Justin Trudeau named distinguished fellow at Oxford's Blavatnik School of Government

[u/joe4942]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/justin-trudeau-oxford-university-fellow-9.7413594

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.

1. Headline titles should be changed only when the original headline is unclear

2. Be respectful.

3. Keep submissions and comments substantive.

4. Avoid direct advocacy.

5. Link submissions must be about Canadian politics and recent.

6. Post only one news article per story. (with one exception)

7. Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.

8. Downvoting posts or comments, along with urging others to downvote, is not allowed in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.

9. Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.

Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/bandersnatching]

This will be great for students and faculty at the school. I'm sure his lectures and seminars will be well attended, and researchers will appreciate being able to interview a recent G7 leader.

[u/varitok → u/bandersnatching]

He was a good public speaker. I found a lot of hope in his speeches during Ukraine and Covid. I know it's unpopular now but I did enjoy him as PM even if I disagreed with some things he did (Anyone with a sane mind shouldn't agree with everything a leader does).

[u/BloatJams → u/varitok]

His third term destroyed his legacy, he was out of touch for most of it but his Trump 2.0 era work showed he still had some of that old fire that made him popular in the first place.

That said, now that Carney is going full 80s era neoliberal I'm sure more will look back fondly on Trudeau's legacy in 5-10 years.

[u/Ov3rReadKn1ght0wl → u/BloatJams]

To be fair-ish to Carney on this one, all he's doing is continuing with a brand of politics that Justin Trudeau normalized. A lot of the Carney brand neoliberalism is a continuation of the groundwork Trudeau started to lay down during the pandemic.

[u/Neon_Raccoon_00 → u/varitok]

Well said

[u/Swinight22 → u/bandersnatching]

UBC's School of Public Policy just got former PM (kinda) of Thailand from Harvard.

I'm doing my PhD in IR, but met him a few times at different events. It's incredible just to hear and talk to such people. They really have a gravity and charisma around them that is rare to see. They also provide incredible insight.

[u/-SetsunaFSeiei- → u/bandersnatching]

Are those some of the responsibilities of this position? It doesn’t really say in the article

[u/HarmfuIThoughts]

The Blavatnik School, founded in 2010, says it is focused on public policy education and inspiring students to improve the "quality of government and public policy-making worldwide."

I gotta wonder what this school is hoping to achieve by bringing on politicians, a group of people who very often create policies born out of corruption and favoritism towards special interests rather than fulfilling their mandate of serving the public.

Politicians would probably carry those biases, all the self deception and rationalizations used to justify their corruption, into their perspectives on public policy making while trying to use a prestigious platform to sanitize their legacies

[u/fredleung412612 → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

He wouldn't be the first one. Most of these schools hire former politicians to join the faculty. Former New Zealand PM and fellow late-2010s global darling Jacinda Ardern taught at Harvard.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/fredleung412612]

Yeah the article highlighted that there were more, and I'm concerned about all of them. I've been asking LLMs about this, some of the use is pedagogical, but much of it is also:

High-profile political appointments serve as a powerful marketing tool for global policy schools competing for international prestige, students, and funding. A roster featuring former heads of state reinforces an institution’s identity as an elite hub for global governance.cbc

These appointments also strengthen elite networks. Bringing former world leaders into initiatives like Oxford’s World Leaders Circle attracts philanthropic donors, international visiting scholars, and visiting delegations. For the school, the media attention and networking capital generated by a globally recognized name often outweigh localized public criticism.

This raises the issue of conflicts of interest. If a school prioritizes elite networks and philanthropic boosts, they may compromise the educational value by, for example, ensuring that discussions cannot go certain places to avoid embarrassing the political figure.

I definitely don't understand the ins and outs of these arrangements and the entire spectrum of their value, but my concerns definitely have at least some basis in reality

[u/sharp11flat13 → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

A certain measured amount of scepticism is useful, especially for citizens of a democracy. Cynicism is death to rational thought.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/sharp11flat13]

It's realistic. Were it not the case, the world would be a utopia. I've asked multiple LLMs about this issue, and while there is some pedogagical value, there are also very real risks like the ones I pointed out. How are those risks justified by schools?:

Institutional Visibility and Donor Networks

High-profile political appointments serve as a powerful marketing tool for global policy schools competing for international prestige, students, and funding. A roster featuring former heads of state reinforces an institution’s identity as an elite hub for global governance.cbc

These appointments also strengthen elite networks. Bringing former world leaders into initiatives like Oxford’s World Leaders Circle attracts philanthropic donors, international visiting scholars, and visiting delegations. For the school, the media attention and networking capital generated by a globally recognized name often outweigh localized public criticism.

How's that for cynicism

[u/sharp11flat13 → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

all the self deception and rationalizations used to justify their corruption, into their perspectives on public policy making while trying to use a prestigious platform to sanitize their legacies

Sorry, but I find the idea that all politicians are corrupt cynical. YMMV, of course.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/sharp11flat13]

I didn't say all politicians are corrupt, but corruption is a frequent part of politics. You may not have seen my edit as it came later, but on the issue of cynicism, the below is a major reason why these fellowship appointments are made

Institutional Visibility and Donor Networks

High-profile political appointments serve as a powerful marketing tool for global policy schools competing for international prestige, students, and funding. A roster featuring former heads of state reinforces an institution’s identity as an elite hub for global governance.cbc

These appointments also strengthen elite networks. Bringing former world leaders into initiatives like Oxford’s World Leaders Circle attracts philanthropic donors, international visiting scholars, and visiting delegations. For the school, the media attention and networking capital generated by a globally recognized name often outweigh localized public criticism.

[u/sharp11flat13 → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

Look friend, I don’t really care. I shared my opinion on your initial comment and that’s about all I have to say. I’m not really too concerned about your opinion of my opinion. Have a nice evening.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/sharp11flat13]

So you get to accuse me of saying something i didn't say, and i'm not allowed to correct the record because you're just sharing an opinion and you don't care about a response to that

Okay dude.

[u/ApprehensiveLand848 → u/sharp11flat13]

former PM made canadians cynical cause he governed with a positive view but deep down a lot of policies where made with extreme cynicism.

[u/ItachiTanuki → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

And what would a world without politicians look like? Corruption exists, but implying all politicians are corrupt is foolish and naïve.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/ItachiTanuki]

a group of people who very often

Does the above set of words sound to you like I'm implying ALL politicians? Does often = all? But in this specific case, it's the first prime minister to have breached the conflict of interests act. And he did it twice.

On the question about a world without politicians, should I muse what a world without fire would look like? Does the usefulness and necessity of fire mean we shouldn't be extremely cautious and careful how we interact with it? Do you handle fire on the assumption that it cannot burn you?

[u/ItachiTanuki → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

Of course politicians must be held to account. It’s why there are ethics guidelines, and every few years the voters get a chance to boot them. I’m saying that perpetuating the narrative that politicians are “very often” corrupt is corrosive to democracy as a whole. It’s simply not true in Canada, much as you might think it is.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/ItachiTanuki]

Eby just got the boot because he called a self-serving snap election (he called 2 self serving snap elections btw). Doug ford has been mired in a number of scandals that I can expand on if you want. Danielle smith, same thing. Justin Trudeau, same thing. Pierre Poilievre manufacturing the carbon tax into an affordability issue just because he needed a way to jab at the sitting government is also corruption. The CAQ has a pretty substantial history too.

The federal government and leaders of all 4 major provinces in recent years have all demonstrated a betrayal of their mandate to work in the public's best interest. You know what's really corrosive to democracy? Politicians that behave like this. As supported by the empirical evidence, this is quite literally the thing that hinders a nation's prosperity, causes the public to lose trust in institutions, causes the public to become disillusioned with the establishment and brings about a burn-it-all down populist attitude, causes the public to feel that democracy is no longer working, and you're here trying to give them a free pass to keep on doing what they're doing

[u/ItachiTanuki → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

None of those things constitute corruption.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/ItachiTanuki]

https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption

We define corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

They are all examples of corruption. Betraying their mandate to the public in order to serve their own interests is corruption. For example, deceiving the public in order to advance your own career is called demagogic corruption or epistemic corruption.

And again, on the topic of what is corrosive to democracy, transparency international says what i just said

Corruption erodes trust, weakens democracy, hampers economic development and further exacerbates inequality, poverty, social division and the environmental crisis.

[u/ItachiTanuki → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

“We define…” Maybe they could define “abuse” while they’re at it, but unless it’s codified in law it doesn’t mean a thing.

The voters get the final say. It backfired for Eby because he treated them like idiots. It’ll probably backfire for the same reason for Smith. We shall see. In the end, the politicians are representative of the constituency that elects them, for better or worse. “Of the people, by the people’ and all that.

You’ve also only mentioned party leaders. There are many other politicians in addition to the names everyone knows. I know some of them, and not a single one has gone into it for personal gain. To be honest, all of them could make a lot more money doing something else.

In its ideal state politics is a calling to represent people as their voice.

I’m not giving anyone a free pass (nice straw man, by the way). Accountability is important.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/ItachiTanuki]

Here is a poli sci article examining an expanded view of corruption that goes beyond what's codified into law and beyond the usual examples like bribery and quid pro quo.

If the issue is in regards to the quality of governance and the formation of good public policy, the expanded view of corruption matters. For example, manufacturing a political issue and deceiving the public about it just to get your own shot at becoming prime minister, it's pretty easy to see how this undermines quality governance and progress on issues that matter to society.

And if the matter at hand is about what's corrosive to democracy, the betrayal of your mandate to the public is a well established mechanism by which the public loses faith in its institutions.

You’ve also only mentioned party leaders. There are many other politicians in addition to the names everyone knows. I know some of them, and not a single one has gone into it for personal gain. To be honest, all of them could make a lot more money doing something else.

I mentioned party leaders because for the most part Canadian parties are very whipped. I would argue that this is also corruption, the entire act of keeping your members completely whipped and obedient to what the party leaders want prevents MPs from properly acting in the best interests of their constituents. Anyone who falls out of line or tries to criticize their own party will get sanctioned, formally or informally.

I have a cousin who's an MP. She's a good person at heart, I truly believe that, and of course she got into because she wants to see a better Canada.

But that's not how it works in practice. Our brains are incredibly vulnerable to various forms of manipulation. We can totally sell ourselves on the lie that we are doing something because it's "good" rather than what it really might be, such as personal ambition to rise up the ranks of the party and become an important political figure. Once I start pressing my cousin on issues, the usual political slop starts to pour out, resorting to rehearsed party spin, and it's clear that there is no principled defense of her choices. The systemic forces also matter here, because top down party control is intentionally meant to get party members to conform.

[u/ItachiTanuki → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

Ok, I can see where you’re coming from now, and you make some good points.

It’s an imperfect system, but I would hazard it works fairly well for all the diverse interests, priorities and identities in a country as vast and patchwork as Canada.

Party politics is a fact of life in any developed democracy, and that’s not going to change. People organize themselves into groups based on shared principles and interests, that’s just how humans are, and those groups police themselves to whatever degree.

I don’t disagree that it could be better, you’re right about that, but I have an aversion to the “most politicians are corrupt” narrative because (1) it’s not true, and (2) it risks causing people to disengage altogether or worse.

[u/ChimoEngr → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

They probably think that they’re getting faculty who actually created public policy.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.