Between Politicians, Sophists and Human Beings
“…Having said which we would like to you think about whether such a realist view is as neutral as it is commonsensical. After all, if we teach world politics to generations of students and tell them that people are selfish, then doesn’t that become common sense and don’t they, when they go off into the media or to work for the government departments or the military or even when they talk to their children over the dinner table, simply repeat what they have been taught and, if in positions of power, act accordingly? We will leave you to think about this…and simply point out that we are not convinced that realism is as objective or non-normative as it is portrayed.” ~John Baylis and Steve Smith (The Globalization Of World Politics)
Regardless of your political affiliation and your opinion on American foreign policy, you have to give Congressman Ron Paul credit for having the balls to say what he said. There is no way you go and say something like that to the conservative heartland of America and expect people not to skewer you off the stage. To stand up and take it, and then get back up and march on with your original argument, speaks mountains about the character of a person.
I’m not really interested in talking about the actual issue he brought up because I think it is beyond the more interesting question that can be brought up from it. What got me thinking more was Guiliani’s response and Paul’s refusal to apologize in turn. What is it that makes a good politician these days? In turn, and in perfect conjunction, I think it’s also worth asking what is it that makes a decent human being? Can those two questions be amalgamated? Can you be a good politician and a good human being at the same time? Perhaps in certain issues you can and other you can’t. I’m sure there are those who would certainly argue there are times when catering to ones more compassionate side is inviting manipulation and weakness. I can’t remember who it was, but someone once said entering into politics requires that you take the risk losing your soul in order to save others like yours. To be a leader means you make the difficult choices, which means sometimes sacrificing the few for the many. I don’t know…maybe that’s a little melodramatic but the point is there nonetheless.
Likewise however, I’m sure there are those who would argue catering to realist perspective, where man is inherently selfish and deceiving, simply perpetuates a cycle as was suggested at the top, where there is little hope for a progressive form of international diplomacy in the face of nation-states who only care about the well being of their own sovereignty. And thinking about that, after watching those clips of the debate, one doesn’t really have to wonder how the world has wound up in the position it is in today.
After Congressman Paul made those statements, it’s clear that Mr. Guiliani saw an opening to score some points and he took it. But I think it’s worth pointing out that nowhere does he actually attempt tackle the arguments that the Congressman actually makes and that somewhat depresses me. Obviously with a 30 second reply you’re not going to try and get in depth with something like that, but the manner in which he addresses the issue is just so utterly devoid of any attempt at clarity that I think it speaks volumes about both the mind frame of the business of politics and the habituation of the audience that pays attention to it.
Is painting an issue black and white in order to solve it more important these days than actually deciphering its true colors? In the end it’s kind of one of those “do the means truly justify the ends” questions. I obviously can’t answer that but I think the more situations you have where they do says something very potent about the type of system and society we allow to foster around us.
Let me throw another question into the open here. If you were in Mr. Paul’s shoes, would you refrain from saying what he just said if you thought it would give you a better chance of getting into the White House where you would have the chance to honestly make a difference? Or would you do exactly as he did and take a bullet because you believed serving your ideas is more fundamental to democracy and politics than actual victory ever could be.
Like wise, if you were Mr. Guiliani, would you do as he did and exploit what Mr. Paul said because you thought it would help you score some points? Or would you answer his premise in an intelligent way which furthered the actual debate? I have no problem with people disagreeing with one another; I do however have a problem with people doing so without any aptitude for furthering the understanding of the question at hand. To be quite honest it makes me sick. After all, it was John Stuart Mill once said the truth is only enfeebled by refusing to let it stand against aggressors and I think such a statement is all the more poignant here when referencing it to politics these days whether it be in the United States, Canada, or anywhere else around the world for that matter.
Guiliani is the politician; Congressman Paul, I would argue, is the human being. And I ask you, which would you rather running a country and what type of people do you think run most of the world right now? Answer that question and you’ll most likely learn a great deal about yourself for better or worse.
Regardless of your political affiliation and your opinion on American foreign policy, you have to give Congressman Ron Paul credit for having the balls to say what he said. There is no way you go and say something like that to the conservative heartland of America and expect people not to skewer you off the stage. To stand up and take it, and then get back up and march on with your original argument, speaks mountains about the character of a person.
I’m not really interested in talking about the actual issue he brought up because I think it is beyond the more interesting question that can be brought up from it. What got me thinking more was Guiliani’s response and Paul’s refusal to apologize in turn. What is it that makes a good politician these days? In turn, and in perfect conjunction, I think it’s also worth asking what is it that makes a decent human being? Can those two questions be amalgamated? Can you be a good politician and a good human being at the same time? Perhaps in certain issues you can and other you can’t. I’m sure there are those who would certainly argue there are times when catering to ones more compassionate side is inviting manipulation and weakness. I can’t remember who it was, but someone once said entering into politics requires that you take the risk losing your soul in order to save others like yours. To be a leader means you make the difficult choices, which means sometimes sacrificing the few for the many. I don’t know…maybe that’s a little melodramatic but the point is there nonetheless.
Likewise however, I’m sure there are those who would argue catering to realist perspective, where man is inherently selfish and deceiving, simply perpetuates a cycle as was suggested at the top, where there is little hope for a progressive form of international diplomacy in the face of nation-states who only care about the well being of their own sovereignty. And thinking about that, after watching those clips of the debate, one doesn’t really have to wonder how the world has wound up in the position it is in today.
After Congressman Paul made those statements, it’s clear that Mr. Guiliani saw an opening to score some points and he took it. But I think it’s worth pointing out that nowhere does he actually attempt tackle the arguments that the Congressman actually makes and that somewhat depresses me. Obviously with a 30 second reply you’re not going to try and get in depth with something like that, but the manner in which he addresses the issue is just so utterly devoid of any attempt at clarity that I think it speaks volumes about both the mind frame of the business of politics and the habituation of the audience that pays attention to it.
Is painting an issue black and white in order to solve it more important these days than actually deciphering its true colors? In the end it’s kind of one of those “do the means truly justify the ends” questions. I obviously can’t answer that but I think the more situations you have where they do says something very potent about the type of system and society we allow to foster around us.
Let me throw another question into the open here. If you were in Mr. Paul’s shoes, would you refrain from saying what he just said if you thought it would give you a better chance of getting into the White House where you would have the chance to honestly make a difference? Or would you do exactly as he did and take a bullet because you believed serving your ideas is more fundamental to democracy and politics than actual victory ever could be.
Like wise, if you were Mr. Guiliani, would you do as he did and exploit what Mr. Paul said because you thought it would help you score some points? Or would you answer his premise in an intelligent way which furthered the actual debate? I have no problem with people disagreeing with one another; I do however have a problem with people doing so without any aptitude for furthering the understanding of the question at hand. To be quite honest it makes me sick. After all, it was John Stuart Mill once said the truth is only enfeebled by refusing to let it stand against aggressors and I think such a statement is all the more poignant here when referencing it to politics these days whether it be in the United States, Canada, or anywhere else around the world for that matter.
Guiliani is the politician; Congressman Paul, I would argue, is the human being. And I ask you, which would you rather running a country and what type of people do you think run most of the world right now? Answer that question and you’ll most likely learn a great deal about yourself for better or worse.
posted by Daniel_v at 10:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home