Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Poland: dueling superiorities

by Paul Wells on Sunday, July 4, 2010 9:46pm - 20 Comments

I like a line from an academic in this account of Bronislaw Komorowski’s (narrow) (apparent) victory in today’s runoff Polish presidential election. He says the confrontation between Komorowski’s Civic Platform and Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s Law and Justice party was a fight “between people who feel intellectually superior and people who feel morally superior.”

That’s approximate, of course: just for starters, people who feel intellectually superior tend to think their self-diagnosed wit gives them a moral edge too. But it encapsulates the differences between two centre-right parties outsiders have had a hard time distinguishing. Komorowski’s party — really the creature of its leaden but wily prime minister, Donald Tusk — is economic-conservative, limited-government, but pro-European and socially liberal. Kaczynski’s, which he co-led with his brother Lech who died in that spectacular airliner crash in Smolensk this spring, is socially conservative, obsessed with anti-communist witch hunting decades after the fact, and less interested in fiscal rigour. (I made my own best effort to distinguish the two parties in this 2007 account of an earlier election cycle.)

Komorowski was streets ahead of Kaczynski when the short campaign began, and blew most of that lead. He lost half the country, and  you can see which half in the electoral maps: the farmlands and the east, which look to Russia’s sphere of influence and don’t like it. The cities and the west, which look to Germany and the rest of Europe in a clear-eyed but broadly positive fashion, were ready to give Komorowski and Tusk a chance to work together.

Does this matter to Canada? Not much, not directly. But it will not go unnoticed in Jason Kenney’s office that those Poles who voted in Canada preferred Kaczynski.

Bookmark and Share
  • Cats

    I love foreign politics but closer to home this seems to be a big story nobody's caught on to:

    Liberals Missing Half Million Dollars
    http://www.punditsguide.ca/2010/07/the-case-of-th…

    Looks like questions are being raised about Rocco Rossi in the comments section, gonna spill over into the mayoral race ?

    This is pure catnip for people who were waiting for Paul Well's latest epic take down on the Liberals…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    …the farmlands and the east…look to Russia’s sphere of influence and don’t like it. The cities and the west….look to Germany and the rest of Europe…

    I guess it's a testament to the depth of Soviet puppet misrule in Poland that Poles actually look favourably to Germany, just two generations after the blitzkrieg and Auschwitz unpleasantnesses.

    …it will not go unnoticed in Jason Kenney’s office that those Poles who voted in Canada preferred Kaczynski.

    Given that they preferred the candidate "less interested in fiscal rigour", I'd say Harper's already got the Polish-Canadian vote all locked up.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      You're now accusing Polish Canadians of being "less interested in fiscal rigour?" Hmmm.

  • ajb

    a fight “between people who feel intellectually superior and people who feel morally superior.”

    Doesn't that sound at least a little like the difference between the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      It's a bit of a false dichotomy. For one thing, I don't think social conservatives consider themselves to be "morally superior." They just think that morality matters, or that it actually exists. There is a right and wrong. Sometimes it is the criminals' fault. There are bad guys in the world. We're not the bad guys. etc….

      • ajb

        I think you may have just proved my point, Dennis_F! Thinking that you have a monopoly on morality is pretty much the definition of moral superiority.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

          Actually, you're proving my point; the idea of drawing false distinctions and such. Where did I claim to have a monopoly on morality? However, what I did claim is that there is a morality; something that the "intellectually superior" crowd doesn't always want to concede, right?

          • ajb

            My point, again! You're claiming that the "intellectually superior" crowd doesn't want to concede that there is a morality. That's not the case. Everybody, left or right, claims that there is a morality; left and right sometimes disagree on the content of that morality. But it seems to be characteristic of the right to claim that the other side's morality doesn't count as such, just because it's not the same as theirs.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            I don't think so. There is certainly a school of intellectual and philosophical thought that claims there is no right or wrong. Politically, I do think there are also schools of thought that blur the distinction between right and wrong, focus less on justice and more on causes when it comes to crime, and so on.

            In fact, I'm not so much trying to suggest that the way that I look at morality is better than the way that others look at morality. I'm just saying there is a difference, and one of those differences is in fact the importance of moral distinctions, right and wrong, justice in a justice system, etc.

          • ajb

            Well, I'm not so convinced that there is a philosophical school that claims there is no right and wrong, though I'm certainly aware of philosophers who are skeptical of claims to certainty on moral issues. But if you look around most Canadian (or American) philosophy departments, you may be surprised at what you find!
            And about the justice system — surely there's a moral concern at stake in trying to prevent the causes of crime, many of which are bad things in themselves, like poverty, domestic violence, discrimination, mental illness and so on? Surely it's immoral to leave these problems unchecked? Tony Blair's slogan at one point was, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." To me, that's a leftist position, and one deeply rooted in moral values.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            I have a degree in philosophy, and have certainly come across the notion that there is no right and wrong, moral relativism, etc. Has philosophy changed that much in over a decade? I doubt it.

            I believe there is certainly a trend in certain political and intellectual circles to concentrate less on the justice component of the crime, and more on things like "root causes." As though the person committing the crime bears minimal responsibility for it.

            Regarding foreign affairs, some don't want to draw moral distinctions between certain countries, civilizations, or ideologies. And some even think we're the bad guys. If that doesn't involve a lack of acknowledging morality, maybe it reflects a reverse morality. Not sure.

            But there are distinctions, and I believe that they're distinctions many opponents of mine don't like discussing.

          • ajb

            I'm not going to keep going back and forth, since at a certain point we're just talking past each other, and we're interrupting what's supposed to be the real subject of the thread. I think the impasse that we're at is that we don't agree on what constitutes a moral conviction. We agree that thinking that criminals should be punished for their crimes is a moral conviction, and we both seem to share that conviction. I happen to think that wanting to address root causes of crime is also a moral conviction, and we may or may not share that conviction.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Yes, perhaps a difference of what constitutes a moral conviction, or how much such convictions should be emphasized.

            I just think that people who want to talk about "root causes" want to avoid the moral convictions involved in holding individuals responsible for their crimes. For liberals, this often involves wanting to be everything to everyone. Although I'll add that, in the case of crime, the two sides they're appeasing are, on the one hand, intellectuals who don't want to get tough, and a public that does.

            Again, perhaps the greatest distinction involves the extent to which justice should be a part of a justice system. For example, some people want reduced sentences because they don't think longer jail time affects crime rates. While others want longer sentences because they think it's just.

          • ajb

            For any crime, reasonable and moral people will disagree about the length of sentence that is just. And I'm not clear what "wanting to get tough" has to do with justice. It strikes me as something different altogether — either a desire for vengenace that is antithetical to justice, or a desire to look tough that's all about appearances, and not about substance. I think conservatives often lose track of right and wrong in their desire to look tough.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            By "getting tough" I mean relative to more liberal views for crime, punishment, and justice, I guess.

            In fact, if we're going to talk moral superiority, and as Mr. Wells suggested, it often comes from those who consider themselves intellectually superior. it's why I brought it up. Again, social conservatives don't consider themselves superior. Social liberals, in some ways, do.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

    Thanks for this Paul, it is hard to tell your Komorowskis from your Kaczynskis without a program.

  • bergkamp

    "Electoral vote Poles in summary: Komorowski won in Germany, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Lithuania and parts of Italy – in Milan and Naples. Kaczynski overtook his rival in the capital of Italy and the United States and Canada."

    What a peculiar/interesting way to look at postal or absentee votes. I think it would be cool if we did this in Canada as well – on election day, msm would report on how NDP won Russia and East Timor, Cons won Britain, US and Japan while Libs ….

    We could hear all about foreign votes while waiting for results here in Canada and us political junkies could ask what it all means that Libs totals in Pakistan were lower than expected or somesuch.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    people who feel intellectually superior tend to think their self-diagnosed wit gives them a moral edge too

    bingo!

  • portage & main

    Why is it "witch-hunting" when Poles go after the communists decades after the fact, but fair game to go after old Nazis, even more decades after the fact. Not that I have anything against tracking down old Nazis, but isn't a murderer a murderer?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      I agree. It's not witch-hunting. It's justice.

From Macleans