John Geddes

 John Geddes

John Geddes writes on politics and policy, with occasional reporting and comment on arts and culture.

Categories: Capital Read, John Geddes

I believe the polite term is "intellectual escort," or perhaps "fiancé"

by John Geddes on Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:41pm - 54 Comments

Regarding the lively debate over Andrew Potter’s post on CBC’s Vote Compass, I’d like to offer a bit of guidance to those who seem to be labouring under the delusion that Potter represents a set of lazy left-liberal biases shared by mainstream-media dimwits and tenured loafers alike.  

Don’t be ridiculous.

His book The Authenticity Hoax is a cogent assault on the kind of limp thinking he sums up as “stagnant and reactionary politics masquerading as something personally meaningful and socially progressive.” He annoys environmentalist doom-sayers and organic-food puritans.

As a result, he’s been lauded in the Wall Street Journal, denounced elsewhere for peddling a “strident defence of free-market consumer capitalism.” So argue with him if you’re so inclined; but trying to pigeonhole him in the way some have attempted in the past couple of days is plain foolish.

 

 

Tags: , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • michaeljmurphy

    Nice try lad but we get his message and its full of mendacity. Very Liberal and very Left wing!

    • noob_goldberg

      The last sentence in Geddes' post applies directly to you, Mr. Murphy.

      • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

        I was going to comment "Nice try, John, but you're p!ssing in the wind here"; thankfully, mjm made my point far more eloquently.

    • frobisher

      Mendacity. Your new word, apparently. Fancy.

      Disprove either Messrs. Geddes or Potter or assert such proofs as your own claim may withstand.

    • illbethejudge

      This column is correct, love him or hate him Potter is no Liberal and probably not even a liberal.
      Dismissing him as such is foolish and poorly thought out.
      About as foolish as the Sun's war on the CBC (for its own purely self interested reasons) and its character
      assassination of the highly respected Peter Loewen (just to conjure up supporting evidence in its war on CBC). The Sun is on the wrong end of the war. They are wrong with what they're doing and there are respectable journalists and columnists who seem prepared to tell them so.
      Brian Lilley is getting way more play out of this than he ever, ever should. He's never been any kind of real reporter, he was some private radio schmuck, who never broke a story in his life that wasn't handed to him as some kind of advertising by and for the current government and it's widely assumed that only reason he was hired is because he will do this kind of dirty journalism on command. Ezra is not a journalist at all, he is the Glenn Beck of Canada and people will tire of him even quicker than they did the now cancelled Beck. Potter is correct. Both are intellectual prostitutes. They should be ashamed of themselves. I am convinced this is all about getting publicity for the new Sun news channel. Real conservatives should be aghast. You now have Tea Party-like spokespeople. They will drive more people to the Liberals than you can possibly imagine. But, worse is that it's the Lilleys and Levants who are lowering the debate to an unprecedented level of mistruth and viciousness. Good for the Globe and MacLeans for having the principles to call them on it.

    • LoveMusic

      As opposed to CPC truthiness? Which lies are you on about?

  • canucklehead

    Andrew has been the most consistently interesting political writer in the country to me for a while and I’m definitely not a left winger.

  • noob_goldberg

    I hate it when a cogent sober perspective is splashed over a heated partisan debate. You're harshing my partisan buzz, dude.

    And I've yet to find a real working policy analyst who is not an intellectual escort of some way, shape, or form. Some are quite blatant, such as the well-known downtown street-corner crack-analyst or the seedy yellow-pages call-analyst, while others are more respectable, like the gold-digger analyst.

    But they all trade their analytic abilities for money.

    • http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jedlemon/ Jed Lemon

      I have got to agree with the noob – truth and humor in the same comment – thanks for the chuckle. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jedlemon/

  • Jan

    Lilley and Levant only deal with black and white stereoptypes of the left and right, so they are out of their depth critiquing Mr. Potter.

    • canucklehead

      I'd say you've got it. Never thought I'd be taking sides against Levant.

      • noob_goldberg

        I'm really looking forward to Potter disassembling the claims Ezra makes in his rebuttal blog post. It's really quite fascinating to see the conclusions he draws from the paucity of facts provided to him by Flanagan.

        (grabs popcorn)

        • canucklehead

          I definitely don’t think Ezra is chicken**** or an intellectual whathaveyou but I’m not upset at all that he should be called it for the reflexive personality raggery he does. I just tried the vote compass I’d say it’s out of wack but to assume its some kind of malicious trick and to go off on whoever you assume is the biased individual behind it is pretty sandbox.

  • dave

    This is what we get when an entire generation is raised on cartoons designed to teach them that the group is always right and the person disagreeing is always wrong.

    • Holly Stick

      Smurfs?

  • Blue

    I understand your inclination to defend and explain your co-worker, while at the same time plugging his book———-The Authenticity Hoax.
    Potter is probably a great guy and I`m sure he has plenty of common sense ideas about many things, but on this issue on Loewen I think he was wrong.
    The best explanation about the situation is over at Ezra Levant`s blog.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      The best explanation about the situation is over at Ezra Levant`s blog.

      That's almost never true about any situation in any context.

      • Blue

        I know it is going to be difficult for you but, Hey, if I can read Potter and Geddes explanation and then go back on the CBC website and take their Vote Compass thingy, then you can spend 5 minutes with Ezra.

        • Be_rad

          Conflating Potter with Levant is an interesting rhetorical device, but not very convincing. One, Potter, is a principled conservative, who has an interest in journalistic ethics. The other, Levant, appears to be none of those things.

          • Blue

            Those are interesting points you make, however, I disagree with all of them.

          • Be_rad

            Fair enough. But you really don't think Potter is consevative in his philosophical approach to policy? I don't have a hard and fast approach to most policy, but trend towards a centrist/right orientation on most economic issues and find it difficult to define social issue spectrums because conclusions based on libertarian tendencies often leave one sounding like they're with the left wing crowd. Potter feels pretty conservative to me. And he certainly holds to a line far to the right of the actions of the governments with which I have been familiar in my close to 60 years.

          • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

            I'm thumbing you up for that reply, blue, because it's perfectly reasonable.

        • Thwim

          I have. It made me want to spit at the half-truths and misleading crap he puts out.

      • lgarvin

        LOL

        If the best explantion is Ezra Levant's then we have to conclude that there is no explanation at all!

      • alfanerd

        that's just your own bigoted prejudice.

        • SanDiegoDave

          Subtle.

    • SanDiegoDave

      Good rant at Levant's blog. Sadly, all I came away with was the strong sense that Ezra's feelings were very badly hurt. When a mindless partisan is backed into a corner, it does tend to get ugly.

  • FVerhoeven

    The issue concerning the CBC Compass Tool should never have centered around who had designed it.

    The CBC Compass issue should always have centered around the question of why it was introduced in the first place.

    CBC has no mandate to be part of the selection process. The CBC should report on political parties and party leaders as objectively as possible.

    Broad questionaires such as introduced by the Compass Tool, can never even attempt to be objective, and the CBC elite should have been very aware of that. That they hadn't been aware of that merely shows that the CBC is not generally geared to trying to be objective.

    And that is the problem.

    • Be_rad

      This feels like a more reasonable grounds for debate than the actual battleground. Well said, whether or not I agree with your conclusion.

    • Just Joe

      If I am not mistaken, Vote Compass was loosely based on Political Compass, but tailored to Canada in isolation, as opposed to the global view. Here is a link to the Political Compass and their 2011 election graph. You might find it interesting to note the drift rightward since the 2006 election (linked on the site):

      [ http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011 ]

    • Just Joe

      BTW, I fail to understand why Conservative supporters get so exercised over a tool intended to involve citizens in the democratic process — it is unbecoming and suggests an anti-democratic stance that plays right into the opposition dialogue.

      • frobisher

        Agreed. Its results are a head-shake. And there's no better time for that than an election.

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      I agree with you! I should pinch myself, but you're right: the CBC should not have this tool in its website.

      However, the Compass Tool confirms my observations that whereas polls on voting intentions have been favourable to Conservatives, when it gets to polling on specific issues, there is a definitive advantage to the liberals' positioning.

    • http://www.idrinkinthemorning.com Rick Oman

      100% agree. The whole thing was a terrible idea from the beginning.

  • Be_rad

    I read Levant's article; I don't come to the same conclusion.

  • noob_goldberg

    I have a feeling that–by the end of this week–Ezra is going to regard his decision to post the actual email exchange as a pretty bad move.

    • alfanerd

      why is that?

  • noob_goldberg

    No, Loewen was never paid by Ignatieff in any manner whatsoever. Nor was he paid by Harper or Flanagan. This is right there in the link I provided.

    Here's Sandy Crux's response to Ezra's silly rebuttal: http://cruxofthematterinfo.wordpress.com/2011/04/…

    And everyone, including Flanagan, has said two things: Loewen is not a partisan Liberal, and Loewen had only peripheral input into 'setting up' that tool. To ignore these two facts is the height of intellectual laziness, and bordering on defamation.

    • alfanerd

      the attack is not on Lowewen, it's on the CBC. did Loewen do policy work for the Liberals? seems like he did? did he do similar work for the conservatives? no.

      it's not that Loewen is some rabid partisan like David McGuinty or Anna-Maria Tremonte, that's not the charge.

      • noob_goldberg

        Here's what Loewen told Sandy Crux regarding his involvement with Ignatieff:

        "Loewen told me, other than writing up a single policy memo, he was only involved in a research project regarding the efficacy of direct mailing to supporters. And frankly, in the absence of concrete proof that Loewen did not tell me the whole truth about that, I haven’t changed my mind."

        Do you have concrete proof that Loewen is lying? For that matter, does Levant? No. And yet, if you read his article you'd come to the conclusion that Loewen was whispering into Ignatieff's ear for years. It's simply not true.

        Which, unfortunately, is what we come to expect from Levant.

        • alfanerd

          that's not the impression i got from reading Levant, but then again i read him with an open mind.

          i dont think Loewen is lying. and neither is levant. so he did write a policy memo for Iggy. glad that's settled.

          • noob_goldberg

            From Ezra's smear:

            "The first point, that Loewen was Ignatieff's policy advisor in his leadership bid, is indisputable."

            This has been disputed, and put to rest. Loewen provided input on one policy memo. Speaking as an analyst, this does not a policy analyst make.

            "So Loewen was a partisan activist with Ignatieff, joining his leadership campaign in a prominent position."

            Again, completely false.

            "It's about defending one's team — in this case, a Liberal teammate, trying to pull a fast one about his "non-partisanship"."

            That speaks for itself.

            You can find many more on Ezra's blog:
            http://ezralevant.com/2011/04/andrew-pottymouth.h…

  • JamesHalifax

    Stop wasting time trying to pigeonhole Andrew into a political category….

    Just be happy knowing he simply doesn’t like Harper……

    • auntie-em-m

      nor Harperites, The Cult.

  • SanDiegoDave

    Valid points my friend. It's not Ezra's opinions that bother me per se, it's the contempt he displays for people who do not agree with him; he's a rude person.

    If you placed them both in a room, you would learn absolutely nothing other than an abject lesson on how NOT to behave in social situations. One would whine about being a poor downtrodden victim while the other would
    wave a stupid purple dinosaur around and take everything you say completely out of context.

  • YYZ

    My second major criticism is that Levant addresses the Flanagan thing but not the points about Loewen being a Conservative donor or a Pollievre supporter. Just flat out ignores 'em. This is Potter's primary criticsm of Levant (omission of facts) and he conveniently commits the same journalistic crime again.

    My minor criticism is that Levant splits hairs a bit on the work that Loewen did for Flanagan. Potter may have over-stepped in his description, but it's clear that Flanagan respects Loewen and did have a relationship with him.

    • noob_goldberg

      My major criticism is that both Levant and Lilley make the case that Loewen was a paid analyst inside Ignatieff's inner circle, when there is absolutely no proof that this was the case. This was pointed out to them earlier and yet they persist in this errant assertion. Lilley goes so far as to make the preposterous insinuation that Loewen held a position equivalent to Ian Brodie!

      Potter was far too kind in referring to them only as Intellectual Prostitutes. They're professional character assassins.

  • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

    You're rockin' it today.

  • frobisher

    Schooled.

    Potter invests a lot of thought into this. Geddes supports the effort with ostensibly reliable back-up (WSJ, etc.). This is commendable, collegial and, one might argue, entirely appropriate.

    Whereas, Levant is a reliable screed administor.

    He does 'know' teh law', though. He's good at it, too. He can trace an obscure obfuscation down a rabbit hole until down becomes up. And then, in a media-ready show of faux-intellectual triumphalism, it's 'off with their heads'. That's his MDQ ('media desirability quotient). It's good TeeVee, bad law, good argument and altogether what's wrong with that which constitutes 'reasonable discourse' in the current media climate.

    He who shouts best wins most. Good for Mr. Potter for calling 'scarlet' when the lady says her colour's 'simply clear blue'.

  • illbethejudge

    Levant wins and Potter loses because you are a partisan and you are making the mistake of actually believing what Ezra Levant writes and ignoring what Ezra Levant ignores.

    If you were able to look at the situation objectively, it would be crystal clear that Levant, Lilley and the Sun are on the side of wrong. They were wrong in their initial article, they were wrong in their attack on Loewen (whom they knew was not a partisan but attacked his credibility by painting him as such) and they are wrong in their defence of the situation.
    You are in a very, very small club who thinks they were right. Smart people would either admit they were wrong or simply just be quiet and wait for it to pass. But, that wouldn't create free publicity for Sun TV would it? The CBC has been taking attacks like this for a long time and will live to face another I'm sure. You should be worried about people who are willing to sacrifice the reputation of a good researcher and decent person for a bit of controversy and free publicity. By defending Levant (and Lilley) that is exactly what you're defending. Can you step back from the situation and view it objectively enough to see that?

  • bergkamp

    Why does Geddes find it necessary to claim that Potter has unique left-liberal biases that are not shared with anyone else. Can't Potter defend himself, why does he hide behind Geddes?

    Does Potter have response about how he was wrong about Flanagan and what Loewen did for Cons?

    I thought Levant's point about Potter using Maclean's to defend friend/clique was also interesting and accurate.

    And the posh term is poo.

  • noob_goldberg

    This is weird; all my attempts to link to Brian Lilley's blog aren't working.

    Too bad. You can find it yourself if you do a google search for "lilleyspad". You'll be treated to non sequitors of breath-taking audacity, such as the following excerpt:

    "It appears Potter, CBC and others would have preferred I remain silent on this issue but something tells me no one would have been silent if it was Ian Brodie, the academic turned Harper chief of staff, who was working on Vote Compass.

    I’ve now written about twice as many words to explain my story as I did in telling it. I shouldn’t have to do this, other media outlets don’t attack the journalism of their competitors the way they attack Sun Media.

    There are a couple of simple reasons for this.

    First we are about to launch Sun News Network. Lots of people don’t like that. We promise to be different, to steal away part of their audience and they were quite comfy with the way things were before we came along.

    Second, I’ve been pretty active in the pages of all our papers in writing about CBC and their dismal record in telling us where they spend the $1.1 billion tax dollars that they receive from us each year. Journalists, especially elite ones like Potter or those in the Press Gallery, LOVE CBC. And I mean LOVE."

Previous

Next

From Macleans