 |
| Jody Wilson-Raybould, Photo by Erich Saide, image c/o Wiki Commons. |
&&&&
There is less room for partisanship in our evolving democracy.The thing about the word "partisan" is that it really just means "someone who supports a particular point of view". If you are totally against "partisanship", you are ultimately against basing your politics on anything but immediate expediency. (That's the expressed viewpoint of Donald Trump when he says "he's a "deal maker".) I find it pretty hard to believe that this is what Raybould means. In fact, it's pretty obvious to me that she's a "partisan" in favour of her own particular way of wanting to do politics, as opposed to some other type. Reading between the lines, I might assume that what she means is that she's opposed to party loyalty based exclusively superficial reasons. But I'd suggest that that is not a fair understanding of why the various members of the Liberal party do what they do.
As an independent I will be truly free to take the guidance of the citizens of Vancouver Granville and to represent you. I will not have to try and convince myself that just because the way it has always been done means that it must continue to be done this way.A lot of politicians make noises about "taking the guidance" of the citizens, but that's pretty much an empty slogan. That's because it is enormously difficult and expensive to scientifically poll an entire riding in order to find out what people really do think about an issue. It's certainly not enough to just listen to the people who call your office on the phone, write you emails, or, show up at town halls---all of those avenues are easily manipulated by organized campaigns to sway leaders. As Liz Sandals stated when I interviewed her, she could read letters and emails from constituents where the same few talking points repeatedly came up over and over again---which indicates that they had been organized by some sort of organization (party, church, website, etc) to push a specific agenda. How exactly is listening to these campaigns an improvement over supporting a party's agenda?
Moreover, people's opinions are pretty much worthless unless they are informed. We have lots of folks spewing misinformation like "vaccines cause autism". What if a majority of the phone calls to her constituency office supported a ban on measles vaccination? Would Raybould "take the guidance" of her voters and vote in favour? Or would she follow her conscience and the best evidence that has been presented to her? Isn't part of the problem we face as a society that there are entrenched interests who have learned to effectively use propaganda to get people to do things (like denying climate change) that are objectively not in their own interest?
And that last sentence (I will not have to try and convince myself that just because the way it has always been done means that it must continue to be done this way.) seems to imply that the only reason MPs won't support whatever it is she is proposing is because of some sort of inertia. Does she really believe this? Or is this just another partisan smear---but one that favours her worldview instead of another's?
Before 2015 I'd never been involved in federal or provincial politics and I'd never been a member of a political party. My leadership experience before running to be your MP has been in the indigenous world. Advocating for transformation in the relations with indigenous peoples. As some of you know, in my cultural teachings, we strive to work though consensus. While there are a diversity of views, tensions and challenges, we do not entrench them in political parties. And we often frown on personal ambition.She freely admits that she has absolutely zero experience in parliamentary politics. She hasn't even had a membership in any political party. And yet, she ran and was immediately made the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Then she had a disagreement with the head of her party, and made a big stink over something. She got kicked out of the caucus and now wants to tell all the other politicians how they really should act.
This reminds me of a sort of fundamentalist preacher I used to hear during my childhood in "Jesusland". They used to go on and on about how awful they'd been and all the terrible life choices they'd made before they found Jesus. But now they had him in their hip pocket and they wanted everyone else do what they said they should do---specifically because of their past history of making bad choices. When I heard this, the immediate thing I thought was that it all boiled down to "I made lots of horrible life choices in the past, and now I want you to follow my latest one".
The situation isn't exactly the same. But I am concerned about her reference to "consensus". The thing about that ideal is that it gives enormous power to whomever wants to veto and prevent something from happening, but precious little to anyone who wants to do anything. Moreover, it also involves ferocious battles over who gets to define what the "status quo" is, and what is "innovation" (ie: that thing that is easily vetoed.)
The commitment to consensus, the importance of speaking the truth, and striving to honour and uphold each other. These are the core values of my culture and teachings.The big issue is deciding what exactly "the truth" is, and what does it mean to "honour and uphold each other"?
&&&&
These are the ultimate questions, aren't they? I often meet people who think it is remarkably easy to identify the "truth" of any problem. Generally, if they let me, I find after asking a few questions that they really don't know very much at all. This is what is known as "Socratic questioning", and it's the basis of philosophy and science. (I was dealing with it in my last editorial Truth is a Conversation.)
One of the things you learn by being in a political party (and I was for many years) is that there are a great many different ideas about "the truth" and it is tremendously difficult to create any sort of consensus about what it might be. And if you want to work together as a group towards a common purpose---be it winning an election or preventing runaway climate change---it is tremendously difficult to create a process where everyone feels "honoured" and "upheld".
It's not only a question of people having different points of view, it's also that no matter where you are in the "party food chain", you simply cannot be involved in every decision that directly affects you. The party leadership consists of many people who are all tremendously busy with the demands of government business, party business, dealing with the media, meeting with community leaders, constituents, and, preparing for the next election. And when you do get a chance to bring your concerns to someone, they have to consider how a specific decision will seem to people who don't know what you know, and who live in totally different circumstances. Moreover, all the people you deal with are human beings who get sick, are tired, are under stress, who are carrying baggage from their childhood----who basically make just as many stupid mistakes as everyone else. In fact, being in a political party is much like being in a giant, fractious, crazy family.
You have to have a thick skin and be tremendously aware of the frailties inherent in the human condition to be successful in politics. You also have to learn that "The perfect is the enemy of the good". And the key thing you have to learn is that you cannot work with a group if your bring to it the attitude of "My way or the highway".
If Jody Wilson-Raybould had been involved in the Liberals for any length of time she would realize how incredibly hard it is to "get along" with a huge number of people who have different personal histories, different points of view, and, different life situations. It's not a trivial thing to do. But if you can manage to do it, you are doing something of great importance to society. You are working with an institution that "stitches together" the nation and forges some sort of common worldview that can make things "work". It does this by creating a mechanism where people can get together and make the compromises that are necessary if people are going to live together---not in harmony, but at least without burning the house down. That's why we have political parties.
I don't want to sound too harsh, but in the light of my experience in politics, I couldn't help but think that her entire 15 minute press conference was just a lot of empty verbiage that meant pretty much nothing at all. Indeed, it reminded me of an episode of the sitcom Cheers that I'd seen years ago. I found a scene from it on YouTube. Take a look and see if it rings "true" to you.
&&&&
One last point. Elizabeth May approached Raybould with a suggestion that she join the Green Party. That was, IMHO, a perfectly acceptable solution to both her and Philpott's situation. It is very difficult to get elected as an independent for purely practical reasons. It might seem that the two MPs would find themselves a better "fit" in the Green caucus anyway.
But then May said something in an interview that was absolutely extra-ordinary. She said that she would step aside and let Raybould run for the leadership of the party---presumably with her endorsement. In effect, she was treating the party leadership like her own private possession that she was free to give away to someone else. I mentioned how appalled I was by this at a breakfast meeting and someone immediately piped up and said how hard May works, and how committed she is to the environment. Luckily someone else immediately replied for me by saying that it was possible to be hard working and committed, and still have a tremendously wrong-headed view of leadership at the same time. (That allowed me to keep my powder dry.)
Elizabeth May is also someone who'd never been involved in the Green Party before she became leader. As it transitions away from her being the only elected member of Parliament, I suspect that there are going to be internal battles as something like an "internal culture" begins to grow within the Green Party of Canada. Just remember that this isn't a betrayal of anyone's ideals---it's just a symptom of childhood's end and a movement towards developing an adult point of view. I do, however, wish people would get rid of the "star candidate" complex that parachutes people into high public office with absolutely zero experience in political parties, though.
&&&&
This week I saw a twitter rant from Adam Donaldson about how hard it is to get people to support indie media in the city. He made the perfectly reasonable point that if 1,000 people did a two dollar a month subscription to Guelph Politico, he'd have the sort of financial independence that would allow him cut a great deal of stress out of his life. Indeed, he said he was on the verge of calling it quits because it's so hard to get support from the community. I could say much the same thing. What triggered this was a complaint by someone who missed the good old days of the Guelph Mercury.
Well, I wrote a column for three years at the old Merc, and those days weren't really all that good. And I too get a bit miffed when I hear nostalgic whining about how great it was when a pile of dead trees that had been bled dry by corporate vampires like Conrad Black was delivered to your door every day. For a very long time before it died, it was a dreadful paper. And it cost a great deal more than $2/month too. We have well over 100,000 people in this city. If people had the idea that they need to pay for local news just like anything else, and were willing to pay a trivial amount of money through a Patreon subscription, we'd have a thriving independent local news culture in this city. But you've got to actually do it.
&&&&
Furthermore, I say to you---climate change must be dealt with!
No comments:
Post a Comment