What is the value of political purity? Nada, zero, zilch, in my humble opinion. Music and gold should be pure. Politics works best as an alloy.
The Conservatives, from the intellectual right and from within their own ranks, have weathered charges that after six years in power they've sold the family farm. The crystalline libertarian ideology of the Reform years - zero deficits, an end to asymmetrical federalism, a radical curtailment of the welfare state, a return to self-reliance - has been set aside in the pursuit of power. Andrew Coyne made the case last weekend at the Manning Centre conference: Compromise has been the Tories' moral undoing.
The New Democrats, from the left and often from within their own ranks, are weathering charges that after less than a full year as the main Opposition party, they're about to sell the family farm. The socialist ideology of the Broadbent years - punish the rich and corporations through higher taxes, nurture the unions, bash the Americans, bolster the welfare state - will at last be set aside, in the pursuit of power. Compromise, leadership candidate Brian Topp argues, will be the NDP's moral undoing.
And here we have the Liberals, drifting in the purgatory of a suddenly crowded centre, shouting: We're the true compromisers! The Liberals, watching the inexorable disintegration of Canadian political ideologies to their left and to their right, have been reduced to pleading: If you must choose a party that places pragmatism over principle, choose us. We have a lot more practice at selling out. In fact, for us it's a virtue. But few voters appear to be listening, because all the parties now boast the same virtue, or virus, depending on your point of view.
It is small wonder that compromise, which is rarely beautiful in the abstract, raises hackles. Judging from the mail I receive, many engaged politicos today have little appetite for it. In my view, that is because the principal medium of modern political engagement is the Internet - and the Internet perpetuates tribe. Marshall McLuhan anticipated this a generation ago, predicting that, with the return of the visual and the personal as primary means of communication we'd see a return to tribal, totemic forms of social organization. He was, of course, right. Prescient.
In the stark simplicity of social media - "friend" or "unfriend," "groups," status updates and 140-character tweets - nuance is increasingly difficult to effect. Indeed its only true home, any more, may be the novel. Increasingly, the consumer - for a politician, the voter - actively rebels against nuance. It is as though, in the vast ocean of information, the rigid polarity of predictable opinion and category are somehow reassuring.
The corollary in political organization is obvious. Partisans, be pure. Uphold your brand, without which you are nothing. Under no circumstances should the Liberals and NDP merge, or the Conservatives shift leftward, or the NDP rightward, because if they do, they'll no longer be who they've been. But here's the wrinkle: In a democracy, on the ground, purity translates almost immediately into failure and the loss of influence. (In a dictatorship it translates into barbarism - witness the Khmer Rouge. But that's another column.)
Consider the case of Stephen Harper. Twenty-five years or so ago, as a bright, intellectually ambitious theorist for the Reform Party, Harper crafted elegant libertarian arguments in every sphere of Canadian political philosophy. Quebec as a nation would have made this young man brim with indignation, as would an advance copy of any of his own government's budgets in the years 2006-11. But in 2009, which I would argue was the turning point in Harper's transformation into a new-blue liberal (or neo-red Tory) he faced a choice: Spend or fail.
Rather than be defeated, the Conservative government unveiled the multi-billion-dollar infrastructure budget that, like the end-of recession infrastructure spending rolled out by the Chrétien Liberals in 1994, set the populace at ease. That spending had a material impact on thousands of communities across Canada - recreation centres, arenas, senior citizens' homes. People remembered and voted accordingly. Was it dishonest, because it came from Conservatives rather than Liberals, in whose playbook that budget more rightly belonged? A purist would say yes. But it got the Tories re-elected with a majority, so they're now in a position to implement a longer-term, smaller government agenda. How, precisely, is that bad, from any conservative or Conservative's point of view?
Even now, as the Conservatives prepare to unveil major structural changes to rationalize how the federal government delivers programs, there's no social-conservative tilt to the plan. It is all about economics. Indeed, as described to me, it is not so unlike what former Liberal industry minister John Manley might have implemented in the late 1990s had he been given a free hand. In effect, the Conservatives have jettisoned the social-conservative wing, championed by people such as evangelist Charles McVety and author William Gairdner, in tacit acknowledgment that this platform is too divisive, and a vote killer.
How, precisely, is that kind of compromise bad?
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Michael Den Tandt
The Conservatives, from the intellectual right and from within their own ranks, have weathered charges that after six years in power they've sold the family farm. The crystalline libertarian ideology of the Reform years - zero deficits, an end to asymmetrical federalism, a radical curtailment of the welfare state, a return to self-reliance - has been set aside in the pursuit of power. Andrew Coyne made the case last weekend at the Manning Centre conference: Compromise has been the Tories' moral undoing.
The New Democrats, from the left and often from within their own ranks, are weathering charges that after less than a full year as the main Opposition party, they're about to sell the family farm. The socialist ideology of the Broadbent years - punish the rich and corporations through higher taxes, nurture the unions, bash the Americans, bolster the welfare state - will at last be set aside, in the pursuit of power. Compromise, leadership candidate Brian Topp argues, will be the NDP's moral undoing.
And here we have the Liberals, drifting in the purgatory of a suddenly crowded centre, shouting: We're the true compromisers! The Liberals, watching the inexorable disintegration of Canadian political ideologies to their left and to their right, have been reduced to pleading: If you must choose a party that places pragmatism over principle, choose us. We have a lot more practice at selling out. In fact, for us it's a virtue. But few voters appear to be listening, because all the parties now boast the same virtue, or virus, depending on your point of view.
It is small wonder that compromise, which is rarely beautiful in the abstract, raises hackles. Judging from the mail I receive, many engaged politicos today have little appetite for it. In my view, that is because the principal medium of modern political engagement is the Internet - and the Internet perpetuates tribe. Marshall McLuhan anticipated this a generation ago, predicting that, with the return of the visual and the personal as primary means of communication we'd see a return to tribal, totemic forms of social organization. He was, of course, right. Prescient.
In the stark simplicity of social media - "friend" or "unfriend," "groups," status updates and 140-character tweets - nuance is increasingly difficult to effect. Indeed its only true home, any more, may be the novel. Increasingly, the consumer - for a politician, the voter - actively rebels against nuance. It is as though, in the vast ocean of information, the rigid polarity of predictable opinion and category are somehow reassuring.
The corollary in political organization is obvious. Partisans, be pure. Uphold your brand, without which you are nothing. Under no circumstances should the Liberals and NDP merge, or the Conservatives shift leftward, or the NDP rightward, because if they do, they'll no longer be who they've been. But here's the wrinkle: In a democracy, on the ground, purity translates almost immediately into failure and the loss of influence. (In a dictatorship it translates into barbarism - witness the Khmer Rouge. But that's another column.)
Consider the case of Stephen Harper. Twenty-five years or so ago, as a bright, intellectually ambitious theorist for the Reform Party, Harper crafted elegant libertarian arguments in every sphere of Canadian political philosophy. Quebec as a nation would have made this young man brim with indignation, as would an advance copy of any of his own government's budgets in the years 2006-11. But in 2009, which I would argue was the turning point in Harper's transformation into a new-blue liberal (or neo-red Tory) he faced a choice: Spend or fail.
Rather than be defeated, the Conservative government unveiled the multi-billion-dollar infrastructure budget that, like the end-of recession infrastructure spending rolled out by the Chrétien Liberals in 1994, set the populace at ease. That spending had a material impact on thousands of communities across Canada - recreation centres, arenas, senior citizens' homes. People remembered and voted accordingly. Was it dishonest, because it came from Conservatives rather than Liberals, in whose playbook that budget more rightly belonged? A purist would say yes. But it got the Tories re-elected with a majority, so they're now in a position to implement a longer-term, smaller government agenda. How, precisely, is that bad, from any conservative or Conservative's point of view?
Even now, as the Conservatives prepare to unveil major structural changes to rationalize how the federal government delivers programs, there's no social-conservative tilt to the plan. It is all about economics. Indeed, as described to me, it is not so unlike what former Liberal industry minister John Manley might have implemented in the late 1990s had he been given a free hand. In effect, the Conservatives have jettisoned the social-conservative wing, championed by people such as evangelist Charles McVety and author William Gairdner, in tacit acknowledgment that this platform is too divisive, and a vote killer.
How, precisely, is that kind of compromise bad?
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Michael Den Tandt
No comments:
Post a Comment