The recent “debate” between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and new federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau on the issue of how best to respond to the Boston bombings offers intriguing insights into their characters. We can see the leadership style of each.
Just a reminder: Only two hours after the attack in Boston, Trudeau taped a television interview with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge. At that time, Trudeau was asked how he would respond to the event if he was prime minister.
To begin with, Trudeau asserted, he would offer condolences and help. He added that the federal government would provide any and all emergency first-responder assistance asked for by the American government. But then he went on.
Once the immediate crisis had been resolved, Trudeau said, “over the coming days” it would be necessary to “look at the root causes” of the attack. He explained further: “We don’t know if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”
Trudeau concluded by saying that it is vital not to “marginalize people even further who already feel they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future.”
Not surprisingly, Harper could not let these words go unremarked upon. Although this prime minister has stressed that internal Canadian politics should not be played out on the international stage, he attacked Trudeau from the vantage point of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in London.
As our prime minister said, “When you see this type of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes. You condemn it categorically, and to the extent that you deal with the perpetrators, you deal with them as harshly as possible.”
What you make of this exchange will very much tell if you are a liberal or conservative. A conservative mindset is attracted to the idea of defending law and order, seeing the world in simple “us and them” terms, and punishing wrongdoers. Conservatives want to see might promote right to smite wrong.
A liberal mindset is more social. While liberals also want to preserve law and order, and combat criminality, as Trudeau suggested, they will quickly turn their attention to what caused the “problem” in the first place. What leads individuals to be anti-social? What leads people to hate one another and to try to resolve grievances through violence? Can such hatreds and animosities be identified and understood? And, if so, can remedial actions be taken so as to lessen or even eliminate such anti-social behaviour from happening in the future?
While progressive conservatives would also be sympathetic to this more nuanced way of thinking, more hard-line conservatives — such as our prime minister, his MPs and supporters, and American Republicans — scoff at this “bleeding-heart” sentimentality. To them, the appropriate response to crime and terror is law and order, and vengeance.
To hard-line conservatives, one need not waste time trying to understand what caused the crime; all that’s important is vilifying the perpetrators of crime and meting out punishment. This conservative approach is all about reacting to crime after the effect. It’s all very Old Testament.
In contrast to this, the liberal approach seeks to be proactive. As a society, we should learn from what is happening in society so that anti-social behaviour can be mediated and hopefully tamed, such that future criminal behaviour is lessened, if not ideally eliminated. This way of thinking is very much New Testament, appealing to the better angels of our nature.
It’s also noteworthy that the liberal approach is the foundation of just peace treaties in the field of international relations. Lasting peace, such as that within Europe after 1945, or between the United States, Britain and Canada after the War of 1812, came following an exploration of the root causes of those conflicts, and the development of ways and means to eliminate such animosities and to build concord between former enemies.
But don’t expect any such liberality or generosity of spirit from our current prime minister. The attack ads will continue and the politics of contempt, fear and detestation will rule the day. Trudeau had better don his armour.
Original Article
Source: capebretonpost.com
Author: David Johnson
Just a reminder: Only two hours after the attack in Boston, Trudeau taped a television interview with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge. At that time, Trudeau was asked how he would respond to the event if he was prime minister.
To begin with, Trudeau asserted, he would offer condolences and help. He added that the federal government would provide any and all emergency first-responder assistance asked for by the American government. But then he went on.
Once the immediate crisis had been resolved, Trudeau said, “over the coming days” it would be necessary to “look at the root causes” of the attack. He explained further: “We don’t know if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”
Trudeau concluded by saying that it is vital not to “marginalize people even further who already feel they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future.”
Not surprisingly, Harper could not let these words go unremarked upon. Although this prime minister has stressed that internal Canadian politics should not be played out on the international stage, he attacked Trudeau from the vantage point of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in London.
As our prime minister said, “When you see this type of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes. You condemn it categorically, and to the extent that you deal with the perpetrators, you deal with them as harshly as possible.”
What you make of this exchange will very much tell if you are a liberal or conservative. A conservative mindset is attracted to the idea of defending law and order, seeing the world in simple “us and them” terms, and punishing wrongdoers. Conservatives want to see might promote right to smite wrong.
A liberal mindset is more social. While liberals also want to preserve law and order, and combat criminality, as Trudeau suggested, they will quickly turn their attention to what caused the “problem” in the first place. What leads individuals to be anti-social? What leads people to hate one another and to try to resolve grievances through violence? Can such hatreds and animosities be identified and understood? And, if so, can remedial actions be taken so as to lessen or even eliminate such anti-social behaviour from happening in the future?
While progressive conservatives would also be sympathetic to this more nuanced way of thinking, more hard-line conservatives — such as our prime minister, his MPs and supporters, and American Republicans — scoff at this “bleeding-heart” sentimentality. To them, the appropriate response to crime and terror is law and order, and vengeance.
To hard-line conservatives, one need not waste time trying to understand what caused the crime; all that’s important is vilifying the perpetrators of crime and meting out punishment. This conservative approach is all about reacting to crime after the effect. It’s all very Old Testament.
In contrast to this, the liberal approach seeks to be proactive. As a society, we should learn from what is happening in society so that anti-social behaviour can be mediated and hopefully tamed, such that future criminal behaviour is lessened, if not ideally eliminated. This way of thinking is very much New Testament, appealing to the better angels of our nature.
It’s also noteworthy that the liberal approach is the foundation of just peace treaties in the field of international relations. Lasting peace, such as that within Europe after 1945, or between the United States, Britain and Canada after the War of 1812, came following an exploration of the root causes of those conflicts, and the development of ways and means to eliminate such animosities and to build concord between former enemies.
But don’t expect any such liberality or generosity of spirit from our current prime minister. The attack ads will continue and the politics of contempt, fear and detestation will rule the day. Trudeau had better don his armour.
Original Article
Source: capebretonpost.com
Author: David Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment