First of all, let us remember that we are at war – and have been for ten years, the longest in Canada’s history. While Canada’s contribution to the effort in Afghanistan is being phased out, we joined (and now lead) another war over Libya – and this with the unanimous consent of the House; the only dissent coming from the Green Party, at the time unrepresented in Parliament. There should have been – and there should be - debate over involvement in Libya, and the fact that there was none (with agreement even coming from the Bloc) shows a greater tolerance for war. Canada, once a colonial country, now apes the imperial pasts of appropriating countries: Britain, France and the United States.[i] Besides, all parties wanted to get on with the Canadian election, which goes to show that former Prime Minister Kim Campbell’s infamous parting line has actually been proven right: an election is “no time to discuss serious issues.” Canada is now engaged in two separate wars – unprecedented in our history – both with a minimum of debate and public scrutiny.
War eats away at liberalism. It is no accident that liberalism collapsed in most European nations after World War One. The mindless enthusiasm for conflict in August 1914, followed by soldiers going “over the top” of trenches, giving of their persons, cementing a bond at the Front (regardless of the enemy) that went beyond any particular individual – only to find meaning in the “community” which in turn contributed to the birth of our nation at Vimy. No one really has “rights” in times of war – and so liberalism (which is presumed not to understand human nature) comes to a dead end. Just look at (Britain’s) Siegfried Sassoon and his pacifist activities during WWI outlined in his Memoirs of an Infantry Officer where the author explains: “In war-time the word patriotism means suppression of truth.”[ii] Elsewhere he writes (and remember this regards the First World War): “A Jolly fine swindle it would have been for me, if I’d been killed ... for an Oil Well!”[iii]
But there are other factors, working in an opposite direction today (almost a century later, following postindustrialism in the West), and these are consistent with other nations moving towards the Right of the political spectrum.[iv] A generation of youth and adults are literally amusing themselves to death (by means of video games like “Call of Duty,” inspired by 9/11), aided by a host of other high-tech consumer devices cultivating narcissism and a distancing of themselves from responsibility to both politics and society. Death is trivialized by electronic games, and we habituate ourselves to quick reflexes, instant “sound bites” and technological violence – perplexed as we are now by the phenomenon of school-yard bullying.
Capitalism feeds on the young (whose survival skills depend on their narcissism) – and we too all want to be young, healthy and happy (especially if we look to the American constitution), consuming one product after another towards this end (hence the desire for low taxes) without any encumbering responsibility for ‘the Other’. The end result is a cultural hedonism (for example, in places like Whistler) and an anti-intellectualism (is Toronto still our intellectual capital?) which makes it easier to dismiss mindful thought as Canadians shift to the Right. While thought content decreases, populism and nationalism increase – along with notions of a certain scientific or managerial determinism (as opposed to freedom – let’s recall the Prime Minister’s need for “recalibration” of the economy at second prorogation). And so we come to accept that war – and Stephen Harper - are considered necessary for Canada.
Never fond of Constitutional nuances, Stephen Harper has been effectively exonerated by 40% of Canadians and given a majority, leaving us with an institutional memory of a Parliament that does not correct abuses; rather, it leaves the government open to perpetuating further abuses. “Strong” government has actually been government by hook and crook (and more of the latter), but at least Canadians will not have to think about politics for the next 4 years, as if casting a ballot any sooner would be considered too much of a public duty. Harper governed as a majority even though he had a minority; now that he has a majority, he will govern as if he has no opposition. Such is the nature of political power (always an excess) – and the man who holds it (obsessed with partisan advantage).
The Liberal Sponsorship Scandal was followed by the Judge Gomery Inquiry (and close-ups of golf balls), but the Harper Majority has now virtually rewritten Hansard and the contempt of Parliament verdict – having, of course, never acknowledged it on the campaign trail. Here we find reminiscences of Montaigne’s thinking: “A man who is disloyal to truth is disloyal to lies as well.”[v] And in this respect Conservative Party fortunes were boosted by a print media rather empty of critical conscience (often regarded as a liberal concept) and more concerned with what (commercial) position to take given the likelihood of some political outcomes. This brings one again back to Montaigne’s concern in 1580: “Truth for us nowadays is not what is, but what others can be brought to accept.”[vi]
When Gutenberg invented his printing press in the 1440’s, it was considered providential – God’s answer to the advance of gun powder and the artillery earlier in the Middle Ages; publishing, in other words, was linked with freedom of thought – and criticism. Just as the invention of the telegraph preceded Europe’s (ill-fated) Revolutions of 1848, today’s Internet may also be considered providential – the answer to chronic abuses of power – especially when establishment writers and editorialists are perhaps too timid to tread on the toes of a Prime Minister high on his game.
[i] India (a country familiar with colonialism) opposes Western intervention in Libya. And one of the main reasons why Canada did not get a seat on the UN Security Council is that Canada did not support India’s bid for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council (so much for our much-vaunted multiculturalism). Poor Portugal does support India’s bid, which is why it has a seat at the Security Council – and not Canada. When it comes to Canada’s diminished international stature: it’s not just about the economy.
[ii] Siegfried Sassoon, Memoirs of an Infantry Officer (London: Faber and Faber, 2000). p. 199.
[iv] Rémi Lefebvre, “Une nouvelle version du fatalisme en politique: L’histoire vire-t-elle à droite?” Le monde diplomatique, Avril 2011, p. 3.
[v] Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays, tr. M.A. Screech (Toronto: Penguin, 2003), p. 736.
No comments:
Post a Comment