THE REBIRTH OF JOURNALISM

A big city mayor conceals an addiction to crack. A director of education falls into the temptation of plagiarizing material in a doctoral dissertation. A senator incorrectly declares a home address simply to allow him to sit in the Senate while spending most of his time fundraising for his elected collegues in his party. A white vigilante stalks and confronts a black youth, ultimately resulting in the shooting death of the youth. An auto manufacturing company is proven to have falsified claims regarding their product's fuel efficiency and emissions ratings.

The list goes on and on. The number of transgressions and illegal acts which are covered up and swept under the rug is countless. People involved in these acts do not want the general public to know about their actions, mainly out of fear of consequences, or exposure of the "good thing" they have going. They try everything possible to avoid facing up to their responsibilities because of greed, entitlement and loss of position, power or prestige.

The only way these and other wrongdoings are properly dealt with is exposure of the truth of the wrongdoings. And the only way these things are exposed to the general public is through a free, independent and professional core of dedicated journalists, who are willing to dig for the truth, risk ridicule and condemnation from those they seek to expose , and even putting their lives on the line in the performance of their duty.

The importance of a free, independent and professional press cannot be overstated. In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a free press is specifically identified as one of the eight basic freedoms guaranteed for all. In the United States Constitution, a free press is guaranteed in the First Amendment. And in the United Nations Charter of Human Rights, a free press is upheld as a basic human right.

It is perhaps self-evident as to why such importance is given to journalists. In a democratic society, we need to be able to access the truth about events and activities that occur everyday in order to judge whether these events are legal or illegal, moral or immoral, beneficial or harmful, fair or unfair. If activities are judged to be detrimental in any way, the public needs to be able to raise their collective voice, demanding redress or correction of the wrong, and consequences given to the wrongdoer. In normal circumstances, the public can get redress through established institutions: government, law enforcement, spiritual or academic institutions, or the courts. But if these institutions are part of the wrongdoing, then redress is not possible.

Thus, the need for a free, independent and professional press.

In fiction, recent examples of how an effective, free, independent and professional class of journalists can be useful to cite. Keeping in mind that these are works of fiction, they nevertheless show how the ethics and motives of "good" journalism benefits us all. The trilogy of novels written by the Swedish journalist Steig Larsson ("The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", "The Girl Who Played With Fire", and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets' Nest") shows how a team of investigative reporters and motivated outsiders uncover such things as financial corruption and fraud, abuse of police power, improper governmental oversight, and violation of individual human rights. And the 2015 feature film "Spotlight" tells the story of the efforts of investigative journalists to uncover the widespread abuse of children by Catholic priests and the efforts of the Church and others not only to keep the story quiet, but to protect the offending priests.

In these and in real life situations, journalists are working for a common good in society. There are ethical and professional dilemmas faced by journalists in the pursuit of "the story". Often, difficult decisions must be made: judging whether allegations are truthful or malicious, protection of sources, the goal of the story, crossing the line into sensationalism or entertainment, competition with media rivals, the destruction of lives and reputations, all carry a heavy burden.

That is the reason why we depend heavily on the professionalism of "good" journalists. To be a journalist requires special skills and talents: good communication, obviously, but also a tenacity in getting "the story", an ability to filter fact from fiction, and a constant questioning of whether the efforts of the journalist will result in something positive and useful for society, or something less beneficial. All professions face these ethical dilemmas to varying degrees, but it of the utmost priority for journalists.

Recent phenomena have altered the landscape for professional journalists, and, therefore, society as a whole. The first is the advent of the so-called "New Journalism" which began in the late 1960's, and flourished in the 1970's until the current time. The second is the rise of social media, where information is shared world-wide at the speed of light. Both phenomena have their share of positive attributes: both also have concerns and pitfalls.

"New Journalism" is a phrase coined by Tom Wolfe, and practiced by many skilled and much admired writers, such as Hunter S. Tompson, Turman Capote, Norman Mailer and Gay Talese.  It was seen as a revolt against and an improvement upon the traditional style of journalism. In the "New Journalism", objectivity is replaced by a very subjective, often satirical or ironic style. The reporter places himself within the story as a participant, and the story itself is referred to as the "narrative", rather than simple and basic "reportage". "New Journalism" became, in essence, a new genre of writing, but its linear descendant today is the 24 hour news cycle, the advent of talk radio, the rise of CNN-style infotainment news on television and on-line, and the popularity of celebrity journalists. Certainly, "New Journalism", when done well, is interesting and creative. But the slant towards celebrity or infotainment or slick presentation at the expense of hard, thoughtful and insightful reportage does not serve society except to keep us entertained and homogenized.

Social media is an entirely different situation. Certainly the rise of social media preserves the "right to free speech" guaranteed in most democratic societies. But, in the hands of unskilled or thoughtless people or, worse, in the hands of those promoting an agenda, social media can pollute readers' minds, distract people from what is important, and make innuendo and hear-say sound like fact or truth.

In order for us, as a society, to not fall willingly over the cliff of irresponsible citizenship, we must preserve, respect, consult and encourage those who still ply the trade of professional journalism. Why? Because true, ethical and active professional journalism is trained to question and provoke in the name of decent and beneficial things. A journalist who merely "rakes the muck" is often vilified and distrusted, and deservedly so. But a journalist who shakes up the established order for a social good is worth his weight in gold and is often held in high esteem.

There is no real way to "control" or "civilize" journalism. It must exist in all its forms, worts and all. When society attempts to control its journalists, it is sending out a signal to all who have power, wealth or influence that it is now permissible to do whatever they want without conscience or oversight. Thus, we need to let the journalists dig, poke, probe, bother, accuse, and expose.

The responsibility for determining whether we are consuming "good" or "bad" journalism lies with us. We need to be constantly educated on what "good" journalism is. We need to hold our journalists to a high standard that is based not on things like good looks, a popular agenda, flashy style or an over-the-top involvement in local charities in order to appear to be the "good guy". Instead we need to demand that our journalists continue to see themselves as a type of outsider, a part of society but not really a member of it, a bystander rather than a participant. We must demand that our journalists be detached and objective, at least as much as humanly possible. And, most of all, we must demand that our journalists continue to be tenacious, demanding, and fair.

Otherwise, our democracy is doomed.

CIVILITY IN GOVERNMENT

If we cling to the belief, perhaps dated and naive, that government should represent the best of our national character, that it should be the highest expression of our national will, and that it should be the greatest institution in our society, then we have been ill-served over the recent decades. Cynicism is the over-riding trait among the electorate. People are disengaged, sarcastic, and apathetic towards the political process at a time when we should be more engaged and involved, since monumental decisions loom just beyond the horizon.

One of the reasons for the disconnect between the people and the government who serve/rule them comes from a perception that there is no longer any civility in government. "Civility" in this case means more than just a lack of good manners: the perception now is that politics and government is mean-spirited, vicious, self-serving, shallow, and lacking in vision and intelligence. When one examines selected pieces of evidence, it is easy to see how the perception exists.

Item:

In the recently concluded Canadian federal election, the Conservative Party exhibited a strategy that worked successfully. That strategy involved the creation of several "attack" ads aimed at the Liberal Party's leader, Michael Ignatieff. The ads cast doubt on Ignatieff's patriotism and, indeed, even his loyalty to Canada, citing the close to three decades Ignatieff lived in the United States, earning distinction as a journalist, novelist, intellectual and teacher at prestigious universities like Harvard. What made this ad campaign even more odious was the fact that the Conservatives unveiled this campaign months ahead of the dropping of the election writ, taking advantage of their vast war chest and getting ahead of the actual election campaign to plant seeds of doubt in the electorate. The Liberals followed suit with attack ads of their own during the campaign, as a defence to the Conservatives' initiative, thus lowering their campaign. The attack ads became the defining feature of the election, obscuring legitimate discussion of real and pressing issues, such as the economy, job creation, foreign policy, environmental policy, aboriginal issues, etc.

Item:

Recent accusations by certain right-wing elements of the United States have attempted to cast doubt on President Obama's citizenship, birth, and academic record. Most of these accusations have been hurled by Donald Trump, entreprenneur and entertainer, who is testing the waters to gauge the level of support for his own presidential bid in 2012. President Obama has had to fend off these spurious accusations instead of spending time dealing with more pressing issues.

Item:

Recent trips through the United States ( chronicled in my blog "To The Heart Of Texas", available on blogspot.com ) featured a series of billboards spouting off on several contentious issues. Most noteable were boards featuring the smiling face of former President Bush asking motorists if they "Miss Me Yet?" while criticising the current administration for "broken promises". More shocking was the billboard showing an unflattering image of President Obama and the slogan "Socialist By Conduct". Other billboards railed against abortion, gun control and even Republican officials, threatening a "day of reckoning". The tone of these billboards was harsh, threatening, fear-mongering, and toxic. Undoubtedly, proponenets of these billboards would argue their "free speech" rights in posting these messages, but one must ponder the aim of the billboards.

Item:

Parliamentary sessions in Canada and the provinces feature the time-honoured tradition of "Question Period", where opposition members have the opportunity to ask members of the Government questions about policy, initiatives or current events. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this activity: to the contrary, questionning the Government is the very foundation of our democracy. But, with the advent of live television in these chambers, introduced during the 1970's, the grandstanding and behaviour of "honourable members" has sunk to the level of reality TV stars, or "Jerry Springer"-like participants, designed to draw undue attention to themselves and their agendas, or to embarrass the opponents into an almost catatonic state. Question Period now seems to be an effort to elicit emotional responses from parliamentarians and members of the public alike: we now enjoy the spectacle of a high-placed official ridiculed into an emotional melt-down, only to feast on the wounded official offering a tearful apology and a heart-felt request for a second chance to amend his/her ways.

Such nonsense demeans all of us.

Therefore, the following are offered as possible solutions to create more civility in government.

1) Eliminate all "attack" ads, especially before the official election campaign starts. Period. No exceptions. During election campaigns, no ads, either on television, radio, in print, or on-line, may name a leader or member of an opposing party, or mention his/her background. If a political official has done illegal or unsavoury things, it is the responsibility of the established media to find out about it and report it to the public, not the political parties or individual politicans. ( More about the media in a later post.) Failure to comply with this rule will result in hefty fines by a non-partizan election commission, or possible jail time.

2) Eliminate all ads before an actual election campaign begins. No exception. Public service announcements by government ministries, detailing existing programmes and how the public may get assistance in time of need are exceptions to this rule.

3) Equalize the amount of money spent by parties and individuals on election campaigns. Again, no exceptions. Make the rules crystal clear as to how money can be raised and spent. Eliminate loop-holes, such as those now being alleged against the current Mayor of Toronto and his brother. Offenders would face jail time, since violations could be construed as fraud.

4) Eliminate televised "debates" during election campaigns. The current situation does not allow for a true discussion of issues. Make debates regional in nature, have several of them, and do not televise them, nor allow radio or social or electronic media to cover them. Instead, place them in several locations and allow the general public to attend. Follow established rules and procedures of debate.

5) Remove television cameras from federal, provincial, and municipal legislatures. This would eliminate the grandstanding and histrionics so often seen in these sessions. It would also remove the so-called "sound-bite" mentality of politicians, who speak only in thirty second bursts of catchy phrases, designed to appear on nightly newscasts. Allow print and other "journalists" to attend these sessions, of course, to report to the public on the goings-on, but remove the temptation to become celebrities on the part of our elected officials.

6) Public billboards or other venues of published opinion may continue to operate, but must eliminate "ad-hominem" attacks on indivuals, and must not show the picture or image of an individual person. Ideas or issues may be displayed, in keeping with the democratic right of individuals or groups to promote their opinions. But they must be "idea" or "issue" based only: failure to do so should be examined under laws governing libel, slander, sedition, or fraud.

What must be underscored in all of this, of course, is that free speech must be protected. As cited above, critics of these suggestions may claim that the suggestions violate their rights to free speech. I counter with the notion that, as much as a person has the right to express his opinion, I have the right not to be exposed to their hatred, venom, short-sightedness, stupidity, fear-mongering, shock tactics etc. I will engage in true, intelligent, fact-based debate with anyone on any issue. I will express my perceptions of the truth, and offer my suggestions for solutions ( as I am doing now ) , but I will not resort to name-calling, grandstanding, villification, or scare-tactics: I expect the same of my opponents.

Restoring civility to government is long overdue. It reflects on all of us, as a society, if we can restore a level of respect to what should be the highest expression of all of us, regardless of political philosophy, allegiance, or social background.

We deserve better.

TRUE CONSENSUS: AN END TO PARTISANSHIP

John Macfarlane is the editor of "The Walrus" magazine. In many of his opening editorials, he decries the lack of clear focus in Canadian politics. In the most recent edition, he invokes the character Howard Beale in the 1976 movie "Network" and his most famous rant : "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Macfarlane uses this to try to encourage all of us to get mad at the current state of politics and government in Canada and, indeed, the rest of the so-called democratic world.

Much of the apathy felt by modern voters stems from a deep-rooted distrust of politicians. It can be argued that this distrust has always existed: those who see their tax money go to leaders who live luxurious lives at public expense, waste in government spending, and a sense that the money is taken and spent without any consultation with the people contribute to this. Perhaps the most striking event in modern times which has exascerbated this distrust is the Watergate scandal in 1973 in the United States.

In the democracies, distrust is also caused by the sheer viciousness of partisan politics. More and more, partizanship has taken center stage in our political considerations. In the United States, it has become bitter and border-line racist. Many Republicans, who opposed the health care reforms of President Obama ( which, of course, is permitted and even encouraged in democracies ), resorted to posters and slogans of the lowest racist terms. The Tea Party movement in the U.S. calls the administration unflattering names and even has people show up at their rallies protesting gun control legislation by openly carrying semi- and fully-automatic firearms with signs threatening to use them if Democrats try to push further gun laws.

In Canada, the partizanship is not as blatantly hostile, but still contains many examples of unseemly behaviour. The Conservatives of Stephan Harper have embarked on an advertising campaign featuring scathing and unflattering images and words of their Liberal opponent, Michael Ignatieff, calling him unpatriotic, arrogant, and incompetant. Whether any of these charges have any merit is not the issue: the fact that the campaign is in full swing even before an election has been called makes the electorate cringe and want to cover their ears and eyes.

It all smacks of childishness and it is crass politics at its worst.

When I taught history at G.L. Roberts Collegiate in Oshawa, one of our tasks was to study politics and government, the theory being that informed students would become responsible voters. It is a noble idea, and I support it whole-heartedly. But one of the problems was in the core of the lessons we tried to learn. In order to create a sense of respect for our political leaders, we learned about the almost sacred traditions and honourable characteristics of government. We tried to create a mystique of the greatness and significance of those momentous actions and decisions made by our elected leaders in our parliaments. For the most part, the students bought into these ideas. However, when we took them to Queen's Park to witness Question Period, and told our students to be on their best behaviour, inevitably they were witness to some of the most outrageous and juvenile behaviour .... on the part of their elected representatives. It was embarrassing and appaling to listen and watch these parliamentarians at "work". Needless to say, these forays into the halls of power helped to create the lasting impression of cynicism as these students grew into voters. It certainly is not the students' fault for this: the fault lies in our leaders.

Such behaviour results in the partizan atmosphere parliaments have become. If one is elected to a house of assembly, one is expected to be a team player, to fulfill a role of shill, cheerleader and heckler, and then to vote as the party leadership tells one to vote. Undoubtedly, debate within parties is sometimes lively and even productive in caucus or cabinet, but when the House sits in public session, the players take up their position on the team bench and play their roles. It has become more boisterous and rancorous, and accomplishes nothing except to make the parliamentarians look bad.

The media has a role to play in this debacle. News packaged as entertainment apparently sells, and, in the unending competition to garner high ratings, media outlets fall over each other to pander to this behaviour. Why? Because the public laughs at the buffoonery and laps it up. Partizan hacks line up on news shows to offer "debate" or "insight" on the issues of the day, only to get into shouting matches which spews out the party line that the viewers or readers have heard before. Serious debate? Productive discussion? Where?

Macfarlane rants in several issues of "The Walrus" about this, but offers no solution, other than for his readers to get more involved in the political process. But, perhaps the solution is under our noses, and is practiced in two jurisdictions in Canada, namely Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. It is Consensus Government.

Generally and simply put, Consensus Government is democracy without political parties. When an election is held in the territories, candidates are elected based on their opinions on issues and their vision as to how the territory should be governed. The voters listen and vote for the person they agree with. A simple majority in each riding determines the elected representative. This sounds very much like what we have now, except that the candidates do not follow a prescribed party line. Where the difference occurs, however, is in the legislature itself when it convenes for the first time after an election. In the assembly room, the members choose a Speaker, a Premier and a Cabinet from within their own ranks. Undoubtedly, much politicking goes on in these opening sessions, but, when the officers are chosen, the House gets down to business. Opposition occurs naturally, but discussion is free, open, constructive, and without partizan restraint. At no time does any partizanship rear its ugly head. Work gets done, decisions are made, and the electorate is involved: the statistics for voter turnout in Nunavut are staggering. In 2008, the media was worried that voter turnout in the territorial election had dropped by 10% ... to 71% ! In 2004, over 80% of the electorate voted. Consider that Nunavat is a vast territory, where voting is often a difficult and arduous task, covering immense distances for voters to go to a poll. Those statistics make the current apathy in the rest of Canada for federal and provincial elections more stark and disappointing.

Consensus Government is not perfect, by any means. One has only to look at several municipal councils in Southern Ontario to see that disfunction can occur. But, given the immaturity of several of our provincial and federal leaders, it is an experiment whose time has surely come. The elimination of political parties doesn't mean the end of political ideas, debate, and theory. To the contrary, it could mean the salvation of these precious things.

A NEW ELECTORATE: RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

"The people is sovereign". From the masses comes collective wisdom and authority. In a democracy, this simple concept is central to the entire political and philosophical structure. It means that, as Alec Guiness said when playing King Charles I in the movie "Cromwell", there are "extraordinary possibilities in very ordinary people."

Over the years, wars have been fought, blood shed, and magnificent words uttered about this notion. In throwing off the shackles of absolute monarchy, dictatorship, and narrow oligarchies, the people who live in democracies control their own destinies and determine how they are ruled and who rules them. It would seem that those who are fortunate enough to live in such countries would celebrate their right to participate every chance they could. However, if democracy is the best government in the world, why do so many people in democratic countries opt out and cease caring? Why do so many refuse to vote? Why do so many not take their rights and responsibilites of citizenship seriously?

Canada provides an interesting example of this lack of commitment. In the 2008 federal election, more than 13 million people voted: an impressive number when viewed as a simple fact on a page. But the 13 million voters represented a mere 58.8% of the number of registered eligible voters in the country. That figure was down from the previous election in 2006, wherein almost a million more voters cast their ballot, representing 64.7% of the total eligible voters. Scanning the statistics of all Canadian federal elections, one sees that 2008 was the low-water mark of voting participation, while the election of March, 1958 was the highest at 79.4%.

Statistics can be made to prove many things, of course. But what seems to emerge from this quick analysis is the fact that Canadians are a somewhat apathetic lot when it comes to exercising their democratic right to vote. The recent weak numbers fly in the face of the sacrifice of young Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, where, we are made to believe, they are fighting for the cause of greater deomocracy and freedom in a country that has known nothing but tyrrany and terror all through its history. Other examples of people yearning for the same rights that Canadians can't be bothered to exercise are seen in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen in current times, and in South Africa, China, the former Soviet bloc, and Latin America in the past three decades.

The fact that 42% of Canadian voters didn't bother to vote in the last election might mean dissatisfaction with the options with which they were presented. It might also mean that they were fatigued by the recent spate of elections and manoeuverings that they have been forced to witness from their so-called leaders. Or, it may mean that the current system of allowing anyone over the age of 18, with no mental deficiencies, no criminal record, and proper citizenship to be eligible to vote IF THEY CHOOSE is in need of an overhaul.

Canada's voting statistics are not much different from most democratic countries. In the last few decades, people have become jaded with the political process. Since Watergate, the electorate seems to sit in wait of the latest scandal or example of inefficient government, and are rarely disappointed. Politicians are not trusted, the process of choosing new governments has become a mean-spirited dog fight among those contesting the elections, and the media has bombarded voters with constant "coverage" until the inevitable fatigue sets in among the population. Many people prefer not to participate, claiming that their single vote won't mean much, and that they are either too tired or too bored to bother to go out on election day. Is this democracy?

It is preferred, of course, to see large numbers of people turn out on election day to cast their vote. It is their right to do so. But when so many opt not to vote, their sacred democratic right is forfeit. For what, then, did all those former generations fight, labour, struggle, and, in many cases, die? Surely, their sacrifice was in vain. Surely it must be agreed that, for us who follow those who sacrificed, for us who enjoy the rights gained by their efforts, our rights come with a responsibility to participate in the process which they passed down to us.

The question is, how can this responsibility to exercise our right be encouraged? The answer may lie in two parts.

First, make voting mandatory. There are several countries who do this, with varying degrees of success. Perhaps the best known model is that of Australia. Australia makes voting in federal and state or territorial elections mandatory for all eligible voters. Failure to do so results in a fine, usually very small. This sounds like a great idea to encourage voting, but articles on the subject suggest that it has only partial success. People can avoid voting and the accompanying fine by claiming illness or other extenuating circumstances. Authorities are reluctant to persue these claims, and fines are often waived. In other situations, those who are forced to vote often deliberately spoil their ballot by voting for fictitious persons, dead people, or ludicrous ideas on referendums. It often makes for humourous reading for scrutineers and vote counters.

Mandatory voting and an accompanying fine for offenders is an idea that has merit. But how does a country avoid the possible abuses and protests outlined above? A possible solution lies in the second part of the concept.

Make voters take a simple test to determine if they have the basic knowledge to participate in the political process. In other words, when a person reaches eleigible voting age, have them write a simple, half-hour test that asks them basic questions on how the government and the political system works. This would be a test that any high school student, who is studious enough, and has a good, serious outlook on his or her responsibilites as a citizen could pass. The test would be re-administered every few years, just to ensure that a voter was taking his or her obligation seriously. The test would be administered and evaluated by a non-partizan agency and would not involve the evaluators knowing the identity of the person taking the test.

Why would a test be useful as a possible solution to voter apathy? Because if a potential voter had no interest whatsoever in taking the test, it would show that that voter had no interest in exercising his or her right to vote. Similarly, if a potential voter should fail the simple test, it would prove one of two things: that the voter needed to learn just what he or she was voting for, or that the potential voter was not taking the test seriously, and that he or she would not take future elections seriously either, therefore potentially wasting or spoiling his or her vote.

The test would weed out "bad" or reluctant voters from the process. It would give people a chance to opt out of the process in a democratic way: if a potential voter does not want to vote in the future, the voter could simply not take the test, or deliberately fail the test. This is democratic because it gives a person options, and the results of the test would be calculated fairly, not based on any possible prejudice. It is democratic also in that, if the potential voter decided to take the test again, presumably when they have decided that they wish to participate in the political process as a voter, they could do so, hoping to give a better effort,pass the test and become an eligible voter.

These two parts provide a solution. With mandatory voting combined with an eligibility test, only those voters who are interested in the political process could vote, and would be sure to do so in order to avoid paying a fine. If legitimate reasons ( such as verifiable illness or bereavement ) are presented, a voter could be excused from voting without the fine. But it is presumed that voters who have bothered to take the eligibility test and pass it would be motivated to vote in every election.

Thus, our voter turnout numbers would be better. Thus we would have a real working democracy. Those who chose to fail the test, avoid the test, or avoid voting would not count in the statistics, and would suffer the penalty of fines or the stigma of not being an eligible voter.

Would this work? Only a practical test would prove it one way or the other. But to continue in our current system dishonours those who believe in the sanctity of democratic rights. And it dishonours those who have fought for those rights. To continue as we have done so for generations makes a mockery of the notion that we are a true democracy.

A NEW GOVERNMENT

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

THE WESTERN WORLD

This is a new edition to my blogging universe. My previous blog "Lacrosse World" has become a place for my views on the world, politics, history, and nation building. It's original intent was to be a place for me to write about my love of lacrosse, and to relate that passion to things I observe in the world around me. It was supposed to be more light-hearted and perhaps even cathartic. Instead, it's become pedantic and, well, frankly, of interest to only a few people.

So, this blog, "The Western World", is now created to contain my thoughts on Canada, the world, and what I see happening, and what I think ought to be happening. Hopefully, I can keep to the intent of this blog, and return to the intent of "Lacrosse World." Happy reading !!