The series of discussions continues with Walsingham's latest response. He's changed his mind and wants to talk, so I am going to try to oblige him. Actually, a great deal of discussion has already happened on The Monarchist, but I am going to deal with some of the salient points here once again. (Note to Progressive Bloggers: alas, the aggregator doesn't manage to mark of the blockquotes, so you'll have to read my site to figure out for sure what is mine and what is his.)
You should ask yourself whether you are in this discussion to influence an opponent, or just to pander to your own crowd, by repeating to yourself and to them what you already think – and in the process heaping a pleasurable dose of ridicule and S&S on the other camp. If the latter, excuse me for not wanting to hear it – and you can call me petulant all day long. But if it is the former, let me suggest that you are going about it the wrong way. Tensions are running hot and feelings are running high these days, Mandos, and S&S is not the way to walk into a meaningful debate with people who do not share your views. If my reaction to you was hostile out of the gate, I will be man enough to apologize for any portion of that hostility that was objectively uncalled for.
As I said in your comments section, I did not actually expect you to respond, since my audience so far has been almost exclusively people who basically agree with me. However, it seems to have become my stock in trade to try to make others on my side of the aisle aware of the underlying logic and thinking of our political opponents, as well as other partially orthogonal political streams. Naturally, the portrayal is going to look, sometimes, unflattering to you. However, if you want to see real ridicule in action, check out SZ and her fellow-travellers, but they are writing in an American context (though the owner of Sadly, No! is a Canadian). I also had early training from the writings of Linda McQuaig.
However, for what it's worth, I did not intend to offend you in that manner and I apologize if I did.
However, I was hostile because I've encountered your flavour of S&S as the starting point of rebuttal, by people of your political stripe, too often to greet it with equanimity. S&S is too clearly and unfortunately the preferred style for too many left-wing politicos, bloggers and debaters; and yes, it pushes buttons with my crowd. I have no doubt this is why it has become the preferred style for much of your camp. But it remains uncivil, impolite and not conducive to any dialogue other than preaching to the converted.
Let me put it this way: we can go back and forth on who is meaner, but the vitriol and abuse I've observed from members of your camp are often far more threatening and disturbing than the cutting remarks that we use. Not only that, but there are plenty of conservative web sites that employ a massive amount of snark. So this categorization does not ring true to me.
It may be true that we use "S&S" more. This is usually to point out abundant absurdities and logical contradictions...
You’ve said that I was civil with Sinister Thoughts because he copped to my arguments. Actually I was civil with him because he and I have agreed to be civil with each other. Following an initial exchange of hostility for S&S, we both realized that we were attempting to do more here than pander to our own egos and preach to our own converted, and that civility would serve our purpose better. In that earlier discussion, he moved not one iota toward my position. So the accusation you level at him is quite unjustified.
What raised my hackles about his post were the words "no permanent disenfranchisement." However, I am perhaps reading too much into his intentions.
5. More Ontarians plan to vote for the Liberals than for the CPC.
6. Therefore most Ontarians consider – for whatever reason – the CPC to be a less palatable – a less “credible” - alternative than the Liberals, despite the Liberals’ corruption.
7. There is therefore a strong disconnect between Western Canada and Ontario – and that disconnect is now, suddenly, more obvious than ever.
I think this is an excessively flattering characterization of your own arguments. Here you present this as a simple conflict of worldviews. Previously, you presented it in terms of moral deficiency of one side and its tantamount-to-abusive behaviour regarding the other. Much of my arguments and objections to your view at the beginning of the debate stem from your mischaracterization of motives. If it is a real disconnect, and it is a fact that there is a complete worldview generally shared in the West that you also share, then there may be a case for Western sovereigntism. But that isn't the context of this discussion.
1. The CPC should evolve to become more palatable to Ontarians. Since most Western Canadians find it acceptable - indeed, perfect - the way it is, such an evolution runs the risk – and let's face it, this is exactly what will happen – of making the CPC less palatable to Western Canadians.
2. Ontarians should change their views and come to like the CPC the way it is.
3. Someone should develop an alternative to the CPC and the Liberals that everybody could love.
To me this is a false...trichotomy? Again, for reasons I've delineated in the comments of your blog. But furthermore, let us look at history: the Reform Party germinated and took root in parts of Alberta, but it gained in popularity in other parts of the West that had no strong tradition of support for its initial (and continuing) programme, or at the very least had somewhat different political cultures; I think, for instance, most British Columbians would object to any claim that their political culture can easily be compared to that of Alberta.
There are lots of reasons why people support political parties, and often it cannot directly be discerned from such parties' programmes. I think that one aspect of the Reform presentation (Manning's populism) did strike a chord throughout the West. In the person of Stephen Harper, though, this populist presentation is distinctly more muted. But the momentum of the party as a protest vote is not, and in some ways quite understandably so.
By the same token, votes for the Liberal Party do not mean that the voters like the Liberals. It is just that they do not see the CPC or the NDP as alternatives. Sovereigntism and Bloc-voting are likewise also not fully correlated in Québec. I suspect that the only party where a truly thorough correlation between subscription to the programme and voting for the party exists is the NDP, which is probably also why they have so few seats...
To suggest that (1) should either be preferred to (2), or that (1) is more natural and/or less problematic than (2) – which is clearly the underlying theme of your rebuttals – implies either that the views of Western Canadians are somehow less valid than those of Ontarians, and/or that there is no alternative to (1)-(3) – i.e., that there cannot exist an alternative (4), to be discovered, that would allow the machinery of life to move forward, despite a permanent divergence of Ontarian and Western Canadian views.
First of all, I do indeed consider some viewpoints to be less valid because views have consequences if applied in practice, and some of these consequences have the potential to be adverse.
In a country as large as Canada, motives shift and interests shift and views shift over time. You presuppose the divergence is permanent. If we are to be a country then we will have to live with the fact that there will be times when there are parts of the country that are dissatisfied with the direction of the union. Some of these parts may drift back; while I do not expect them largely to endorse the Liberals (nor, really, want them to), there are signs that BC is drifting back towards the mean in Canadian politics, for example.
You obviously harbour a very deep antipathy toward what you call the “Reformatory” mindset – there is much in your commentary along the lines of: “ah-hah: note this window into the psychology of the Reformatory mind – those devious/opportunistic/dishonest devils”. (Sorry, I did say I was going to drop the sarcasm and be civil). So why wouldn’t you be content to just let them go?
So I believe that there are genuine grievances that parts of the West have had, are having, and will have. The birth of my preferred choice in parties, the NDP, happened for that very reason. But I believe the birth and growth of the Reform movement was deeply misguided for a number of reasons, and it responded to the wrong needs with the wrong solutions. I consider its organ, the National Post, to have attempted to encourage the growth of its worldview using the worst forms of misrepresentation and slander. I consider its sense, for many years, of entitlement to votes, and its scolding tone when it didn't get them, to be appalling. These are some of the sources of my antipathy to them.
In the unlikely event that you could get even 50% of even Alberta voters lined up for sovereignty, I cannot but say, "Go, then." However, I don't believe that more than 50% of Albertans are incorrigible supporters of CPC policy.
I will leave you with this tonight and post the remainder of my response tomorrow for the benefit of you and my other readers.
Comments