The Impulsively Indecisive Intellectual
Conflicted and confused, too. Who? Why none other than Stephane Dion, Leader of the Official Opposition in the Canadian House of Commons, leader of the federal Liberal party, and charmingly pugnacious contender for the office of Prime Minister of Canada. Is this a man who knows what he wants? Most assuredly; he would very much like, thank you very much, to lead this great country of Canada.
His credentials? Well, he has had a smattering of experience at the federal political scene, he did once have the opportunity to make a real difference about a hot topic now plaguing the world community, but didn't bother then, now avowing that, given the opportunity, he will turn this country's future commitment on battling environmental degradation on its uncertain axis, and deliver world approval back to good old Canada.
This is one determined man, who really knows his way around politics. Why it's no different than teaching recalcitrant students in a university setting, cramming statistics and acquired knowledge into their reluctantly vapid heads. Mr. Dion knows all about what it's like to be one of those university students, less eager to acquire generalized and specific knowledge than to be involved and engaged in interesting student activities, attending lectures by guest speakers on subjects as .. arcane .. as Quebec separatism, and taking their cue from the speeches of the passionate 'nationalists'.
Who? Stephane Dion? Non! A committed federalist, he. But not always. In his not-so-dim, but younger incarnation he joined the separatist cause while a junior college student in the early 1970s. That information thanks to a recently-published biography by Toronto journalist Linda Diebel. Mr. Dion, it would appear, was utterly enthralled by speeches given on campus by a colleague of the inimitable Rene Levesque, one Claude Charron, an incendiary Parti Quebecois firecracker of a separatist and later minister in the ensuing PQ government.
"He was very impressive and I never missed a speech. I was taking notes and I would try his arguments with my father," Mr. Dion was quoted as having explained. But then Mr. Dion had another epiphany, this one while he was out campaigning door-to-door for the Parti Quebecois during the 1976 provincial campaign. Evidently, at one household he was invited in for a discussion and drink by an individual who didn't share the PQ's enthusiasm for 'nationalism' and, blind drunk, it later occurred to Mr. Dion that perhaps he didn't, quite, either. Speaks volumes about youthful indiscretions, enthusiasms, and depths of commitment.
Mr. Dion determined through an intensive bout of navel gazing that he was infinitely more suited to the world of academia than that of politics, and abandoned further involvement in the political sphere. Going on to teach political theory, but in a universal, non-specific manner - finally coming around to the federalist viewpoint that it would be best for the province to remain within the federation. If not an abruptly spontaneous turn-about, then certainly a sea-change in apprehension, attitude and commitment, swerving wildly from one point of view to another. Constancy be damned.
Travelling in Europe he was exposed to various countries' accommodations to the minorities living in their midst, and appeared to realize that "(unity) was not an issue only for Canadians but an issue for the world... We have a duty to show that it's possible to build strong states, strong countries, with people of different languages." Oh. A personal discovery of great moment. One which was possible not by observing the community in which he resided, by learning about the population of the very country of which his province was a part, but by looking at the 'problem' viewed from afar.
That people are capable of learning through exposure and by experience, and changing their minds accordingly is a good thing. But does this excuse initial shallowness of acceptance? Yes it most certainly does; if you're wrong about something and then are given the opportunity to realize that, and take the opportunity to correct your position, then more power to you. That having been said, Canada has suffered through more than enough politicians, particularly those from la Belle Province, who have vacillated and fluctuated between strident nationalism and committed federalism. They seem to slip too readily between one and the other.
Forget it.
His credentials? Well, he has had a smattering of experience at the federal political scene, he did once have the opportunity to make a real difference about a hot topic now plaguing the world community, but didn't bother then, now avowing that, given the opportunity, he will turn this country's future commitment on battling environmental degradation on its uncertain axis, and deliver world approval back to good old Canada.
This is one determined man, who really knows his way around politics. Why it's no different than teaching recalcitrant students in a university setting, cramming statistics and acquired knowledge into their reluctantly vapid heads. Mr. Dion knows all about what it's like to be one of those university students, less eager to acquire generalized and specific knowledge than to be involved and engaged in interesting student activities, attending lectures by guest speakers on subjects as .. arcane .. as Quebec separatism, and taking their cue from the speeches of the passionate 'nationalists'.
Who? Stephane Dion? Non! A committed federalist, he. But not always. In his not-so-dim, but younger incarnation he joined the separatist cause while a junior college student in the early 1970s. That information thanks to a recently-published biography by Toronto journalist Linda Diebel. Mr. Dion, it would appear, was utterly enthralled by speeches given on campus by a colleague of the inimitable Rene Levesque, one Claude Charron, an incendiary Parti Quebecois firecracker of a separatist and later minister in the ensuing PQ government.
"He was very impressive and I never missed a speech. I was taking notes and I would try his arguments with my father," Mr. Dion was quoted as having explained. But then Mr. Dion had another epiphany, this one while he was out campaigning door-to-door for the Parti Quebecois during the 1976 provincial campaign. Evidently, at one household he was invited in for a discussion and drink by an individual who didn't share the PQ's enthusiasm for 'nationalism' and, blind drunk, it later occurred to Mr. Dion that perhaps he didn't, quite, either. Speaks volumes about youthful indiscretions, enthusiasms, and depths of commitment.
Mr. Dion determined through an intensive bout of navel gazing that he was infinitely more suited to the world of academia than that of politics, and abandoned further involvement in the political sphere. Going on to teach political theory, but in a universal, non-specific manner - finally coming around to the federalist viewpoint that it would be best for the province to remain within the federation. If not an abruptly spontaneous turn-about, then certainly a sea-change in apprehension, attitude and commitment, swerving wildly from one point of view to another. Constancy be damned.
Travelling in Europe he was exposed to various countries' accommodations to the minorities living in their midst, and appeared to realize that "(unity) was not an issue only for Canadians but an issue for the world... We have a duty to show that it's possible to build strong states, strong countries, with people of different languages." Oh. A personal discovery of great moment. One which was possible not by observing the community in which he resided, by learning about the population of the very country of which his province was a part, but by looking at the 'problem' viewed from afar.
That people are capable of learning through exposure and by experience, and changing their minds accordingly is a good thing. But does this excuse initial shallowness of acceptance? Yes it most certainly does; if you're wrong about something and then are given the opportunity to realize that, and take the opportunity to correct your position, then more power to you. That having been said, Canada has suffered through more than enough politicians, particularly those from la Belle Province, who have vacillated and fluctuated between strident nationalism and committed federalism. They seem to slip too readily between one and the other.
Forget it.
Labels: Canada, Human Fallibility, Inconvenient Politics
posted by Pieface | 4:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home