No 'common sense' to Election Debates

Canada’s right-wing movement was launched in part by “King Ralph” of Alberta (reputedly known for his “common” touch – unless you were homeless) and by premier Mike Harris of Ontario, who pushed the so-called “Common Sense Revolution” which had its roots in the ‘common sense’ philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment, Thomas Reid in particular. The “Harper government” also exhibits definite populist leanings which pays tribute to these forerunners, but it is not consistent in its decision to opt out of the National Television Debates as proposed by the Consortium – CBC, CTV and Global, Canada’s largest broadcasters.  Similarly Tom Mulcair’s decision not to participate in the debates (since Stephen Harper is not) throws “new” light on the New Democratic Party, one that questions its ‘democratic’ credentials as the NDP abandons the idea of putting the pressure of numbers on our prime minister for not showing up.

In An Inquiry into the Human Mind, on the Principles of Common Sense (1764) Thomas Reid explains that “philosophy … has no other root but the principles of common sense; it grows out of them, and draws its nourishment from them; severed from this root, its honours wither, its sap is dried up, it dies and rots.”[1]  Unlike Plato’s philosopher king (Pierre Trudeau’s model) Reid’s philosopher is not anywhere beyond “the masses”, which might suit the New Democratic Party on the illegitimate issue of the Senate, for example, but maybe front-runner Mulcair's true colours are beginning to show as polling success goes to his head - and as he starts actually to avoid the television-going public. [2] 

However, there is a certain mercantile connotation to Reid’s philosophy which excludes infants, the insane and the infirm – so perhaps ‘common sense’ is not democratic enough for the NDP yet the party does want to make its pitch to the commercial classes.[3] Similarly Reid’s philosophy does not quite fit Harper (a man not known for his social ease) because our prime minister prefers that Hobbes’s “Leviathan” master over the multitude in its stead. But the question remains: is Mulcair showing signs of some of the same arbitrariness characteristic of Harper?  Today Muclair’s only ‘peer’ (by polling fortune at least) seems to be Harper – and vice-versa, while notions of ‘common sense’ go out the window.

As a footnote it is interesting to point out that Harper and Mulcair (and quite likely Justin Trudeau on the legalization of marijuana) are all ignoring the ‘common sense’ advice of the self-described “Old Whig” F.A. Hayek, who writes in his Constitution of Liberty (1960), here quite likely under the influence of Reid:

For the practical politician … [it] is almost necessary that he be unoriginal, that he fashion his program from opinions held by large numbers of people.  The successful politician owes his power to the fact that he moves within the accepted framework of thought, that he thinks and talks conventionally.  It would be almost a contradiction in terms for a politician to be a leader in the field of ideas.[4]

Interestingly, Elizabeth May of the Green Party does appear to be a leader in terms of ideas, in some respects, but it remains to be seen if she can advance the fortunes of her party by means of ‘common sense’ notions behind climate change, the lingua franca of almost all who pay attention to the weather - and news.  Meanwhile, observers should ask: how much are the (Consortium) Non-Debates based on any ‘common sense’?

---

[1] Thomas Reid, An Inquiry into the Human Mind, On the Principles of Common Sense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012 [digital version of 1818 text]), p. 21 (I.iv). See especially Nicholas Wolterstorff, “Reid on Common Sense” in The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Reid, eds. Terence Cuneo and René Van Woudenberg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 77.

[2] Wolterstorff, “Reid on Common Sense,” Cambridge Companion to Thomas Reid, p. 77.

[3] Ibid., p. 81.

[4] F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty. The Definitive Edition, ed. Roald Hamowy (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2011), p. 177.