I used to get into a black/white rut in my thinking almost by default. I still do, sometimes, find myself arguing one side of a story without even pausing to consider there just might be an opposing viewpoint (or seven of 'em) with some merit. This is one area among many that my wife has really helped me with. There ain't much black or white in her world. She can argue seven sides of anything, so convincingly it's often hard to determine what she really believes herself. Which isn't to say she's wishy-washy or a waffler: she has strong opinions on many things, and if you pin her down she won't hesitate to let you know what they are. But even then you're apt to get a different perspective on whatever issue you're debating.
Take abortion as a for-instance. A ways back I recall asking Eva if she was pro-choice or pro-life, then goggling a little when she said "both".
Ah, the dichotomy that is Eva, I thought to myself. I've learned to cherish these opposites in my wife: they lend her untold depth. But Jesus, they're frustrating every once in a while. Like now. How the hell can you be 'both', love? Nobody's 'both'. To borrow a Bushism, you're either with us or agin us.
I think my confusion and consternation must have shown on my face, or something, because she explained herself. She's very much pro-life personally, she said. That was a choice she'd made, to be pro-life. And she would never expect or require any other woman to make the same choice.
Oh, there are nuances a-plenty beyond that statement, of course. She doesn't like the idea of abortion as casual contraception, but points out that almost no woman treats it that way. Having--or not having--an abortion is possibly the most agonizing decision a woman can make. But either decision is a choice...something I personally think the most ardent pro-lifer would do well to keep in mind.
In that dichotomous spirit, I like to troll wander through the intergarden of extremism, dropping seeds of dissention wherever the general thrust of debate is leaning too far one way or the other. Which it usually does: there are moderates on the 'Net, but they're often drowned out in a sea of rancorous, at-times incoherent shouting.
The comment threads on cbc.ca are a case in point. Pick a story, any story. Don't read the story--at least half the people obviously don't--just page down to the bottom of it and dive in to the comments. If it's a disaster story, I'll bet you better than even money you'll learn that George Bush and Stephen Harper were jointly responsible for it. (You'll further learn that George Bush and Stephen Harper are, in fact, the same person.) If it's one of those rare good-news stories, you'll learn how it happened despite George W. Harper's best efforts.
That kind of knee-jerk spewage disgusts me. Both sides of the political spectrum indulge in it, which makes it doubly unappealing. It's almost as if every issue has to be a war: each side digs its trenches and lobs tired, outstripped Five-Nines at the other. Whenever I find that kind of poisonous thinking now, I like to shake it up a little, if only to convince myself I'm not stuck in my narrow rut.
So here we stand on the edge of a Canadian election that will be completely overwhelmed by the ongoing American campaign.
That's if it happens at all. Most people, even most Canadians, are not aware that Harper as Prime Minister does not have the power to dissolve Parliament and plunge us into an election on his own. He must go cap in hand to our Governor-General, the Queen's representative in Canada, and ask her to do it for him.
And she could say no. In fact, some say she has a duty to say no: in seeking this election, Harper is violating a law he himself created to keep governments from calling elections for purely political purposes.
Here's the thing that gets me, though: on the CBC's website--where, remember, Stephen Harper is the walking, talking antichrist--on one hand, people make no bones about how badly they want to turf the guy...but on the other hand criticize him mercilessly for trying like hell to give them the opportunity!
You can't have it both ways, folks. Either you like this government enough to let it last until its scheduled expiration date of October 2009...or you welcome the chance to elect Stephane Dion.
I'm considerably less keen on Harper than I used to be. His government, despite an array of petty scandals, has been relatively clean, at least in comparison to the Liberal regime that preceded him...but his autocratic, controlling nature has really worn thin on me. I do admire his political acumen, though, and expect it to translate into an increased minority if not an outright majority. I'd love to see a Conservative majority just so I could watch the CBC website go berserk.
Even the people who think Harper's evil concede he's not stupid. The Liberals have fearmongered about a Conservative "hidden agenda" ever since he appeared on the scene, and the fearmongering has worked to at least some degree every time. So Harper's gone to great pains not to say the word "Conservative" this cycle. He heads "Canada's New Government." His ministers can almost be said not to exist: certainly everything they say gets vetted by the PMO first. Harper's doing what Paul Martin only aspired to do: he's micromanaging an entire government all by himself. And his minority's lasted--admittedly, with Dion's enthusiastic co-operation--about twice as long as Martin's did. I'm still not sure how he does it.
Every election ad focuses on Harper vs. Dion, as if neither represents a government. This is tactically sound, because whatever misgivings people have about Stephen Harper (and there are plenty), there are double for Dion. The Conservatives have very successfully characterized Dion's carbon tax as a political gang-rape, and they chuckle in glee every time Dion opens his mouth: he sounds like Chretien crossed with Kermit the Frog.
Put this down for prediction number one: Harper is calling this election because he thinks he can win it. I think he's right.
Prediction number two--which I made on April 16 and will reiterate here: John McCain will win the American presidential race. For much the same reason, actually: neither Canadians nor Americans particularly enjoy being lectured to by elites, nor being told how to think. The Democrats and Liberals are famous for that, and their scrupulously politically correct messages just wash over the Great Unwashed.
I hate to come back to Sarah Palin, but I'm in awe of the political genius behind the seemingly insane move of picking her for veep. Sarah Palin is Middle America. While Obama orates and speechifies, she makes her pitbull with lipstick crack and endears herself to a good half the country. You look at Palin, you know what you get. Same with McCain, actually. Obama? People have been looking at him closely for over a year now and they still don't really know him. If I'm a Democrat, that worries me mightily. The Dems oughta be looking for somebody that gives off that strong all-American down-a-beer-with-the-boys vibe. Obama, for all his smarts, doesn't have it. Hillary tried--hell, she tried every vibe there was there for a while--but she ain't got it either.
Harper has that policy wonk glaze, but he looks like he might drink beer, and he loves hockey. Dion looks like your university professor, the one who had students snoring in major triads. Issues: who cares? The persona's the thing.
We don't like to be reminded of that, of course--that we vote for people not because of where they stand on this or that, but because we can empathize with them. It seems so shallow. But we're a couple of shallow countries, the U.S. and Canada. We claim to value intelligence, but the nerdy kids are still bullied and when they grow up and go into politics, we praise their geekiness to their face and then, when nobody's looking, vote for the other guy. It'll happen this year twice. You wait and see.
No comments:
Post a Comment