Canada at the Crossroads?

          After the election, back to the Liberals after an unpleasant 10 year cohabitation with the (neo-)Conservatives.

          Times have changed. Justin Trudeau is not his father: he's admitted as much - to his advantage. The last thing he needs is comparison with the past: "big shoes to fill" and all that.. Less still does he need the practices and values of the recent political past, Liberal or Conservative. He needs to have the space to start over again, from ground zero, to think outside the box, to think outside the past..

          The father, Pierre Eliot, was conventionally "progressive" in some areas: decriminalization of homosexuality, promotion of the French language and culture immediately spring to mind. But the legacy is not all postive and the son needs the elbow space to think things anew. For example: Pierre Trudeau accelerated the already emerging trend toward centralization of power in the Prime Minister's (PM) office. Centralization and bureaucratization, of course, emerged as forces during the last few centuries as populations swelled, industrialization destroyed older decentralized, locally autonomous economies and as increasing knowledge and specialization required centralized coordination of effort. Pierre Trudeau was not the author of centralization of power, he merely rode the crest of a wave that was rising. The effect of his government was to make our government more ressemble the American presidental system.

           Harper, in his turn, merely continued the trend but with a populist, vindictive,  mean-spirited edge. Harper took centralization of power into authoritarian micro-management and cultivated a hostile relation with the press reminiscent of authoritarian regimes. His government actively suppressed environmental science and earth scientists who they suspected supported a pro-Climate Change "agenda". In doing so, they weakened some of the major democratic checks on centralized power: freedom of the press, of speech, of opinion, of assembly (footnote 1). One can only refer to as the Paranoid Style in Canadian politics. Anyone who was raised in a Right wing community in the US during the early Cold War years (like yours truly), recognizes that hate and fear driven style of social engineering. Today, one need look no further than Donald Trump in the US Republican primary elections for an example of the (counterproductive) Paranoid Style of politics in practice.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35109350



Here are a few examples of the Harper Government's attempts at social engineering in Canada:

internal blog links (keywords: censorship)

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2012/04/decline-and-fall-of-canadian-science.html 

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2013/03/blow-open-doors-and-let-real-world-in.html 

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2013/04/the-imperial-prime-minister-wither.html 

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/05/canada-new-face-of-authoritarianism.html 

 http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/06/a-little-truth-little-candle.html



           With his evident - and subservient - connection to the "oil patch",  one could argue that under Harper Canada was well on the way to becoming another Petro-State, a state controlled by foreign "extractive industry" companies and investors and their local (bootlicking) clients (note 2).

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/11/book-review-tar-sands-dirty-oil-and.html 



           Again, the important thing to keep in mind is that we are - potentially at least - at the end of an era, the start of a new. The signs are written on the wall for all to see. The reactionary Harper "regime" grew increasingly flat, stale, repetitive, meanspirited and philosophically inbred. "Everybody" felt it, hence the strength of the informal - and citizen driven - ABC (Anyone But Conservative) movement during the last half of the campaign. The country needed a transfusion of new blood, spirit and thought. The challenge of the newly elected Trudeau Liberal team will be to deliver..

           Such collective moods, and reactions, are, of course, "symptomatic". They seem to reflect a deeper malaise of the political system (and the dominant classes, their culture and values). At such times, electors will violently reject one party - like the scandal ridden, morally derelict Chrétien Liberals - for another, the Harper (neo-)Conservatives.

           In time, the Conservatives proved to be as morally derelict and intellectually bankrupt as the Liberals. And now the ball has been hit back into the Liberals' court.. (Not quite.. In reality, the "Third Party", the New Democrats, were possibly set to make a breakthrough under folksy charismatic leader Jack Layton. But the rising star was doomed to fall: Layton died of cancer in August, 2011. The new leader, Thomas Mulcair, a recycled Québec provincial Liberal, was not the match for the challenge. In a desperate attempt to win voters on the center-right of the spectrum, Mulcair waffled all over the board on issues such as budget deficits, green energy, pipelines, gun registration, the wearing of religious symbols in public settings.. saying whatever would please a particular audience. In this age of instant information, people saw through the ruse and his support crashed in the latter phases of the election.)

            The task for the Trudeau team is "daunting". The future economy will be dominated by a shift towards decentralization, deglobalization and relocalization. Despite the present glut of shale oil from the USA, in the long run Peak Oil (the end of really cheap energy) will assure this transition. Trudeau will have to play the role of the helmsman steering this country into unexplored waters. So far he has made the right noises: "green energy", restoring Kitimivik (Canadian domestic Peace Corps), investment in infrastructure, social justice for First Nations, greater political participation by women, freedom of speech for environmental scientists, open door to Syrian war refugees.. During the campaign, Trudeau matured as a politician (possibly a dubious gain!) At the beginning, he was bottom man on the totem pole with New Democrat Tom Mulcair leading. Trudeau proved to be an apt campaigner with a steep learning curve (a good sign). He surprised the pundits, I suspect. Will he prove to be as competent a leader as campaigner? Or will he prove to be a disappointment as Obama has been for so many..

The people must hold the Liberals' feet to the fire.

Trudeau's biggest challenge: decentralization, decentralization, decentralization.. 

 

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8403090612918247270#editor/target=post;postID=989302572390520961;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=1;src=link 

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/05/reclaiming-citizenship-draft-2.html 

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/04/towards-new-citizenship_9.html 

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/03/reclaiming-citizenship.html 



           Above all, as a leader at a time of transition, Trudeau will have to rise above the cant, rhetoric, hollow formulas and rigidified ideology of the "Old Regime". He will need to replace these with a new, open, science based approach to political organization and economic development. Dare we say, he needs to exhibit - or rapidly develop - Wisdom, the ability to view the world from a high place, to grasp the Big Picture and translate that vision into actions that benefit those living today and our children.

 http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2014/08/four-pillars-of-sustainable-economy.html 

 

Edgar Morin: Les Idées, tome IV de La Méthode, Seuil, 1995. My Translation (with slight editing and adaptation):

The difference between theory and ideology / doctrine / dogma

"To recapitulate the elements which oppose doctrine and theory: DOGMA (or doctrine) is closed in on itself, THEORY is relatively open. In both, the (semantic) core resists contradictory evidence but in dogma, internal consistency is the prime directive. In theory, the correspondance between the logic of the theory and the "outside world" is of primary importance. In addition, in dogma the linkages between concepts are extremely rigid (often symbolic or "mythological" in nature). In theory, linkages are of a logical nature. One could say that dogma has a strong "immunological system": it can only accept what confirms the dogma. The theoretical "immunological system" only rejects what is not relevant to its field of investigation.

.. All systems of ideas (ideology, theory, dogma..) tend towards self-closure and self-reference.. However, the fundamental dynamism of science lies in the necessity of a VERDICT, obtained through OBSERVATION or EXPERIMENTATION, which counteracts the tendancy towards DOGMATISATION... At the other end of the spectrum, in the political and social realms, doctrinaire rigidity is the norm, not the exception, and appeal to an external (or objective) verdict is either weak or applied too late.." (One only need think of religious, political or racial ideologues: fundamentalists, climate change "sceptics", neo-nazis, islamophobes..)

notes:

1- The irony here is exquisite! In the early Harper years, Haprper and friends delighted in attacking Commie China for "civil rights abuses" which would include, of course, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, association and opinion. Until, however, the Harper gang discovered there was big money to be made for their corporate friends in trade with China (especially in sale of Alberta tarsands derivatives to oil hungry China). It was a bit weird really.. From being a (red) hot button issue, Chinese civil rights abuses just sort of fell off the radar screen.. and dropped into some black hole..

2- Generally, the "host" government - the one whose natural resources are being extracted - is subservient to the foreign companies (and their governments).

ecological effects of oil spills / Nigeria

 Only Saudi Arabia, which controls a large fraction of the world's oil reserves, has a government with enough clout to dictate (to some degree) it's conditions to its petro-clients. 

Left wing populism in Québec?

             In its desire to promote Québec as a "distinct society" in North America, the governing Parti Québécois (PQ) has sure found a way to stir the pot a bit. A proposed "Charter of Québécois Values" will, if passed in the Assemblée Nationale (Québec City), severely restrict the display of "ostentatious religious symbols" in many public offices and institutions: provincial government offices, universities, colleges, hospitals, day care centers..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/09/11/f-vp-fitz-morris-quebec-charter.html 

             What to make of this? In the old Québec, before the Liberal "Quiet Revolution" of the 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for providing or administrating various social services: education, health, orphanges.. The Quiet Revolution was a wave of modernization and reform which brought the modern liberal welfare state to Québec. The province secularized with a vengeance, religious attendance plummeted, churches were sold off and converted into condos, we became the shack-up capital of North America and among the first in North America to legalize abortion on demand and gay marriage.. Québec separatist sentiments switched from the Right side of the political spectrum to the Left and gained support from the young, relatively affluent, educated Boomers. The PQ held out the promise of a social democratic secular paradise for an independant République du Québec. The sixties and seventies were heady times!

            Under the center Left / moderate Left policies of the PQ, living standards rose. Higher education became accessible to the masses. Literacy levels rose sharply. The salary gap between Anglos and Francos in the Province shrank. Speaking French was no longer a shame or a liability but a point of pride. The downside: it is hard to make a revolution if there is little evidence of the oppression wich feeds revolutionary fervor. Separatist ideologues were reduced to massaging economic statistics to "prove" that Québec would be better off without the Rest of Canada. Federalist ideologues, meanwhile, massaged the same set of states to "prove" it would be better to remain in the Canadian federation. The rise of the neo-con ideology has not helped either: narcissim is hardly compatible with self-sacrifice for the common good..

               Whatever the causes, one has the impression that the separatists movement has stagnated in support for the better part of quarter century, perhaps longer. The PQ can still win elections - they are in a minority government since September 2012 - but few today speak with real conviction of the "Mission": secession from the Canadian union. If they do, it is lip service to a vaguely envisioned Second Coming, not a battle cry to raise the troops.

              Recognizing the existential - and ontological - thiness of their position, the PQ seems to be searching for a means to reconnect with and engage the public. They seem to be searching for relevance, for the old creative spark. They want to return to the days when they could rally the People beneath the Big Tent, before the two defeated referenda (1980, 1995) relegated the independance dream to the dustbin of failed political dreams. One commentator recently observed that the PQ, in the first year of its mandate, tried various themes to revive interest and fighting spirit: the environment, the economy, protection of the French language.. None caught the public's attention for long. To speak truthfully, the PQ did not so much win the last election, rather the public decided to throw out the corrupt provincial Liberals. The PQ "won" by default. The public however, remained unresponsive and somewhat surly toward the new elected PQ who, generally, appeared to waffle and drift aimlessly without a fixed direction. Until now - the proposed charter of values has, at least, the virtue cutting through the apathy.. It is rare, I think, that a proposed piece of legislation manages to offend so many people in so many different ways.
   
             Unfortunately, with the proposed charter of values the PQ seem now to have turned toward populism as a means of currying favor with the electorate. This is a very dangerous move as the racially and ethnically motivated nationalistic movements of the 20th century tragically demonstrated.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-horrific-plight-of-hungarys-roma/278955/

           Many people are honestly confused by the current "secularity" debate in the Province, both its content and its timing. What problem is the charter of values intended to resolve? For example, "reasonable accomodations" with orthodox Jews in the Montréal region have existed forever: zoning regulations variations, for example. Friction arises between communities from time to time but usually blows over in a climate of general tolerance and goodwill.

          The last few decades, though have seen the arrival of increasing numbers of immigrants from non-traditional sources: Vietnamese boat people, Muslims, Haitians, black Africans.. New, more demanding, "reasonable accomodations" were sought with the host community: hospitals found Muslim women refusing examination by male physicians. Worse, in the backlash of 9-11, the Muslim community was stigmatized with the suspicion of haboring terrorists, oppressing women, brainwashing children and - in several notorious cases - carrying our "honor killings" against women who had become too occidental in dress and morals. The background level of latent fear and hostility between communities began to rise.

           Into this increasingly tense situation, the PQ decided to venture with its inflammatory charter of values. Are they cracking open the lid of the box of populist hatred, oblivious to the consequences? - like that Greek gal, Pandora..

 

Justin T elected chief of Liberals - and the negative ad campaign begins

              Justin Trudeau, son of former PM Pierre Trudeau won the leadership of the federal Liberal party, yesterday, sunday, 14 april. Trudeau has a big job ahead of him! Potential liberal voters are splayed across a large part of the political spectrum from moderate left social activists to center right entrepreneurs. He has to avoid splitting the left of center and center vote with the New Democratic Party (NDP). Splitting on the left allowed Steven Harper and his team to win a majority in the last election.

               More challenging, is the negative momentum of the Liberal party in recent decades. The federal Liberals have become a party whose modes and models, whose language and analytical tools appeal to fewer and fewer people. Moderation, tolerance, individual liberty are ideas which move fewer people in these extremely conservative / reactionary times. One need only think of the rise of religiously oriented political parties and groupings around the world, from (?post?-)Arab spring Egypt to "conservative christian" America. Trudeau must somehow reach past the polarization to either recover the soul of the once great "natural ruling party of Canada" or, at the very least, succeed in "rebranding" it for a younger generation so it can compete as a political "brand" against the increasingly strident and activist Right.

               If Trudeau fails in either of these missions, the great old party may very well die as a political force on the federal scene. A more polarized Canada might emerge within a two party system: Conservatives versus the NDP (or whatever their successor - merging the remnants of the Left - choses to call itself). Such a Canada might be unrecognizable to us today. A large segment of the Liberals' right wing - the entrepreneurial sector - would swing over to the Conservatives. The "New Left Party", rallying the center-left forces, would probably radicalize, leaving a narrow, sparsely populated political center, a sort of political no-man's land where few dare to venture. The current climate of emnity and dirty tricks could intensify with unknown consequences. Today, one is justified in asking does a party of the center, like the Liberals traditionally were, have a place in the contemporary political scene?

                    As a person and candidate, Tudeau is engaging, sincere (one of his more endearing qualities), mediagenic and relatively youthful. He is of moderate intelligence and, apparently, a caring father. He makes the right noises on environmental issues. But does he have a vision? A vision of a better Canada in a better world? The reality is: the world is in terrible need of such men and women today. Down deep everyone knows this. 

               Our civilization is hurtling over the edge of an ecological / demographic abyss and we blindly follow madmen who urge us that naysayers are evil (or inspired by Satan himself). They foolishly preach that all we need to do is think of the economy (stupid!) and consume our way out of whatever crisis we happen to be in at the moment. (And we are stupid enough to listen..)

Denis Meadows: the apocalypse draws near

                One can obviously pick bones with Meadows and the Club of Rome regarding their timetable but the principle should be clear enough: you can't consume non-renewable resources at an exponentially increasing rate for very long. You will in short order suffer shortages. As a planet, a world, a species we need to get our population under control: first halt its growth then shrink it (and we must soon - very soon! - wake up to the fact that either we will shrink our global population voluntarily or Mother Nature will impose her harsher birth regulaltion measures: famine, plague and war). We urgently need to place our economic activities (our extraction, transformation, production and consumption of goods and services) on a renewable basis. We must develop and employ renewable energy sources with an emphasis on employing biological processes to do things we now use non-renewable resources for (biological systems are self replicating provided enough food and a conducive environment).

                Yes, so far Justin Trudeau makes the right noises on environmental issues but he has yet to formulate a coherent and mobilizing vision. In terms of Statesmanship, Justin Trudeau is called to put forth a Great Vision, an enobling vision to inspire Canadians to act in concert, as a society, to realize that vision of a Common Good. We might ask for example, what sacrifices would Canadian society be required to make to achieve a viable future for unborn generations? 

                A major role of any leader is to inspire people to make those sacrifices which need to be made for the collective good. Traditionally, these sacrifices have related to times of war, sometimes to economic or other emergencies. Does Mr Trudeau have the royal jelly to inspire people to the degree necessary to effect real change? Or is he merely giving us more yuppie greenwashing to make us feel good, so we can go back to consuming and (increasingly) chasing scapegoats..

                "Time will tell" as the old adage says. Mr Trudeau has, perhaps, several years to prove his worth as party chief for this challenging time.

                 An interesting side note: dirty tricks are starting early in the Conservative Camp.

dirty tricks start early!

                  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!  These guys have no shame. Consider. Mr Harper has installed a minister of science who, ostensibly, is a creationist. For those of us who think that, generally, creationism is bad science this is not good, not good.. 

Is this a creationist speaking??

                  And then there is the question of Mr Harper's intellectual honesty (or sanity!) which he himself managed to call into question with the following farcical position:

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,"

too weird for me to invent (do people BELIEVE this??)

                 And, of course, there is the long standing robocall scandal: during the last federal election, on voting day, non-conservative voters in several parts of the country received fraudulent calls, purporting to come from Elections Canada workers, telling them to change their voting station. This made for inconvenience and some people did not vote as a result (seniors with limited mobility, for example). While the robocalls scandal has not received the coverage - and angry action! - it deserves, some charges have been laid at the feet of a scapegoated underling.

Sona doesn't like being hung out to dry..

                                       Maybe - when you stop to think about it - it DOES make sense that these people would resort to dirty tricks so readily..