I Support Our Troops

While I rarely make overtly political comments in this blog, I have to say that as a Canadian, one of the phrases that irks me to no end is, “I support our troops,” whether uttered by the individual or found on the bumper sticker of the still-ubiquitous SUV. The irony of that statement, as it pertains to democracy, is profound.

What does it mean to express support for the troops? In practice, it invariably means, and demands, an unquestioning acceptance of their presence, their mission, and, sadly, their deaths in Afghanistan. To support the troops by advocating an end to their Afghani operation has been seen as tantamount to some kind of betrayal of them. Certainly this is much evident in the way the Harper Government has used the phrase to stifle discussion about the mission, a warning to those who oppose it to keep their mouths shut at the risk of being labeled unpatriotic.

A couple of years ago, before the Liberal Opposition cravenly acquiesced in yet another extension of the Canadian operation to 2011, (on the specious grounds that they didn’t want to divide the nation), the ever-political, ever-manipulative and ever-morally- blunted Prime Minister Harper labeled those politicians who dared question the validity of our troops being in Afghanistan as ‘Taliban sympathizers,’ working a Macarthesque rhetoric into his usual practice of division and demoralization. Sadly, very little spirited defense was mounted for freedom of thought, opinion, and expression, foundational freedoms that are the putative reasons for trying to “bring democracy’ to the Afghanis. Somehow, the Harper concept of democracy applies only to those views in accord with his own.

And yet perhaps Harper is only a sad symptom of our own weaknesses as human beings. While we rarely consciously acknowledge the hypocrisy, our notions of informed and spirited discourse frequently seem to fall far short of anything approaching a meaningful exchange of ideas. One can’t help but feel that perhaps civilized and respectful discussion is only an ideal, never to be truly realized.

But then, of course, there is the possibility of a renewal of public discussion in the United States with the election of Barack Obama. One of the most encouraging signs emerging south of the border is the fact that unlike Prime Minister Harper, who has surrounded himself with sycophants and policy clones, Mr. Obama seems intent on having a diversity of views in his Cabinet, suggesting he wants the best policy options emerging from the cauldron of heated discussions that inevitably ensue when you place people of diverse perspectives together. Kind of like the classroom I remember so well when things were really working and the kids were really thinking.

Will this mark a turning point in what has become a sad parody of political process as evidenced under the disaster of the Bush presidency? If so, will it have any impact on the poisoned Canadian political process? Perhaps we will begin to get the answer to those questions in 2009.

Happy New Year.

The Dark Knight and Reflections on Human Nature

Yesterday I saw the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight, and would like to offer a few observations. First, the film is as good as the critics say, but my surprise arose from its philosophical depth, something one doesn’t normally expect in a movie of this genre.

Very briefly, and without going into too much detail, Batman is confronted by the Joker, played so effectively by the late Heath Ledger in what is essentially a battle for competing views of human nature. The Joker, a demonic figure if there ever was one, seems intent (and this seems to be his only motivation in the film) to spread terror, despair and cynicism throughout the citizenry, as if to convince everyone that goodness is no more a reality than Santa Claus. His delight arises from exposing the weakness of people, tearing through what he sees as mere facades of rectitude. Confronting and challenging this view, (as well as being challenged by it) are both Batman and another character, the crusading district attorney Harvey Dent, played very well by Aaron Eckhart.

The role of the hero and his/her importance to society is explored in depth through the ensuing conflict with The Joker, and I will offer no detail as to the final resolution offered by the film. However, aside from the entertainment value of The Dark Knight, it made me think once more about what it is people expect, want and need from their leaders. The observation is made in the film, in relation to Harvey Dent, that people need a hero, someone they can look up to, the implication being that such people have the capability of bringing out in others the best aspects of human nature. As I have mentioned in previous posts, this is, I believe, where our elected leaders, for the most part, utterly fail.

The easiest and most obvious exemplification of this failure is to be found in the past eight years under the morally bereft Bush presidency. As he prepares to leave office, it is clear to me that Bush’s main ‘achievement’ will be a legacy of hatred, suspicion, cynicism and cronyism. The fact that Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama has thus far inspired a great deal of hope suggests that there is a hunger on the part of Americans to be raised out of the morass into which they have fallen.

However, Bush's spectacular failure as a leader should not overshadow the fact that a lack of vision and purpose on the part of our politicians is widespread. As I mentioned in my last post, Lawrence Martin nicely captured the malaise of the governing Conservative Party in Canada. Today finds a newspaper revelation that this same Government is preparing to bury a 500-page report by Health Canada about the relationship between global warming and ill-health. Because their stance on climate change is so regressive, apparently the report will be hidden on an obscure part of Health Canada’s website, once more demonstrating that the preservation of power over principle is the ruling political ethos.

I suspect that we can all be much better people than we are. However, as long as politics remains only concerned about the acquisition and retention of power, there is little chance of that happening

What Happens When Our Leaders Lack Vision?

I read an interesting article this morning by one of my favorite Globe and Mail columnists, Lawrence Martin. He is reflecting on the leadership style of Prime Minister Harper, and how the Conservative Party lacks any sense of national purpose, or vision. He suggests that this approach has not netted him any real gains in the polls, and that people want something more from their politicians. Personally, I have always felt that those we elect, despite our democracy, are less a reflection of our wishes and more a reaction to perceptions crassly manipulated by those who either aspire to or wish to retain power. I also believe that those who are elected have a special responsibility to try to cultivate the best in all of us; unfortunately, the venal reasons so many people run for office precludes that from happening very often.

In any event, I have reproduced Mr. Marin’s article below, and although I disagree with his conclusions about the purpose behind changes in personnel such as the chief of staff (after all, Guy Giorno, a much-reviled member of the group that brought Mike Harris to power in Ontario, is hardly an improvement over Ian Brody), it makes for some thought-provoking reading:

The politics of destruction has run its course

LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Monday's Globe and Mail
July 21, 2008 at 8:14 AM EDT

The governing Conservatives have discovered something of late: Their modus operandi - politics as war - isn't working as it used to.

In the winter and spring, they had the Liberals running scared from the prospect of an election. But in the soft days of summer, much has changed. A veteran pollster was saying last week that, if an election were held today, the Tories would likely find themselves on the opposition benches.

Their game plan, which served them reasonably well, was simple. Leave the ideas to eggheads, visions to dreamers. Use a superior field commander and bigger tanks to crush the opposition.

The politics of destruction was a slice of Karl Rove, the veteran Republican strategist, come North. Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan describes the Rovian techniques in his book What Happened. In the Bush administration, "deliberation and compromise, elements central to governing, all but disappeared." Governing was turned into a permanent campaign. The "mentality of political manipulation" operated around the clock.

The war mentality of governance wasn't strictly a Republican thing in the United States, just as it hasn't been a strictly Conservative happening in Canada. Democrats there, Liberals here, lay the groundwork with their own lowering of the bar. On each side of the border, conservative governments came in promising a new way but found comfort in the old.

War politics worked here to the point where, with Stephen Harper weaving intricate plots, Stéphane Dion almost faced mutiny. On the battlefield, the PM had cruise missiles, the Opposition Leader popguns.

But, in a signal that all has not been proceeding well, the PM has brought in a new chief of staff, a new communications director, other new faces. It's a wise move, a scaling down of the war mentality that could bring about a truce with the media, civil servants and alienated segments of the public. If the bunker mentality isn't being abandoned, it's at least being modified.

Changes are necessary for obvious reasons. The Conservatives have been sliding in the polls. Their recent series of mini-scandals, some prompted by too much Karl Roving, has clouded their image of cleanliness and competence. They are seen as being too blue when the trend line is green, they are dropping in popularity in Quebec, the economy is suspect, and the war in Afghanistan, which they enthusiastically embraced, is going badly. To top it all, they have posted no vision of where they want to take the country.

Moreover, an opposition leader once on the point of crumbling hasn't crumbled. Mr. Dion's Green Shift plan has changed the political dynamic, elevating his image from wimp to risk-taker, staking his party to a strong vision, putting the PM on the defensive.

The Conservatives were relying heavily on Mr. Harper's big lead over Mr. Dion in personal leadership rankings. But that's less certain now. They were relying heavily on making big gains in Quebec. That's not at all certain. They were hoping to be able to boast of sound economic management. But that's hard to do if the economy is sliding.

The good news for them is that, while their support numbers have been slipping, Liberal numbers have not been going up. The Tories also maintain big tactical advantages in terms of money and organization. On the political spectrum, they have the right side to themselves, while the Liberals are crowded in with the Greens and the NDP.

But momentum, which was once on the Conservatives' side, has been drifting away. Their penchant for destructive politics has hurt them ethically. But more than that, because they have placed so much emphasis on battlefield tactics, they have little in the policy vault with which to move forward. In the last parliamentary session, they had some good initiatives such as immigration reform, the residential schools apology and a few consumer-friendly measures. But there were no big-ticket items to showcase in a campaign.

The war mentality of governance can work in the short term. But, in the long term, something more is needed. With the tides shifting, the Conservatives need a bold new program, something to show the public they can do more than crack heads