Wednesday, May 25, 2005
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king. And in the land of the horny, the trouser snake with one eye is king.
Yes, that title was totally tasteless. This should come as a surprise to nobody.
What should also come as a surprise to nobody is that "One Eyed Kings" by Ron Graham is an excellent book on Canadian politics. This should come as a surprise to nobody because it's been recognized as such a book for about twenty years. I'm only getting around to blogging about it now because I picked up a copy on the weekend from a museum in Alberta Beach (this has nothing to do with anything, but said museum also included, in its taxidermy section, what appeared to be a recently dead magpye just sitting upside down on a shelf).
I'm not even all the way through the book, but I'm already in love. It's billed as "a savage but brilliant attack on the weaknesses of our contemporary politicians" but, among the four Prime Ministers he critiques, Graham is generally sympathetic towards Trudeau and Clark, ambivalent towards Turner, and unsympathetic towards Mulroney. The fact that this nearly matches my own feelings for those men goes some distance towards assuring my affections for the book. But brilliant (where brilliance is measured by closeness of fit with my own views) analysis of political figures of the 1980s is not all this book has. Consider, for example, this nugget on the merits of labels (are you reading this, Anand?):
Take that, political scientists! Do you see why we don't trust you now? You can't tell us in one breath that "conservative" and "liberal" are antonyms and then tell us in the next that "neo-conservative" and "neo-liberal" are synonyms. Well, actually, you can and do. But it costs you some credibility.
Anyway, consider also this nugget on partisanship:
Well said, Ron!
Anyway, go read this book.
|
Yes, that title was totally tasteless. This should come as a surprise to nobody.
What should also come as a surprise to nobody is that "One Eyed Kings" by Ron Graham is an excellent book on Canadian politics. This should come as a surprise to nobody because it's been recognized as such a book for about twenty years. I'm only getting around to blogging about it now because I picked up a copy on the weekend from a museum in Alberta Beach (this has nothing to do with anything, but said museum also included, in its taxidermy section, what appeared to be a recently dead magpye just sitting upside down on a shelf).
I'm not even all the way through the book, but I'm already in love. It's billed as "a savage but brilliant attack on the weaknesses of our contemporary politicians" but, among the four Prime Ministers he critiques, Graham is generally sympathetic towards Trudeau and Clark, ambivalent towards Turner, and unsympathetic towards Mulroney. The fact that this nearly matches my own feelings for those men goes some distance towards assuring my affections for the book. But brilliant (where brilliance is measured by closeness of fit with my own views) analysis of political figures of the 1980s is not all this book has. Consider, for example, this nugget on the merits of labels (are you reading this, Anand?):
Part of the confusion that many Canadians have about their politics can be blamed on the confusion surrounding such basic terms as liberal, conservative, and socialist. These terms are labels that are supposed to conjure up definite attributes - much as green, orange, and red do - but wear and tear have made them practically useless. If green were sometimes called orange and sometimes called red, there would be pandemonium at every intersection; yet Trudeau is called a socialist, Turner is called a conservative, and Mulroney is called a liberal with a cavalier randomness.
Take that, political scientists! Do you see why we don't trust you now? You can't tell us in one breath that "conservative" and "liberal" are antonyms and then tell us in the next that "neo-conservative" and "neo-liberal" are synonyms. Well, actually, you can and do. But it costs you some credibility.
Anyway, consider also this nugget on partisanship:
Politicians tend to weaken their sight even further by becoming partisan. Often they turn a blind eye to the other sides of an issue, or to the long-term consequences of their short-term ambitions, or to any truth that might stand in the way of the power, respect, and spoils they seek. Sometimes they've been known to twist facts, hide data, misrepresent situations, and even lie as a result.
Well said, Ron!
Anyway, go read this book.
