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.

Comments

[Idealistic Pragmatist]

Smart and well-argued. Very well done.

[Andrew]

A well argued post - nice job. Although I lean to the right I thought the Tipping Point post missed the mark by a large margin.

I think the CPC *can* make themselves into a credible alternative to the natural governing party, however they have to actually talk policy instead of practicing "empty vessel politics" (as explained over at Tilting at Windmills).

[buckets]

I think an important point that Monarchist is missing--implicit in #5--is about where parties sit on the ideological spectrum. The liberals bestride the Canadian center capturing the sweet spot of the ideological bell curve. If people who sit in that centre swell want to abandon the Liberals they have to move away from their ideological comfort level. But if they are going to move, why right instead of left? Shouldn't rising support for the NDP (another Western party, btw) count?

[kakola]

Thirty years ago in Northern Ontario, I attempted to argue a political point. I got the cold shoulder, not because my argument was wrong, not because they didn't agree, not because they couldn't see that Trudeaupian policies would eventually destroy the country. I got the cold shoulder because I was arguing against Liberal policies in "Mr Pearson's Riding".
It's taken half my lifetime, but finally I see that a growing number of non-Ontarians, and maybe one or two Ontarians too, are finally recognizing the folly of Liberal "whatever gets us elected" policies.

[Mandos]

I got over most Liberal behaviours long ago. And I've found a political programme that I can live with, in the NDP. And the NDP is not going to form government any time soon, realistically, although Jack's personal popularity seems to be higher than everyone else's.

But it's not enough to point out Liberal flaws. You have to demonstrate you have an agenda people can live with. It has not been done.

[verbatim]

A terrific post, Mandos. It is true that many Conservatives simply cannot imagine that their party and its policies are unappealing even in the face of the Adscam scandal. What's interesting is that they consistently claim that only the left wing "doesn't listen to the voters." Clearly they have their fingers in their ears.

[Derrell]

"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."

The rejection of the westeren protest party was because of it's policies, those policies are what makes us what we are here in the west. Rejection of the party and policies is therefore a rejection of westerners. Imagine if the tables were turned and the majority of seats were in the west and we elected the goverment of our choice, and any suggestions that came from the east were rejected as "scary" and were ignored. Wouldn't the east feel left out, and feel like leaving?