Ignatieff

I was just reading (for book-writin’ purposes and general edification) Joel Pfister’s new book Critique for What? Cultural Studies, American Studies, Left Studies, and there I found the following gem: in the thirtieth-anniversary issue of Marxism Today in 1987 (the journal in which Stuart Hall published some of his most scathing critiques of Thatcherism and the political failures of the orthodox left, all of which I’ll be happy to remind you of in my own book whenever it’s done), Michael Ignatieff shows up to write, “MT to me is like an extremely bright, cheerful little rodent, with bright-rimmed glasses and bow tie, leaping off a sinking ship.” Funny stuff, that, from twenty years ago. One wonders whether now is the time to ask Ignatieff if it is he for whom the ship now sinks. Oh, and whether he’s taken to wearing bright-rimmed glasses and a bow tie.

Cheers for your profound generosity in granting Ignatieff face-value on his various pronouncings.
In that kinder gentler imbued world he becomes merely off, incompetent, mistaken. Nothing deeper weirder or any more complex than being essentially wrong about something that has had disastrous consequences. An error in strategy although with well-intentioned goals.
The basic idea I guess is Ignatieff wanted to jack-up Iraq and force democracy on their simple asses. That not having happened, he must have been wrong. Sadly. Or a lying sack of shit. Not so sadly.

This point has been made elsewhere (sorry, I’m not sure who said it first) but to me the most irritating parts of Ignatieff’s essay are passages like the following, which show no sign that he has succeeded in reining in the arrogance and closed-mindedness which may have led him into his original error.

We might test judgment by asking, on the issue of Iraq, who best anticipated how events turned out. But many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did so not by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the invasion because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong.

Translation (following Atrios):

“Okay, so I got it wrong; but how on Earth could I have realised, when the only people to point it out to me were a bunch of dirty fucking hippies, who must never be listened to?”

This one: ad hearsayinem.

If you didn’t see him in action in these, you wouldn’t know how very plausible this piece of hearsay is.

I heard Ignatieff give a talk at Harvard in 2004. Everybody was kissing his ass. I thought he made no sense whatsoever and said so to the people around me, who acted like I was retarded.

Whereas when the liberal hawks like Berman, Ignatieff, and Packer say “Iraqi exiles,” they clearly mean Kanan Makiya. (Tara McKelvey’s update on him, which you’ve probably read, is here). It’s almost as if, for the Hawks, there were only two Iraqi exiles in the world: Chalabi, whom they mistrusted (hell, even Bush didn’t want to install him as the puppet), and Makiya, whom they revered

note that this is revisionist history – at the time, plenty of times and in writing, Chalabi was right at the side of Makiya, and if anything deserving of more praise because he actually went back to Iraq. Since no charges were ever brought against Chalabi on charges of being a traitor or Iranian intelligence asset (let alone proven), I personally think it’s rather disgraceful the way they’ve dumped him.

Didn’t Ignatieff become a politician?

That’s right – if you don’t like what somebody says, don’t explain why he’s wrong, attack him personally.

If a student said we shouldn’t care what Socrates or Einstein said and wrote because they were assholes, would you accept that? After all, there’s evidence Socrates WAS an asshole to many.

How about actually addressing what people write instead of personally attacking them?

Jeez, post-war Iraq is such a train wreck, and Jon still thinks someone needs to explain how Ignatieff’s wrong?

And do I need to explain again what’s wrong with _that_? …

Michael, I was also thinking of the mea culpa column by Peter Beinart which begins so cutely and sweetly with his wifey-poo asking him how he could have supported the war – oh, the domestic details, they are just like dagwood and blondie, and they make us realize what an adorable, young, upper middle class and never-to-volunteer-for- military-service family we have here – and he has to sadly admit that he’d listened to Makiya and, being mr. heart of gold himself, had been seduced out of his usual tough guy stance. Rather like Jack Nicholson in that Schmitt picture, writing to the little African child he sent money to. Beinart ended the column with an insouciant flourish – so cute! – by wondering what that Makiya character was up to, nowadays? Hadn’t seen him for years. By the end of that column you knew exactly why a guy like Beinart is hot property in punditland, but you also knew – with a heavy heart – that the real damage wrought by the war was to Peter Beinart. How he has suffered! I’d compare his suffering to that of Mel Gibson as Christ, except of course Beinart’s suffering is less tacky – it isn’t like he lost his job or anything. That would be too vulgar! Luckily, he could always gaze upon his picture of Harry Truman for strength and inspiration as he dreams of other, better interventions to get back in the game.

Jon still thinks someone needs to explain how Ignatieff’s wrong?

Well, call me an idealistic leftie lib, but I don’t like it when people trade unfunny insults about people they consider unfashionable. Isn’t it bad form?

Nor do I like it when people try to deligitimize points of view from even being considered. Those of you who teach, what’s your opinion of those whose reaction to you is no more thoughtful than a meow?

If you must talk about him, is it so hard to actually talk about what he has to say? Sorry, I guess that’s too hard.

Oh, but, no, making you think how a war supporter feels about Iraq, NO! Call the International Criminal Court, it’s a war crime!! RUN! EXTERMINATE!!

And again, where was the post-war plan? Anyone could see early on that there simply wasn’t one.