Tag: Debate (Page 20 of 27)

I have finally got off my arse to write a post for The Sharpener. I’ve been mulling over the idea that the present, apparent impasse in international relations is as much to do with poor leadership as it is to do with the particular ideologies and agendas of the main actors. The post takes in some of the whines I’ve been making about the lack of radical thinking, and also ideas of ‘political capital’ and its erosion. The extent to which our Chief Executive should be a ‘Leader’ as opposed to simply a ‘Governor’ is an open question – Hopefully we will get a few decent comments.
Given my surname, its obviously pleasing to be able to write for The Sharpener. What I’m hoping is that, pretty soon, John Reid will introduce some draconian terror law that allows me to denounce the likes of Donald and Justin as the True Enemy of Right Thinking People Everywhere. Once they’re convicted I’ll be able to impose some kind of junta over the group blog, and gradually phase in a personality cult. Everyone will assume the blog is named after me, just like Arianna Huffington at the Huffington Post.

On Leadership

“But the US could take the risk of alienating the world and discarding international law only if its leadership was going to be effective. Instead its leadership has been desultory and uncertain and tragically ineffective.”

That’s Gerard Baker in The Times last week, bemoaning the poor record of George W Bush. A slightly more articulate version of the analysis that John Prescott apparently did not give to Labour MPs that same week.
Politics is, unfortunately, not just about issues. It is also about personalities, about diplomacy, about leadership. Governing a country means making a decision, giving orders, and allowing others to implement your policy. You need to ensure this will happen, and sometimes a constitution, a chain-of-command, is not enough to drive your agenda through the bureaucracy! Similarly, achieving your foreign policy aims, whatever they may be, requires at least some practice in the art of persuasion, whereby you can convince people over whom you have no political power that you are an ally, not an enemy. Call it charisma, call it gravitas, there are certain qualities that make one a more effective leader and diplomat.

I’m not sure George W Bush ever had those qualities. His diplomacy and ability to build coalitions world-wide has been half-hearted at best. For example, the arrogant US diplomacy from late 2002 onwards, embodied in the persona of the President, effectively sealed off certain possible pathways, possible worlds. Instead of a full-blooded UN force that the President and his Defence Secretary needed, the organisation was alientated and the Iraq invasion was under-manned. I cannot shake the idea that different – better – leaders would have begat different – better – consequences. It is not enough to simply describe the unfavourable political situation (in the case of the UN, we might cite the intransigence of the French) and say “it was impossible.” A good leader, with a dash of good rhetoric and proper diction, can set events onto a more favourable path.
The recent fiasco on the Lebanon/Israel border is another example of this tragically in-the-box attitude. The crisis (and of course, the wider Palestinian problem) cries out for some unexpected thinking. Something that ‘received wisdom’ says is impossible today, yet might become possible tomorrow. I am certainly not suggesting that if only we had a Churchill, say, or a Kennedy, that somehow everything would work itself out. More the opposite – the current crop seem almost resigned at their inability to influence actions for the better. They spout nothing but platitudes, as the pre-prepared script says they must.
Perhaps Ariel Sharon was on his way to such thinking when he ordered the withdrawl from Gaza. However, his party was split irreversibly as a result, so whether he succeeded or not is an open question. Certainly it was a bold move, and despite the election of a Hamas government, it nevertheless created a new ‘climate of the possible’. Soon after, we heard talk of Hamas recognising the two-state solution… But then all sides jumped back into their boxes.
It seems to me that if we are to effect real paradigm shifts in the political landscape (whether the issue is the Middle East, global warming, the existence of the EU, NHS reform or anything else) then it requires a strong, articulate and above all diplomatic leader to push the policy forward to fruition. Unilateral action may appear strong, and even win elections in the short term. In the long term however, it sunders friendship and causes political capital to crumble. It makes leaders less effective, and finally impotent. It is the long term that matters, and in the long term, the diplomat with the smile will win.

Islamophobic – anyone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work.

I know bloggers like to think that they occasionally have an impact on politics and the mainstream media, but tonight, please God, what happens in the blogosphere must stay in the blogosophere.
I don’t know what annoys me more: Inigo Wilson’s ill-advised Lefty Lexicon at Conservative Home, or the ill-advised attempt by MPAC to have the man lose his job at Orange.
For the majority who remain blissfully aware of the ‘controversy’, the aforementioned lexicon was posted by Mr Wilson a couple of weeks ago. Its unfunniness is mildly annoying, but the lack of any depth to the apparent satire renders it totally harmless to actual debate. At no point does the ridicule actually change someone’s mind – those who are fed up with Political Correctness will applaud; and those of us who believe that, say, ‘instituional racism’ exists, will continue to do so.
As an aside, I find the piece has added annoyance, due to the fact that any criticism that one might possibly level at it would automatically be met with gleeful cries of either “Lefties can’t take a joke!” or “looks like I’ve hit a nerve” or some such retort. “If I’ve annoyed a Lefty, I must be doing something right!”
Whatever. The piece isn’t meant to be debated. The impossibility of engaging with it, on any level, is built into its very construction. Its just a line in the sand for people to dance about, a midweek distraction for the lazy. Why ridicule actual government policies when you can attack a straw-man wrapped in a cliche?
More annoying, however, is that a week later, someone began agitating for Wilson to be sacked from his job in the communications department at Orange. Via Pickled Politics we hear that he has now been suspended.
How ridiculous. Provided the guy does not allow his political viewpoint to prejudice a customer or employee, it’s nothing to do with Orange! There is no suggestion that when Wilson writes on a conservative blog, that he is doing so in a professional capacity. He should be allowed to write what he wants, even if he is “a rancid, braying little tick”. By lobbying Orange, MPAC are either misunderstanding the nature of free, political speech… or they are engaging in a cynical publicity stunt. Foolish or opportunistic? Personally, I suspect the latter. If they succeed, Inigo Wilson could become a martyr to political correctness. And no-one wants that.
Instead, it is Conservative Home that should do the ‘sacking’, because it is only there that his political views count. Such crass humour reflects badly on a site that seeks to become influential in Cameron circles, and a wise editor would not have allowed the article to be published. As it is, the entire site loses some credibility for carrying the lexicon in the first place. It then loses some more, due to the lack of contrition at publishing something so tired. Bizarrely, they show no embarassment at their mistake.
Whichever way you look at this issue, all actors look ridiculous. Worse still, both sides have acted to polarise the debate. Their words have only served to reinforce the prejudices of those with the opposite viewpoint. What a waste of time.
The situation is complicated by the fact that Wilson does actually work in PR for Orange. As Stuart’s Soapbox says,for a professional communicator to not understand the consequences shows either an amazing degree of ignorance or a wilful disregard for the damage it could cause. So perhaps it is Orange’s business after all…. but I still think it is distracting from actual debate.