Posted on

Whose article did Jomo read?

Social Share

by Dr. Richard A. Byron-Cox 01.APR.10

I agonised about writing this response to Jomo’s captioned “Steel sharpens Steel” as he is my twin and favoured brother. But I realized that my comrade’s exercise of his gift of perfect political speak is often misleading, in this case intentionally so, hence this piece. I had cause to expose his special talent in this field in a piece entitled “Jomo’s Political Speak.” Here again, it’s on full display as he doubles in the role of Cain.{{more}}

Firstly, Jomo presents this as chiefly an intellectual difference between us. But even intellectual dwarf Grumpy who has not a modicum of honesty would admit my central thesis was about a moral and ethical principle. Indeed I underlined “I suppose the fundamental question is: does Jomo agree that we surrender this country to ignorance, hate, and filth of crawfish intellectualism and daily assassination of innocent characters?” He says that our departure is on “strategy and tactics.” No Sah! I wrote Jomo privately reinforcing “I will NEVER surrender to hate, nastiness, ignorance, backwardness and the like and call it strategy.” Consequently, his characterization is misinterpretation at best. This issue was always about that principle! Never was it about methodologies and approaches.

Jomo then waxes lyrical about his past pieces supporting Ralph. Did I accuse him of non-support of Ralph? Nonsense! It was about his demand that ULP surrender to character assassination, and as a consequence dismiss Ralph! So playing Twisty and trying to wiggle free from this question through political speak full of irrelevancies (talk of “old hat”) will not make it go away. Better adorn some honesty and address the principle squarely!

He goes on to concoct the wildest of ridicule possible: “Stripped to the bare essentials, Dr Cox’s argument is that Gonsalves is too talented for anyone to even consider replacing him.” Imagine Jomo accusing me of such fripperous reasoning! The fact is I wrote: “Oh no, I am no Ralph cheerleader or choirmaster, and yes, he is Midas only in his mind.” I went on to state: “There is no disputing that Ralph has his serious flaws” and “If Ralph is to go…” Additionally, a few weeks ago, I submitted for public consumption “Is Ralph a Ground Dove?” Most significantly, Ralph was secondary to my thesis. The fundamental issue was about the principle qua supra. I am crestfallen.

But suddenly there are two grains of truth in Jomo’s Sahara of misrepresentations. He offers: “Unlike Dr Cox, our PM is about real politics. Nothing so consumes Dr Gonsalves than…. power…” Yes, I am about patriotism and truth. And I believe these are more powerful than nasty “strategy and tactics” as Obama proved. Secondly, I want people to vote for policies.

The next paragraph is acidly anti Gonsalves ending: “The once charismatic Gonsalves has become radioactive to all but his most passionate supporters.” Caution: I am not saying Jomo hates Ralph; he is above that. As regards me, Ralph was never radioactive, yet for anyone to say I am a passionate supporter of Ralph is absolute quatsch! Jomo must have been hibernating and is obviously still drowsy. Somebody needs to tell him that it’s 5 to12 and negative destructive people are on the rampage, slaughtering innocent characters. We all need to take precautionary measures. His Ralph bashing continues in the next paragraph and concludes: “So the question for all of us is not whether we should ride Gonsalves’ coat tail until he leads the party to defeat or dies.” Did I ever suggest such? But Ralph has already built his retirement home. And, the Camillo succession/inheritance plan is pretty much designed. Am I alone in thinking this a gratis dictum?

As someone just from Pluto and oblivious to elementary truth, Jomo continues: “It is not the NDP lynching, as Rich seems to think, that has Gonsalves and the ULP reeling.” Here Jomo places himself in a quandary, for he wrote: “NDP attack is on Gonsalves. If the ULP leadership fails to counter this assault or remove this leader/target…” Just another element of perfect political speak; talking from two sides of your mouth. Oh the things politics do to men.

He proceeds to an irrelevant roll call of characters from Thatcher to Mbeki as if we are discussing world political history and not his piece. Worse still, here, there’s a deliberate attempt to get John Public to accept an analogy in lieu of meaningful analysis. This kind of cheap betrayal of my serious argument in defence of proper morals and ethics in our political life should be beneath Jomo.

And then another low blow: Jomo ascertains: “Dr Cox finds it inconceivable that anyone will place all of the options on the table.” Dear Reader, please look at Paragraph 4 above. I repeat, “If Ralph must go…” Jomo, being the Solomon he is, should know better than to make unfounded accusations. No wonder he made a solitary quote from my piece, and that only to agree with me. Perfect political speak is always 98% fabrication!

The additional irrelevancies such as “Must Gonsalves die in office as Mugabe” are Jomo’s soft snowmen he erects to be destroyed merely by the heat from his breath as demonstration of the truth of his political speak.

Finally, responding to the parting salvo – albeit poorly disguised with an embrace that threatens to stifle me to death – “failure to think the extraordinary,” would lower my standards of diplomatic hygiene. What I did stress was “If Ralph is to go it must be because that is what is best for SVG.” So come again my brother, and this time deal with the principle. More important, forget misleading the public by twisting the argument through your political speak of shifting the goal post and misrepresentations. Above all, make sure you read and understand the right article!