Politblogo

The kaleidoscope of blind spots

I am still somewhat embroiled in the Battle of Tipping Point, but I would like to preserve on my own blog this particular exchange between me and The Monarchist on his blog, in fact on Walsingham's post.  (It should be noted, carefully, that the eponymous Monarchist and Walsingham are two different people.  Some people, including myself, originally failed to notice this.  Walsingham continues to proclaim loudly his desire not to read my writing even as he has responded to me.)

UPDATE: Walsingham has changed his mind, and he is responding to me, and I will <i>try</i> to get an answer to him tomorrow.

In this response, I use the issue of same-sex marriage as a a case in point to show the weakness of the Reformatories in their failure to grasp the true nature of the difficulties that they are in.  They have a long series of blind spots including that one, ones that are quite obvious to me and probably most of my readership, prevent them from addressing the roots of their failure to obtain any long-term traction.  Or perhaps these aren't blind spots: they are a result of being rooted in the Reform Party's Alberta base, ultimately, and being unable to extend outward from there, as evidenced by such things as Belinda Stronach's departure. 

In any case, it is unfortunate for Canada that it is not up to the task.  As I noted before, it impedes the growth of the party I favour as well.

The Monarchist: The Tipping Point - Part II: The most galling presumption in politics today is the attitude that other parties have to "prove" their ability to be a "national alternative", while the Liberals, regardless of their appalling lack of morality, regardless of the extent of their corruption and misconduct, regardless of their own mediocrity, regardless of their regional dependency on Ontario; don't have to prove a bloody thing."

The "proof" demanded is simply a set of policies that a majority of voters in a majority of ridings can accept, AND the belief that the adoption of these policies is halfway genuine and not a mask for ideologies that people reject.

Let me give you a case in point: SSM. Like it or not, there are people in this country who view it as a matter of civil rights, not a matter to be thrown to the whim of the majority. The CPC position has been even until now, somewhat, um, negative on the issue. So what are these people supposed to do: choose a party that allegedly promises purity but does not accept their position on their civil rights? Or live with a corrupt party that gives a half-way decent chance of recognizing their rights and passing the SSM bill?

Of course, you can say, "vote for the NDP!" But it isn't so easy: if a vote for the NDP means that (assuming the SSM bill is pushed until after an election) a CPC government will come to power, then it would be that much harder to pass the SSM bill.

This is but a single case. There are many other slices. That you aren't willing to address these questions is precisely why the Liberals are easily able to peel away sections of the electorate. That you believe that corruption is the worst possible fate betrays a lack of imagination. You cannot dismiss such "special interest groups". Special interest groups, all together, are the electorate. And they will keep defeating the CPC.

The opportunity in outrage

Walsingham writes a petulant screed objecting to my characterization of his Tipping Point series in the comments to my previous post.  He uses a predictable rhetorical trick to invalidate anything I might say after that (as though it had that effect): assert, wildly, that anything I might say in response is a dishonest twisting of his words, when indeed I am making use of the claims he made to elucidate the character of some common premises used by the most ardent Reformatory adherents.  Naturally, it is all twisting to him!

Nevertheless, in his response, he let slip another component of Reformatory thinking that I think is important to understand.  While I dealt with many of his arguments myself in the comments (a discussion that looks like it would get mired in details anyway...), I'm devoting this post to using his words to emphasize a particular ly important point:

This - you obviously missed it - was the point of my article. If it were remotely possible to believe that the good people of Ontario were, in fact, simply preferring to "see the scoundrels out in their own good time", all would be well. But recent events have demonstrated to me, and to many others, that they are preferring, in fact, to keep the scoundrels in, no matter what - at least when the only remotely credible alternative is a party that has its pedigree in the West.

Here are all the implications of his logic, laid out explicitly, step by step:

1. The Liberals are corrupt.
2. We must strive to get rid of corrupt governments. (So far so good.)
3. To do this we require an alternative.
4. That alternative must be remotely credible. (Tautology, but we'll forget this.)
5. The only remotely credible party is the CPC.  (Two assumptions in one!)
6. More Ontarians plan to vote for the Liberals than for the CPC.
7. Therefore more Ontarians are rejecting the alternative than otherwise. (Follows.)
8. Therefore Ontarians will not get rid of a corrupt government. (Follows.)
9. Therefore Ontarians support corruption. (Alarm bells!)
10. Ontarians must have a reason for rejecting the CPC.  (Sufficiently reasonable that we can accept this as fact.)
11. The CPC has its roots in a Western protest party.
12. Therefore, Ontarians reject it because it's from the West! (Alarm bells!)

The problems naturally begin at number 5, where two assumptions are made.  One we'll let pass, that the CPC is the only alternative.  It's the second-largest party, so we'll say it's reasonable.  The other though, is less benign: that it is credible.  What is inherently credible about it as a governing party?  Of course, this immediately evolves into a policy discussion, which is the point: it's not credible if people don't see its policy positions as honest and credible. 

This undercuts number 9, that Ontarians support corruption: it is quite possible that there simply is no credible alternative.  Which undercuts number 12, that it has in any necessary way anything to do with "the West".  If it is rejected because of policy suspicions, then it cannot be concluded that it is a rejection of the West.

Worse, though, number 12 doesn't follow from number 11, anyway.  Rejection of a Western protest party doesn't necessarily mean that its Westernness has anything to do with the rejection.  So all that previous logic can be discarded on that final illogical conclusion.

So how does this provide an insight into the matter of Reformatory rage?  It shows that their outrage is not pure righteous anger, but also a form of opportunism.  Unable to convince the Ontario voter of the respectability of their policy proposals, for any number of reasons, they make use of the outrage to make it sound like a duty to vote them into office regardless of any discussion about the consequences of their beliefs and designs.  To sneak in a political programme under a scandal. 

There are too many Canadians who genuinely have something to fear from this, and not just in Ontario and the East.  There are too many Canadians who know that the spirit of Reform wasn't extirpated in the new party.   In fact, Walsingham lets this slip as well:

I'd suggest you ask any Albertan how they feel about the NEP, but I know you will not do that. It's easier for you just to cast anything you disagree with as "whining".

He brings the NEP in as an example of a source of Alberta alienation, but this and other aspects of his post are quite telling: the Conservative Party is, to him, a vehicle to address Reform priorities under a different name.  And Reform having being rejected before, it is the duty of Ontarians to accept it now.  Since long-suspected/known evidence of corruption, obviously, must change the entire political, nay, physical landscape and the very colour of the sun itself...

By "opportunism", I mean to include something less ignoble than a conscious attempt at making hay out of unfortunate situations.  I mean to include a "sincere" kind of opportunism based on a blind spot, an inability to see how someone could genuinely have a different set of priorities and a different set of fears, fears for themselves and for society.  Legitimate fears.  It is yet still opportunism (naive on the part of some, though I don't discount malevolence on the part of others entirely) because it seeks to make use of one (apparently) new situation to mask other characteristics that have not changed, often guided by that oft-sincere blind spot.

Unfortunately for them, it is too transparent.  And they have not learned.  And it's a shame, since I hardly love the Liberals and would for a number of reasons by happy to see a real credible alternative emerge.  But apparently not this year.

The flipping point

The Monarchist writes a couple of tedious screeds that generally attempt to build the case for why he suddenly! discovered! Alberta! separatism!  Anyway,  the posts are very long and full of peculiar digressions with a lot of nonsequiturification, and they are followed by the predictable talk-radio me-tooing of his commenters.  So if you don't have any patience for "Tipping Point" and "Tipping Point II: Revenge of the Weenies", the executive summary is as follows: "Ontarians are poopyheads and I don't want to play with poopyheaded people."

But I guess I'll take a moment to examine a particularly delicious non sequitur that, oddly enough, forms the core of his arguments:

The Monarchist: The Tipping Point. With the events of the past two weeks, I have finally come to understand why the American people, whom I so admire, are so despised by so many in Canada. It is because people of principle and courage are bound to be despised by those who can claim neither.

This provides a fundamental insight into the psychology of Reformatory-inclined people.  Principle and courage are equated with, here, with precipitous bravado and tendency to outrage.  Those who prefer to get the job done, to see the scoundrels out in their own good time, and cater to existing need are seen instead as those who despise principle, courage, motherhood, and apple pie.

Lest you think I do a disservice to the actions of the US founding fathers, I only deride this thinking because such people as the Monarchist purport to place that mantle on their shoulders.   The founding fathers of the US republic had grievances an order of magnitude greater than that of the Alberta Aliens.  Their mail was subject to being opened by the agents of the Crown, those who expressed opposition were subject to brutal, brutal repression, and the Crown had a history of attempting to export its religious intolerance to communities that had come to America to flee such things.  They were taxed without representation. 

None of these things can be said to apply to the Alberta, let alone "The West".  None of these things can be said regarding the Liberal Party, whose sins are quite different and far worse than that of Adscam; I never saw their outrage then.  And all of these things expose this line of thinking for the transparent, opportunistic whining that it is.

The vessel needs to be emptied first

Quixotic Kevin has tells us about the Empty Vessel problem for the Reformatories:

Tilting at Windmills - Conservative Electoral Strategy II: On Empty Vessels: Empty Vessels don't win. They don't win because they don't give voters any real reason to support them, and so those voters are easily scared off or lured away. Empty Vessels don't attract voter loyalty.

To defeat an incumbent, a party has to present an agenda for change.
A party that wants to alter the terms of debate will focus on
convincing people of the correctness of its views. A party that wants
to win will try to craft an agenda that appeals to enough voters to
elect a majority of candidates across the country. The first is active
and the second reactive, but they both try to encourage a positive
attachment to the party's message.

If voters don't know how you're going to change things, why would they bother voting for you instead of the incumbent? That is one of the key problems of the Conservative Party today--it has no campaign message other than "vote for us because we're less corrupt, really, you can trust us because we've never been in power".

And to this I would have to say, "Yes and no."  The problem lies with the Reform legacy.  Even if they came out with a plan, people would suspect it. And even when they do come up with a plan, the Reform legacy shines through, as Skippy the Amazing Wonderdog effectively points out.  That Stephen Harper is their leader doesn't help them.  And just take a look at the roll call of the Blogging Tories: where Girl on the Right reflects on her choice in toilet paper. Among other things. 

Of course, not everyone reads blogs.  But enough do to notice and spread the meme.  And as we found out in the last election, they can't help but have wingnut eruptions every so often...I mean, statistically speaking, it's quite difficult to stop; they have so many! 

So they can try to fill that vessel with whatever they like.  But the problem is, everyone suspects that that vessel really is already full.  And by the looks of it, they're probably right.  So the best they can do is pretend to have an Empty Vessel.  And that doesn't work.  They'd do better if they could even show that they actually have an Empty Vessel.  The Liberals can run on an Empty Vessel.  But it doesn't seem in the cards for the Reformatories. And that's a shame, because we really need an electable alternative to the Liberals by about now.

O irony of ironies: the Progressive Conservative Party would have done better about now.  If it weren't, of course, for the Reform legacy blocking them in the West...  Which is, of course, the point.

Conrad Black caught red-handed

A little moment of base schadenfreude.  Nyuk nyuk: 

CTV.ca - Conrad Black returns boxes to Hollinger Inc.: TORONTO — Hollinger Inc. wants an Ontario judge to declare Conrad Black in contempt of court after its former CEO and chairman removed a dozen boxes from Hollinger's downtown Toronto headquarters without permission.

The former media tycoon returned by midday Thursday the boxes that a May 20 security tape showed him removing from the office, which Black has been told to vacate by May 31.

I especially enjoy this picture:

A ghost nation

A little while ago I wrote about misconceptions regarding Québec separatism commonly held in the ROC, particularly about the difference between separatism and sovereignty.  Now I would like to touch briefly on the reverse: misconceptions that Québécois hold about the ROC. 

The first and most important misconception, I think, has to do with the concept of Two Founding Nations.   This emerges in the articles I quoted in the above-linked post.  Now, it is closer to reality to say that Québec is a nation given their definition of nation (which is another matter).  So that part of the Two Founding Nations works.  But the part that doesn't work is the that holds that there is a complementary nation called "English Canada".  Many Québec nationalists (or autonomists) I have discussed with have been sometimes baffled by the Rest of Canada designation, finding it unwieldy for what they think is a simple concept: a cohesive unit of social awareness encompassing the English-speaking parts of the Canadian federation.

Viewing this as Two Founding Nations makes Québec nationalism almost costless, emotionally.  Most Québecois like Canada, and while they do have a much greater identification these days as Québécois, they do have some brand loyalty to Canada, which is why even yes-ists by a good majority would rather stay in a reformed Canada than a separate Québec.  But if they have to take Québec out of Canada, then they'd rather do it knowing that they'll be doing minimal damage.  Time and time again I've heard them talk about how the ROC is a strong nation and that there is nothing to fear from Québec independence aside from obvious short-term consequences.  But it isn't clear that the ROC has as much cohesion as they say without Québec.

The other reason why it is tempting to hew to the Two Founding Nations view is that it justified giving special status and powers to Québec that without giving them to every province (negating the purpose of the project).  This is precisely the rock against which previous attempt to amend the work of 1982 have foundered.  You will never get consent from enough provincial governments to recognize Québec as more special than they are, because every provincial government wants goodies, and wants to be able to use the excuse that Québec gets it as a reason to whine for them.  And, really, populations in Canada outside of Québec are often also unwilling to see themselves as nonspecial...

In truth, the identity that most people in the ROC hold to is that of Canada.  Canada, meaning one that includes an equal Québec.  They don't identify with something that stops at the borders of Québec and restarts after it.  So few ROCians know about Corneille.  That's more a function of economics rather than willingness.  Remove Québec and all bets are off.  There really is no Other Nation for Québec to negotiate with as an equal.  That nation vanished, or it exists at best in Southern/Eastern Ontario.  So a basic premise of Québec nationalism is not well founded in the modern day, and an attempt to negotiate based on a Two Founding Nations concept will always be met with resistance.  Since no one wants to be identified generically as the Other Nation.

SZ strikes again

OK, as usual, SZ at World O'Crap has the funniest posts on bad movies, and she has a truly amazing post up about The Phantom Menace, presumably in honour of the latest member of the trilogy.  This is part of a very long series of bad movie reviews called "Subliminal Cinema" that is apparently a book she and her coauthor, Scott C., are trying to publish.

World O'Crap - Sunday Cinema: Meanwhile, Future-Emperor Palpitation sends his apprentice, Darth Maul (a highly skilled assassin with a weakness for the face-painting booth at the Lions Club fish fry) to kill Slo-Jinn and Obi-Wan. Palpitation and Maul represent the Synth Lords, who have vowed to destroy the Republic with German techno-pop.

Anacin volunteers to pilot his home-built pod racer in an upcoming event in order to raise money for the spark plugs. Pod Racing involves blasting through Zion National Park in a highly polluting hotrod, while drunken, disgruntled fans look up from their 32-ounce beers long enough to take pot shots at you. So basically, it’s NASCAR. Anacin wins the race, and Slo-Jinn wins Ani in a side bet. He tells Mom that he’s taking Ani to teach him the ways of the Jedi. She has his room rented before he’s out the door.

After a brief run-in with Darth Maul, we arrive at planet ChorusGirl, home of the Republican Senate and the worst traffic since 5:30 PM on the Beltway. Queen Amidala wears a hat made of whole ox horns in honor of her appearance before this august assembly. But still no one will help her, so she and the Jedi head for Nanoo-Nanoo, where she seeks an audience with the ruler of the Dungans, a giant toad. When he asks her who she thinks she is, a skinny white girl like her wearing too much blush, she announces that she is Queen Amidala of the Nanoo-Nanoo. Then Padme jumps up and says that SHE is Queen Amidala of the Nanoo-Nanoo. It’s like an extraterrestrial version of "To Tell the Truth." Anyway, one of the queens asks the Dungans to serve as cannon fodder and the King agrees, because he finds his people really annoying too, and hopes they’ll get wiped out.

Read the whole thing.  I was rolling on the floor giggling.  The interview with Lucas at the end was amazing too.

A poignant plea on Ha'aretz

I haven't read Ha'aretz for a while, because the Israel/Palestine endless crisis started to get repetitive for me, though I believe that it is still the most important issue in the Middle East, though totally overshadowed by Iraq, which is spectacular but transient beside the deep-rooted wound of the Holy Land. Anyway, I came across the following article:

Haaretz - Something for everyone - to hate: The left, still arrogant, still innocent, still rudderless and toothless and mute, quietly resents Sharon and questions his intentions. The left gazes from the side as Sharon dismantles settlements in Gaza - something the left could never bring itself to do. It clucks in reservation as Sharon cements Israel's hold on West Bank settlements the left, in theory, wants to cede - and which, in practice, the left for decades only built up.

The left needs to look at itself with honesty. For once.

The right, which in its modern version was invented by Sharon, the right
that once looked to him as Israel's Caesar, has now recast him as its
treacherous Cassius.

The right needs to look at its heritage with honesty. For once.

It's an introspective article about looking honestly at the actual behaviours of the different aspects of the Israeli political spectrum.  I don't totally buy some of the assumptions.  But that's not why I'm linking to it.

Ha'aretz has developed this user forum thing that it attaches to some of its articles.  And there you find a lot of interesting writing (as well as repetitive flamewars) from people who are living it, as opposed to wars between lobbyists like we have on North American boards that discuss the Mideast problems. And this discussion took an interesting turn as it was observed that this entire article---about the pullout---managed never to mention the objects of the endeavour, the Palestinians.  It became a discussion over the very personhood of Palestinians, and Israelis' inability to perceive it.

And so because some of the writing is transient (Ha'aretz articles have a tendency to vanish), I'd like to save a particularly poignant post (this link might expire, but hopefully it won't) by a Palestinian in East Jerusalem named Noor in response to an Israeli named Ronnie:

"Yes we learn different things,and also I can apprciate there can be honour in death,but to take a child give him or her explosives and blow up children,this is not honour,you have been sold something that is the most unreligious thing?????????"

Ronnie, I don`t know a single Palestinian who believes such a thing. We respect all life. There are extremists on both sides, and we consider all to be guilty of murder when they kill innocent Palestinians or Israelis.

No Palestinian mother wants to lose her child, whether at the hands of an Israeli or as a suicide bomber. I too have children and they don`t always listen to what I tell them. If one of them died as a victim of Israeli violence I would be devastated, and if by their own hand I would grieve for my own child and for all the victims of his action. I don`t know a single Palestinian mother or father who feels differently, even though many of them live in the Occupied Territories and have suffered far more than I myself have. I can understand, as I`m sure you can, how it must feel to lose a child or a parent and to feel defenseless and afraid every time your other child goes to school or out to play.

Believe me I`m not justifying anyone who attacks civilians inside Israel, but I wish more Israelis could really understand what it is like to live under such an occupation. Despair can drive people to do terrible things.

Israel always seems to believe it is the victim, because of suicide bombings which I would give anything to have never happened. But in truth Palestinians suffer such violence and more every single day. Israel seems to think revenge is acceptable for them but never for us. I myself don`t believe in revenge for anybody.

When a parent loses a child in war it is rare that they will condemn their child`s actions in public. When an Israeli soldier dies in Palestine, or an American soldier dies in Iraq, all we hear from the parent is pride in their child`s decision to go to war. Perhaps it`s because they need to believe their child died for something. I don`t condone suicide (or homicide) attacks on civilians, but we believe that every killing of a Palestinian by an Israeli soldier or an Israeli settler is an act of terrorism. We don`t understand how anybody can justify violence by Israelis, even when children are targetted, while blaming Palestinians for every violent act they commit.

All we know is that many many more of our children have died from Israeli violence (we call it terrorism) than the other way around.

So we aren`t sold anything. We hear rhetoric, as you hear rhetoric. I have already read quite a bit of zionist rhetoric right here which shows me that many Israelis don`t even recognize our right to live. It is difficult for me to understand that kind of hatred. But I do believe that most Israelis -- most Jews -- are basically the same as most Palestinians. We just want peace for everybody.

US graduate school enrollment

Some small evidence of the importance of keeping a separate international profile, from no less than the Voice of America, a great big booming voice from the Earth indeed:

VOA News - Numbers of Foreign Students Declining at US Universities: Andrew Flagel says, "The number of students who can actually get through the [immigration] visa process in a timely manner and into the United States has diminished dramatically and that has affected our numbers significantly, especially at the graduate level. We are also seeing a decrease in applications from overseas."

This perception that it is hard to study in the US is something that we should avoid transferring over to Canada.  But adopting many of their requirements to placate border paranoia will have this effect.  Other forms of integration will increase this perspective.  But graduate students are extremely productive intellectual labour, and the number of students that come to study in Canada is an indication of how far Canada has shifted from being a resource-extracting economy.  It's not healthy to be a perpetual hewer of wood and carrier of water.

Not getting swallowed

Liberal blogger Vijay Sappani brings up an important point on the way to his wedding (good luck, Vijay! A fellow South Asian is rooting for you):

VijaySappani.com: Canada in India: Most people are shocked to know avout our cultural diversity and think that after 9/11 most visible minorities live in fear. Canada needs to do a lot of marketing in these parts of the world and tell people we are NOT USA! Most of my friends are post grads from top schools in India working in cutting edge techonology and they will be great assest for the ever growing demand for skilled professionals in Canada, but with a image like this we wil never be able to get them.

This is one of the most important economic arguments against "deep integration" into the US.  Certain people, in the Reformish end of the spectrum most spectacularly, but in the back rooms of the Liberal Party as well, shortsightedly see the need to placate America as key to our economic success.  There's no denying that the US, with its proximity and its size, is the most important trading partner.  But is it really wise to hitch our star to that wagon any more than it is already hitched, a wagon that is presently quite obviously in decline? 

Further integration into US systems inevitably entails loss of international perception as a distinct country.  Further 9/11 paranoia as pushed by the Reformish political elements in Canada make us a more closed country.  Worse still, it promotes a vicious cycle of increasing dependence on the US, an increasingly fragile basket in which to put all our eggs.  And it contributes to the impression that Canada is not a good place for "foreigners" to live and work, given the now-tarnished image of America.