Ronald Reagan's election victory in 1980 heralded a new age in government, not only in the United States, but in the entire "free" world. The Reagan Revolution was to spawn a birth of new conservatism based on certain core values. Some of these values professed by Reaganites revolved around a firm commitment to traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs in such things as obedience to authority, the sanctity of the family, the mission of the American people as the inhabitants of the "shining city on a hill", self-reliance, hard work, honesty, and a willingness to defend what is right. All of these are fine values, values that must properly be called "human" values. But the political right, led by Mr. Reagan, but copied earnestly by the likes of Margaret Thatcher, George Bush Sr. and Jr., and, closer to home, Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, Bill Vander Zalm, and Stephen Harper, have captured these values as conservative values. To be liberal, and therefore to oppose them, means that one is anti-authority, anti-family, godless, lazy, soft and dependent on others.Stemming from the belief in self-reliance is a creeping distrust of any kind of collectivism. If new conservatives believe that people should help themselves in order to get out of trouble, debt, poverty, ignorance, and the like, it follows that a belief in helping people who are suffering in those areas is wrong, and that institutions and groups who offer aid and comfort to those in need are somehow weak: they are the "do-gooders", the "bleeding hearts", and the "liberals". To many new conservatives, especially in the U.S., "liberal" is an insult, a pejorative ranking in the lowest levels of political incorrectness.
One of the core beliefs, then, in new conservative thinking is that it is wrong for the largest institution in our society, the government, to become involved in such activity. To do so means that government becomes large and meddling: it talkes on an authority in how we live our lives, how we interact with each other, and how we care for each other that is far beyond its actual role. "There is too much government," a new conservative might say. "Get out of our way, get out of our lives, and let us live as we see fit, not as you tell us!" They seek to reduce the size of government in the name of efficiency, the power of government in the name of individual freedom, and the role of government in the name of morality.
Even supposed liberals have alligned themselves with this train of thought, to varying degrees. Liberals like Jean Chretien, Paul Martin Jr., socialists like Bob Rae, and Labourites like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, have espoused these beliefs. If that is the case, then the core values of the new conservative movement must have merit. They have framed the philosophies of the powerful and rich, internationally, for the better part of three decades now. They have destroyed communism, created new economic powerhouses in hitherto unheard-of places, and trickled-down to the very rank and file of our societies. The revolution has been an unqualified success.
But is it right?
Prior to the Reagan victory in 1980, the conventional political wisdom had been one of a general belief in the intervention of government in the lives of people. Not only was government to be the creator of laws which controlled our interactions with each other, it was to be the source of relief to the less advantaged, the well-spring of creativity, research and development, and the engine of wealth and advancement. The theory was that, if we all worked together for a common good, society would advance, become more "civilized" and less mean and cut-throat. A type of co-operative gentillity would spread like sunshine to create health, order and happiness across the world.
This belief in collective caring was codified in its most extreme form by Marx and Engels, but a more refined and workable example may be found in the the New Deal of FDR during the horrible experience of the Great Depression, a time when many people felt deserted by the forces of unchecked industrial capitalism, and needed a compassionate central authority to help them up off the mat, restore their sense of dignity and self-worth, and treat them like human beings. Varieties of this type of thinking produced the Great Society of LBJ, the Just Society of Pierre Trudeau, European welfare states, and peasant revolutions in Cuba, India, Africa and Asia.
Liberals ran the world, for the most part, after the 1930's. Liberal democracies destroyed fascists and militarists in World War Two, stared down authoritarian dictatorships in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China, and listened to the concerns of women, the young, minorities, and poor people the world over. They cared, they believed in causes, they sought peace and co-operation. Liberals tried to create and innovate. They reached for the stars and landed on the moon. It followed, therefore, that, if one did not agree with the liberal philosophy, one was rigid, bigotted, greedy, and soul-less. Only through a type of collective agreement to work with each other, to see the others as we see ourselves, to think and dream in new ways, would the world change for the good. And an enlightened government, a government that included all people, young and old, willing to help each other, under visionary leadership, would bring about the change craved by all. The Age of Aquarius was the culmination of the liberal ideologies.
But were they right?
As we enter the second decade of the new millenium, we must consider who and what we are. More importantly, we must decide on who or what we want to become. We careen towards the future like a car out of control. We shut our eyes, bracing for the inevitable crash, yet twist and turn to avoid obstacles in our way. We steer wildly, thinking we know where we're going, only to be jolted in another direction by the momentum of our drive. We seek to establish control and order, to smooth our path, to arrive safely. We look for a pilot, a driver to take us there. We look to political leaders who say the right, soothing things, to conduct us safely to the future.
But who is the pilot? Who will take us there?
A common belief, originating in the Enlightenment of the Eighteenth Century, declared that the people are sovereign. Through the sovereignty of a free people, who freely consent to be ruled by either an individual or group of their choosing, authority can be seen as being true and legitimate. No longer could a ruler claim legitimacy through divine right, or physical power, or vast monetary resources. The people act as a collossal organism, a giant brain, made up of the million of brain cells of the voters, who, individually through their vote, contribute to the wisdom and logic of the ultimate and all-powerful voice of the people.
Cynics would say that this is a nice theory. However, the truth of the sovereignty of the people reveals the theory's flaws. The dissent expressed by those voting against a winning party in an election would seem to indicate a type of schizophrenia in the supposed wisdom of the collossal brain. Cynics would also say that, while it's true that every free citizen has a vote, their vote is swayed by many things : individual bias, powerful media influence, apathy and ignorance. Such imperfections seem to render the "sovereignty of the people" as a misguided ideal, a product of radical political demogogues and modern media propagandists.
We may agree, out of all this, that no system is perfect. Human beings are imperfect by their very nature. But the weaknesses in our system are becoming more apparent with each passing year, each frenzied election, each wretched example of a government struggling to do its job, which is to lead. Clearly, new thinking must emerge in order to create a more perfect way for us to live and work together. We need a new mechanism in order to allow us to participate actively and intelligently in the creation of a new government. We need a marriage of liberal idealism and conservative pragmatism.
We need change, and we need it now.
In future offerings, the following will be examined as ways to consider the types of changes needed to create a new government, a government that will best serve us all.
1) A New Electorate: Rights and Responsibilities
2) True Consensus: An End to Partisanship
3) Civility in Government
4) The Rebirth of Journalism
5) Constituent Assemblies
6) The Consequences of Bad Government: Recall and Prosecution
7) Canada: A True Confederation
