With ABC now long dead, and the campaign against Prime Minister Harper vanished down the memory hole, most media outlets (both national and provincial) seem to have come down with a curious case of political amnesia.
If the recent Abitibi settlement is a sign of things to come as we get ready for the 2011 elections, then here is a video that should be running 24/7.
And if Danny Williams attempts to succeed Brian Tobin in the role of Captain Canada, then here is a news story that should also be running 24/7.
And if Danny Williams wraps himself in the Canadian flag and takes a run at federal politics, then I hope that someone out there will remind the public that this is the same person who said of the Maple Leaf, "I'm not willing to fly that flag anymore in the province."
Showing posts with label Paradoxically Polemical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paradoxically Polemical. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Paradoxes and Polemics
I've always assumed, wrongly as it turns out, that the myopia, mania, and mismanagement of Dangovt were fairly obvious to anyone with a Grade 10 education.
But it seems that for some faith-based observers, this regime is clouded in paradoxes -- so let's unravel some of them:
1) Why is it that DW gets all of the credit when something goes right -- even things completely beyond his control, like the price of oil -- but he gets none of the blame when something goes wrong?
2) If DW is as brilliant a manager and thinker as he is purported to be, why have several of his most important Departments -- especially Health and Education -- failed so miserably?
3) If DW is so smart and on top of everything, why do his defenders invariably insist that he could not have remembered critical events or have known about serious problems in provincial Departments?
4) If DW is such a brilliant negotiator and political leader, why have federal-provincial relations sunk to their lowest ebb ever?
5) If DW is such a brilliant negotiator and political leader, why is NL almost completely isolated among the provinces?
6) If DW is such a great deal-maker, why has he failed to sign a deal on Churchill Falls?
7) If DW is so good at the hard game of politics (delivering "elbows," as he likes to put it), why did he lose his showdown with Harper and get "shafted" and "sledgehammered"?
We all know the Wingnut answer: it's all someone else's fault. Everyone else is a complete idiot. The problem, as this regime drags on, is that such assertions beggar logic.
I guess the Wingnuts have never heard of Occam's Razor, which is surprising because DW says that he knows everything about principles. Occam's Razor is the principle that the simplest, most straightforward explanation of a particular phenomenon is usually the right explanation. The upshot is this: if you have to explain all your failings by insisting that everyone else is always wrong and everyone else is a complete idiot, sooner or later it's going to dawn on even the most dim-witted observer that a more plausible explanation is that the problem is you.
DW seems baffled by the principle of wielding power. He seems to believe that exercising power is solely about achieving maximum, immediate noise, spectacle, and immediate domination. He seems to be unaware that walking softly and carrying a big stick is far more effective than hopping around shouting all the time in a manic rage. He seems entirely unaware of the principles of Sun Tzu's Art of War, let alone the adage of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
So let's try an analogy. Imagine that you're in charge of a regional office in a much larger corporation. Your boss is a jerk and you hate him, but you have to work with him nonetheless. You may despise the little creep, but you have to work with him to ensure that your regional office gets its fair share of funding and support. So what's the best way to achieve your goals?
You could throw a fit during a meeting, froth at the mouth, call him every name in the book, and launch a scorched-earth war against him. You could do this right away, before you have lined up sufficient support from the other regional offices, and while your boss is in a relatively strong position.
Alternately, you could smile when he jerks you around, bide your time, keep him in the dark, and maximize your short-term position while you pursue your long-term goal of removing him. You could wait for the right moment to act decisely when conditions are ripe for success.
I leave it to you to decide which tactic is the dumb one.
Take me to your leader update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=228931&sc=86
But it seems that for some faith-based observers, this regime is clouded in paradoxes -- so let's unravel some of them:
1) Why is it that DW gets all of the credit when something goes right -- even things completely beyond his control, like the price of oil -- but he gets none of the blame when something goes wrong?
2) If DW is as brilliant a manager and thinker as he is purported to be, why have several of his most important Departments -- especially Health and Education -- failed so miserably?
3) If DW is so smart and on top of everything, why do his defenders invariably insist that he could not have remembered critical events or have known about serious problems in provincial Departments?
4) If DW is such a brilliant negotiator and political leader, why have federal-provincial relations sunk to their lowest ebb ever?
5) If DW is such a brilliant negotiator and political leader, why is NL almost completely isolated among the provinces?
6) If DW is such a great deal-maker, why has he failed to sign a deal on Churchill Falls?
7) If DW is so good at the hard game of politics (delivering "elbows," as he likes to put it), why did he lose his showdown with Harper and get "shafted" and "sledgehammered"?
We all know the Wingnut answer: it's all someone else's fault. Everyone else is a complete idiot. The problem, as this regime drags on, is that such assertions beggar logic.
I guess the Wingnuts have never heard of Occam's Razor, which is surprising because DW says that he knows everything about principles. Occam's Razor is the principle that the simplest, most straightforward explanation of a particular phenomenon is usually the right explanation. The upshot is this: if you have to explain all your failings by insisting that everyone else is always wrong and everyone else is a complete idiot, sooner or later it's going to dawn on even the most dim-witted observer that a more plausible explanation is that the problem is you.
DW seems baffled by the principle of wielding power. He seems to believe that exercising power is solely about achieving maximum, immediate noise, spectacle, and immediate domination. He seems to be unaware that walking softly and carrying a big stick is far more effective than hopping around shouting all the time in a manic rage. He seems entirely unaware of the principles of Sun Tzu's Art of War, let alone the adage of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
So let's try an analogy. Imagine that you're in charge of a regional office in a much larger corporation. Your boss is a jerk and you hate him, but you have to work with him nonetheless. You may despise the little creep, but you have to work with him to ensure that your regional office gets its fair share of funding and support. So what's the best way to achieve your goals?
You could throw a fit during a meeting, froth at the mouth, call him every name in the book, and launch a scorched-earth war against him. You could do this right away, before you have lined up sufficient support from the other regional offices, and while your boss is in a relatively strong position.
Alternately, you could smile when he jerks you around, bide your time, keep him in the dark, and maximize your short-term position while you pursue your long-term goal of removing him. You could wait for the right moment to act decisely when conditions are ripe for success.
I leave it to you to decide which tactic is the dumb one.
Take me to your leader update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=228931&sc=86
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Self-Assumed Messiahs
When "self-assumed Messiahs" gets thrown at intelligent, sane sources like Bond Papers, you know that Danspeak is alive and well:
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2008/12/erasing-distinction-to-our-detriment.html
The real question here is whether the erasure of the distinction between career public servants and political staffers is part of a specific, deliberate plan of Dangovt or a simply a byproduct of its authoritarianism. It occurred to me over the holidays that Dangovt relies on three principal tools, which may help to provide an answer:
1) Branding, of the province and then specific agengies, which works to erase the past. This serves as a constant reminder that 2003 is Year One. Branding reaches from the very name of the province and its associated icon to popular speech patterns, e.g., ubiquitous tics such as "go forward" and "nothing could be further from the truth."
2) Creating and sustaining the personality cult, which entails both enhancing the leader and eliminating all rivals. This cult features endless repetition of the mantras of success and newness, and it relies on the icon of the Lone Hero, whose paternalistic responsibilities justify systemic bullying and vindictiveness. Thus the people are endlessly reminded that the leader is, as a wealthy businessman and lawyer, richer and smarter than anyone else. This is, of course, part of the branding process, but its scope and reach is such that it needs to be understood as a discete phenomenon.
3) Focusing obsessively on negotiating The Deal, which entails the quest for the Holy Grail of the Lower Churchill. This process feeds back to branding (e.g., Nalcor), as well as the personality cult, since everyone is told that it is his singular skills as a negotiator on which Dangovt depends. In Dangovt, governing isn't about governing, it's about deal-making.
These three processes produce a political culture marked by three principal features:
1) A constant sense of anticipation whereby we all wait for the Big One, the mother of all deals, which will take us to the promised land. (Notice, for instance, how little Dangovt even refers to diversification or the fishery, let alone do anything substantive in these areas). This anticipatory political culture skews public discourse away from quotidian issues, such as providing public services, and towards an obsession with the VOCM Event of the Day.
2) An insidious Manichaean world view (apologies to the actual Manichaeans) that sees everything in black/white and divides the world absolutely into friends/enemies. For the tricky question of "which is which" and "who is who," the subjects of Dangovt rely solely on Dangovt, which declares the new enemies of the people, and issues proclamations via VOCM rather than in the Legislature. This relies on a spurious logic (a world where actual ideology counts for nothing) that creates an ABC culture (which, conveniently enough, fosters a feedback loop to the branding and cult processes). By defining who/what is good/bad, Dangovt sets the political agenda and the terms of its media coverage. The results could be seen in CBC's coverage of the last election, which never failed to mention ABC, even when it was irrelevant to the riding in question.
3) A constant state of warfare. For Dangovt, it's not enough to create an anticipatory political culture that keeps the great unwashed at the edge of their Churchill Falls seats. It's not even enough to insist that the public and the media follow Dangovt down the rabbit hole of ABC logic. Because the need for total obedience is so powerful and the fear of dissent so pervasive, Dangovt needs new enemies: it needs not only constant enemies (both without and within), but new enemies, in order to feed the insatiable desire for gratification and domination. The constant state of warfare (whether it's against Harper, Manning, or Forward) creates a climate of fear that keeps the Doozers in line; however, it seems to be more of an end in itself rather than a means to an actual end. The very identity of Dangovt seems to be defined by bullying and conflict, which, as with everything else, feeds back to the branding process. I leave it to the professionals to determine whether this is a product of a personality disorder, but it is clearly a democracy disorder.
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2008/12/erasing-distinction-to-our-detriment.html
The real question here is whether the erasure of the distinction between career public servants and political staffers is part of a specific, deliberate plan of Dangovt or a simply a byproduct of its authoritarianism. It occurred to me over the holidays that Dangovt relies on three principal tools, which may help to provide an answer:
1) Branding, of the province and then specific agengies, which works to erase the past. This serves as a constant reminder that 2003 is Year One. Branding reaches from the very name of the province and its associated icon to popular speech patterns, e.g., ubiquitous tics such as "go forward" and "nothing could be further from the truth."
2) Creating and sustaining the personality cult, which entails both enhancing the leader and eliminating all rivals. This cult features endless repetition of the mantras of success and newness, and it relies on the icon of the Lone Hero, whose paternalistic responsibilities justify systemic bullying and vindictiveness. Thus the people are endlessly reminded that the leader is, as a wealthy businessman and lawyer, richer and smarter than anyone else. This is, of course, part of the branding process, but its scope and reach is such that it needs to be understood as a discete phenomenon.
3) Focusing obsessively on negotiating The Deal, which entails the quest for the Holy Grail of the Lower Churchill. This process feeds back to branding (e.g., Nalcor), as well as the personality cult, since everyone is told that it is his singular skills as a negotiator on which Dangovt depends. In Dangovt, governing isn't about governing, it's about deal-making.
These three processes produce a political culture marked by three principal features:
1) A constant sense of anticipation whereby we all wait for the Big One, the mother of all deals, which will take us to the promised land. (Notice, for instance, how little Dangovt even refers to diversification or the fishery, let alone do anything substantive in these areas). This anticipatory political culture skews public discourse away from quotidian issues, such as providing public services, and towards an obsession with the VOCM Event of the Day.
2) An insidious Manichaean world view (apologies to the actual Manichaeans) that sees everything in black/white and divides the world absolutely into friends/enemies. For the tricky question of "which is which" and "who is who," the subjects of Dangovt rely solely on Dangovt, which declares the new enemies of the people, and issues proclamations via VOCM rather than in the Legislature. This relies on a spurious logic (a world where actual ideology counts for nothing) that creates an ABC culture (which, conveniently enough, fosters a feedback loop to the branding and cult processes). By defining who/what is good/bad, Dangovt sets the political agenda and the terms of its media coverage. The results could be seen in CBC's coverage of the last election, which never failed to mention ABC, even when it was irrelevant to the riding in question.
3) A constant state of warfare. For Dangovt, it's not enough to create an anticipatory political culture that keeps the great unwashed at the edge of their Churchill Falls seats. It's not even enough to insist that the public and the media follow Dangovt down the rabbit hole of ABC logic. Because the need for total obedience is so powerful and the fear of dissent so pervasive, Dangovt needs new enemies: it needs not only constant enemies (both without and within), but new enemies, in order to feed the insatiable desire for gratification and domination. The constant state of warfare (whether it's against Harper, Manning, or Forward) creates a climate of fear that keeps the Doozers in line; however, it seems to be more of an end in itself rather than a means to an actual end. The very identity of Dangovt seems to be defined by bullying and conflict, which, as with everything else, feeds back to the branding process. I leave it to the professionals to determine whether this is a product of a personality disorder, but it is clearly a democracy disorder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
