side and angering the global poor who must shoulder the burden of climate change on the other. It's interesting to think that after 9-11, we could have chosen to undertake severe austerity measures to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but the nation decided it was less burdensome and more cost effective to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq.
Peter Paik's comment is excellent. Thanks.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.