I watched the Democratic convention from a cottage up north with my old friend Romir, a multitalented man (from energy economics to flycasting to fine Indian cooking). He grew up in India and has lived mostly in the United States. Back in the day, which would be the 1960s, we considered ourselves Maoists. As the speeches droned, I asked what he feels went wrong with that kind of leadership. He said he thinks Mao was a fine tactician when it came to gaining power but was of a time that thought social problems such as inequality, which his politics was about, had clear, discoverable solutions, much as you’d find an equation in math or the right way to clear a clogged drain.

But social (and individual) issues aren’t really problems in search of solutions; they belong to our existential condition, they’re matters to be struggled with but never fully resolved. If you insist on “solubility,” and try to force it, you can do vast damage, as you can to a drain, but worse.

Cut to the convention, where you don’t get risky solutions, just oceans of vapid rhetoric. Keynote speaker Mark Warner: “We need a president who understands the world today, the future we seek, and the change we need.” Or empty promises. Running mate Joe Biden: “Barack Obama will bring down health care costs … and, at long last, deliver affordable, accessible health care for all.” Or vacuous punditry: “U.S. elections are about the future.” Most of all, what you get is “stories.” Mark Warner and Joe Biden told theirs, Michelle Obama told Barack’s.

At least stories contain a human component versus the pseudo-science of the old politics. But which stories and which parts? Do you want a leader with a happy family story or one who survived an awful childhood story? Which would make for a better leader? Everything about political leadership, when you consider it, is murky.

Canada is an especially odd case. Stephen Harper is set to call an election not because he knows where he wants to take us. As Liberal Leader Stephane Dion notes, he offers no clear agenda. He is calling this election, he admits, solely because he knows what the Liberals, who aren’t in power, would do in order to stop him. This is leadership based on the unbearable thought of others leading. Harper alter ego Tom Flanagan says the “long-term” Harper strategy is to “destroy” the Liberal Party, which, I repeat, is not in power. Since he knows most Canadians won’t support his vision, which would be saleable in the U.S., he’s reduced to undermining what Canadians do want. It sounds twisted, but it’s a pretty good, even tragic, “story.” He is risking the power he has but cannot really use in order to forestall others.

Maybe the best leadership would be no leadership, sometimes known as anarchism. This week, I also spoke to a writer and media prof in Texas who’d heard about a lawsuit filed by CanWest against B.C. academic Mordecai Briemberg because he handed out a parody of The Vancouver Sun. (It ridiculed its automatic, pro-Israel coverage.) Where’s the outrage? said the Texan. Down here, our entire media world would be fighting for free speech. I said we value free speech, too, though not in the epic U.S. manner. Even our constitutional right to it is conditional. Wanting not to seem too politically wussy, I added: “On the other hand, we have universal health care.” It was the best I could do on the spot.

It’s true we were led into the world of medicare, mainly by the NDP’s Tommy Douglas. But, in recent decades, almost no one from the political elites has supported it. They all say it has to go in its current form. Only the people themselves insist it continue, and they’ve prevailed so far despite their leaders. Leaderless-ship, you could call it, and it’s worked. Canadians as anarchists? Now there’s a rich political thought.

rick_salutin_small_24_1_1_1_1_0

Rick Salutin

Rick Salutin is a Canadian novelist, playwright and critic. He is a strong advocate of left wing causes and writes a regular column in the Toronto Star.