continued from here
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/there-grand-unifying-issue
Issues, issues, whose got grand unifying issues?
Sat, 2009-09-12 13:22
#1
remind
Issues, issues, whose got grand unifying issues?
Sat, 2009-09-12 14:29
#2
For me, the GUI can also be described at The Golden Rule -- whatever the issue, does it meet the test of treating others the way I would like to be treated? Whether it's the environment (others=nature and future generations), sexism, homophobia, social programs, schools, health care, pensions, seniors...you name it, if the response results in treating others the way I would be treated were I in their shoes, that's where the GUI is for me.
"What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all." -- JS Woodsworth
Sat, 2009-09-12 15:31
#3
M. Spector
The Golden Rule only works on a certain level - mainly interpersonal morality.
As a political principle in a world riven with class distinctions and conflicts between oppressors and oppressed, it is not a useful guide to political action. Class struggle inevitably involves conflicts and conflicts are by definition anathema to the Golden Rule.
Sometimes in self-defence or to overcome oppression it is necessary to do unto others things that we would not want done to ourselves. That is not a matter to be regretted; it is in fact the only way that the human race has ever moved forward throughout history.
Sat, 2009-09-12 15:51
#4
I don't agree, M. Spector. There is no reason why legislation or policy can't be implemented that does support people and the environment, with a recognition of class distinctions between oppressors and oppressed, which result in conflict, without resorting to violence. Conflict is OK...and we need to figure out how to deal with it in ways that don't result in the oppressed becoming the oppressors, which is what seems to happen unless respect, care for one another and for our environment become the underpining of society.
I'm also not sure that you're right regarding the only way the human race has ever "moved forward". Although we have all sorts of new technology, and we know a lot more science, we aren't advancing the well-being of each other very well. We've tried the violent approaoch (which is what I'm reading into your post but please clarify if you mean otherwise), and yet, the vast majority of people are still living under the thumb of oppression.
Sat, 2009-09-12 17:28
#5
Sometimes in self-defence or to overcome oppression it is necessary to do unto others things that we would not want done to ourselves. That is not a matter to be regretted; it is in fact the only way that the human race has ever moved forward throughout history.
Surely you've heard of the "tit for tat" theory of human behavior; Do unto others before they do unto you, Do onto others as you would have others do unto you, and Do unto others as they have done unto you in the past. It's all part of game theory, and the classic prisoner's dillema is all wrapped up in it. I used to know more about this, but alas it's been years since I did reading on it.
Your last sentence seems to encapsulate do unto others as they have done unto you in the past. Which, turns out to be the winning strategy when it's gamed out against the others.
That all being said, I think Loretta hits on something profound, at least in terms of how we relate to others who come to a common cause from different perspectives. To make it work, everyone really has to treat each other the way you'd want your faction to be treated; and the only way to get there is in their shoes.
Sat, 2009-09-12 18:31
#6
remind
Perhaps though we do not want to admiit it, mspector is correct.People only learn when faced with that, that they impose upon others. Or at least that is my paraphrasing of what I got from his words.
As, I keep thinking back to that poll last month, where Canadians, thought the NDP, was more trustworthy worthy, nicer, more empathetic and understanding of what Canadians want. While at the same time believe the NDP cannot govern.
So...apparently the majority of Canadians feel it is accceptable for the Libs and the Cons, to be dirty, stealing cheaters, who cannot be trusted, with Canadians lives and tax dollars, and that they somehow see this negative being as good governance attributes too, as they keep voting them in.
Sat, 2009-09-12 18:59
#7
That makes my point, remind. If people felt that we should be treating others the way we would be treated, they wouldn't be voting Liberal or Conservative. To my mind, they are voting purely on the basis of selfishness and they're influenced into delusion about who can give them the best deal (the most services and the least taxes). It's greed-based rather than based on respect and care.
Sat, 2009-09-12 19:11
#8
remind
Ok, then I agree completely, but how does one turn that around?
One has to sell kindness and compassion as strength. And as meeting all their/our "needs". In order to break that delusion.
Sat, 2009-09-12 19:20
#9
Perhaps when their material conditions deteriorate to the point where they understand the message again? (if they don't go fascist in the interim). That's a historical route to understanding.
Sat, 2009-09-12 19:57
#10
Ok, then I agree completely, but how does one turn that around? One has to sell kindness and compassion as strength. And as meeting all their/our "needs". In order to break that delusion.
Indeed...well, it's a tough sell in these times of the oppressors perpetrating paranoia for their self-interest. But, I think it can be done and, in fact, is done to some degree. The foundation of our health care system comes out of that as most people want it there when they need it or when a friend or family member needs it. (Most of those who are working for privatized health care are either proponents of big business or those who can pay the full shot themselves.)
We need to stop buying messages where "might makes right" and turn them around, in my opinion.
Sat, 2009-09-12 21:47
#11
M. Spector
I don't agree, M. Spector. There is no reason why legislation or policy can't be implemented that does support people and the environment, with a recognition of class distinctions between oppressors and oppressed, which result in conflict, without resorting to violence.
I don't advocate violence. The source of violence in society is the state and the oppressive classes that use the state to achieve their own ends. I do believe in self-defence - specifically the organized self-defence of the oppressed and exploited against the violence of the exploiters.
Legislation or policy that [b]truly[/b] supports people and the environment will inevitably curtail the privileges of those who profit from the destruction of people and the environment, causing them to lose money and possibly go out of business. That's not the Golden Rule in operation, now, is it? And I say "inevitably" because the exploitation of labour and the fruits of nature are embedded in the DNA of capitalism - it is the source of its profits, without which the system would collapse. And before they allow their system to collapse, the capitalists will use every means at their disposal, including the massive power of the state, to defend their right to continue exploiting and plundering the earth and its people.
Conflict is OK...and we need to figure out how to deal with it in ways that don't result in the oppressed becoming the oppressors, which is what seems to happen unless respect, care for one another and for our environment become the underpining of society.
When have the oppressed ever become the oppressors? Never.
Perhaps we should spend a little less time worrying about protecting the delicate sensibilities of the oppressors and a little more time worrying about how we are going to rid the planet of them. Capitalism is not in the business of respect and caring for people and the environment; quite the opposite, in fact. A society based on such principles cannot exist without the abolition of capitalism.
I'm also not sure that you're right regarding the only way the human race has ever "moved forward". Although we have all sorts of new technology, and we know a lot more science, we aren't advancing the well-being of each other very well. We've tried the violent approaoch (which is what I'm reading into your post but please clarify if you mean otherwise), and yet, the vast majority of people are still living under the thumb of oppression.
The human race has moved forward by struggle against exploitation. Sometimes this means bringing about a revolutionary change in the way humans organize economic production and society. These changes do not happen by application of the Golden Rule. The violence of the oppressors must be overcome in each case. It will not be overcome by asking them to abide by the Golden Rule.
Creating a society that functions according to the Golden Rule - a society with no oppression, exploitation, or class differences - is a noble and worthy goal, and one that I share. But to believe that we can get there from here by means of observing the Golden Rule is sheer utopianism.
Sat, 2009-09-12 22:35
#12
I think Loretta's posts demonstrate perception, sensitivity and intelligence.
What she's describing is a non-zero sum -- or constant-sum -- approach. It's the antithesis to the antagonistic "us and them, winner... and losers" game we play now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum
Robert Wright has written a good book "Non-Zero" -- http://www.nonzero.org/
Treading this path tends to take one in the direction of new-age feel-good mysticism and motherhood but that's not really a bad direction to head from where we are now.
The thing of it is this mindset is the solution the GUI --the Great Problem of our generation if not our civilization, our unsustainable eco-economy. It's a profound problem with dire consequences and the solutions are so basic that they might seem trite on first blush.
They aren't.
Sat, 2009-09-12 23:37
#13
skeiskeid, thanks. M. Spector, there are lots of examples of the oppressed becoming oppressors - we see the government in South Africa taking on the mantle of capitalism, the Soviet Union was made up of those who had been oppressed becoming powerful and subjugating others -- power, however it comes, leads to oppression. The winner-loser paradigm sets it up to be ever thus whereas my view is that treating others the way I would like to be treated means that the changes that results is less tramatic and likely to be more durable.
Yes, it's true that those with power won't want to give it up and it's fair to resist oppression but that doesn't negate the Golden Rule. Ultimately, the test for me is whether or not I would want to be treated in a certain manner -- if I resist without violence, that falls within my interpretation.
In the larger picture, the test still applies -- if I personally don't resist oppression (capitalism, sexism, homophobia), then the result is someone being treated in a way that I wouldn't want to be treated. If, collectively, we resist (non-violently) the ultimate end is a place where we all live with dignity and respect, and we'll have used peaceful means to get there.
Sat, 2009-09-12 23:37
#14
skeiskeid, thanks. M. Spector, there are lots of examples of the oppressed becoming oppressors - we see the government in South Africa taking on the mantle of capitalism, the Soviet Union was made up of those who had been oppressed becoming powerful and subjugating others -- power, however it comes, leads to oppression. The winner-loser paradigm sets it up to be ever thus whereas my view is that treating others the way I would like to be treated means that the change that results is less tramatic and likely to be more durable.
Yes, it's true that those with power won't want to give it up and it's fair to resist oppression but that doesn't negate the Golden Rule. Ultimately, the test for me is whether or not I would want to be treated in a certain manner -- if I resist without violence, that falls within my interpretation.
In the larger picture, the test still applies -- if I personally don't resist oppression (capitalism, sexism, homophobia), then the result is someone being treated in a way that I wouldn't want to be treated. If, collectively, we resist (non-violently) the ultimate end is a place where we all live with dignity and respect, and we'll have used peaceful means to get there.
Sun, 2009-09-13 00:33
#15
M. Spector
M. Spector, there are lots of examples of the oppressed becoming oppressors - we see the government in South Africa taking on the mantle of capitalism, the Soviet Union was made up of those who had been oppressed becoming powerful and subjugating others -- power, however it comes, leads to oppression.
The oppressed in both those examples remained the same people before and after their respective social changes. Joseph Stalin was never one of the oppressed.
The winner-loser paradigm sets it up to be ever thus whereas my view is that treating others the way I would like to be treated means that the changes that results is less tramatic and likely to be more durable.
You are assuming that [b]any[/b] real changes would result! There is no evidence in history, or in social or political theory, that real change can be brought about in that manner.
In the end, you cannot get around the problem that conflicting social and economic interests cannot be overcome by one side unilaterally adopting a Golden Rule approach. Which probably explains why nobody at all anywhere in the world actually uses it as a political strategy.
Sun, 2009-09-13 06:49
#16
The problem I would see, from outside the box, is that most of this thread is just a somewhat pointless discussion of 'For what shall we petition the master?' (couple of honorable exceptions, i.e. earlier someone said we have to tackle Capitalism, which is facing the enemy directly, which certainly is true and useful)... Petitioning the master, as the people in 'democracies' have been doing since the scam was invented, is not 'democracy'. Thus, it would appear to me, If there is to be a 'Grand Unifying Idea' of any sort, then it MUST begin with Democracy. If we had real democracy of some sort, we wouldn't be petitioning the master for another bowl, sir, we'd just get together in meetings of our own (the process is not difficult in theory, although would certainly be difficult to implement for various reasons, but that's not the point of this post) - talk things over fully and openly, and do what most of us wanted to do. Democratically.
Turning the light on in the corner where this elephant has been sitting with people determinedly refusing to look opens quite a few doors. First, we have to quit pretending what we have here is 'democracy' - you can't solve any problem if your input is faulty, if your basic premises are incorrect, and apparently one of the premises of this thread (and much else of what goes on in 'progressive' circles, with a completely predictable lack of rresults) is that we live in a democracy, thus we just need to rearrange the chairs somehow and march on to a better day. Actually, everyone will just continue marching in circles in the box, according to most of this discussion, as the rulers get on with running things as they always have. One of the most puzzling things of all, to those of us outside the box, is why so few people seem to understand this.
If Canada was a 'democracy', whose policies were shaped by the actual will of the people, we would not, for instance, be spending huge amounts of money hassling and persecuting and jailing etc people who smoked pot - most Canadians actually have done or continue to do this (not I, actually, I prefer liquid recreational chemicals, but I have no objections to it), and do not think we should be criminalizing these people or wasting this money, but it is a powerful tool for the masters (cops, jails, surveillance, etc), and they aren't going to be changing it soon. Or if this was a 'democracy', the extremely important 'free trade' constitutional changes which began in 1988 and continue would never have happened - no democracy based on one citizen one vote would have turned control of their country over to corporate lawyers, as our bought-and-paid-for politicians have done. If this was a 'democracy', we would not be participating in an American-commanded regime change operation in Afghanistan, nor would we have bombed Yugoslavia back to the stone age a few years ago. If this was a 'democracy', we would not be slashing corporate taxes hand in hand with cutting back on social spending, and incurring a massive federal debt to cover the shortfalls. And etc etc etc etc. And likewise most of the issues people are talking about here, from the other perspective - if we had a democracy, we would not be so worried about climate change, for instance - most Canadians want to do something serious about this, so we'd just work out a useful plan and go ahead and do it - the current faux-democratic government, however, is actually taking orders from Big Business in Canada, and Big Business doesn't care that much about climate change - if a bit of environmental destruction is needed to continue with massive corporate profits (or a lot), then screw the climate - so we get lots of talk, to appease the masses a bit, but no real action.
Well. overlong already for one post - but the point remains - talking is fun, but useless, if we are not in a position to implement any changes we might agree on - and without true democracy, nothing changes, so, I would suggest, fighting first and above all for actual Democracy should be a 'Grand Unifying Idea'. Without Democracy, we are powerless - with it, everything else follows. Personally, I would be quite content to go along with the will of a true majority in my country, after, of course, full, open and informed discussion amongst us all (not the one-sided diatribes and monologues that currently pass as 'debate' that we get fed from the masters' media - part of the faux-democracy scam, all that..)
As some may be aware, I have written a book about what I think a 'real' social democracy, populated with intelligent, caring, engaged citizens (like most on Rabble, I suspect, odd troll excepted) would function like, called Green Island - there is a chapter on how 'we the people' make our decisions democratically here - The Alberton Council http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland/ex/pts-01.html (with a link to the whole book, should anyone be curious about other things out of the Canadian Capitalist box and its other elephants people are avoiding, equally inexplicably to me ...)
Sun, 2009-09-13 07:31
#17
SiamDave:
Earlier in this thread...
The large problems are all one problem -- the enviroment-economic problems are a part of the overall unsupportable (insupportable?) human modus operandi. Mankind has to learn to live within its means. This will entail profound change and massive effort.
Politically, we are running democracies without adequate connection of the people to the political process. Fix that disconnect and you enable and empower citizens to effect meaningful change.
There's a lot of benefit to operating outside of the establishment by creating a more personal engagement along the lines of Judy Rebick's Transforming Power (mentioned in anothe thread). That should happen in any event.
But the other essential objective for everyone is electoral reform. We cannot make the car run with a broken transmission. In this we need to make the political the personal. The voices of Canadians need to be heard on a fair and equal footing where discussion matters -- in our parliaments. PR is not enough because people matter.
Sun, 2009-09-13 08:50
#18
If this was a 'democracy', we would not be participating in an American-commanded regime change operation in Afghanistan...I would be quite content to go along with the will of a true majority in my country, after, of course, full, open and informed discussion amongst us all (not the one-sided diatribes and monologues that currently pass as 'debate' that we get fed from the masters' media - part of the faux-democracy scam, all that..
Canadians supported the war effort earlier on. We were led to the river and drowned in a sea of distortion by the corporate pied pipers. We will never have true democracy as long as the deception and fraud of the master's media as you call it, under the false clarion of freedom of speech, is permitted a stage in which to cheerlead hegemony's malevolent lies.
Sun, 2009-09-13 09:20
#19
"The large problems are all one problem -- the enviroment-economic problems are a part of the overall unsupportable (insupportable?) human modus operandi. Mankind has to learn to live within its means. This will entail profound change and massive effort."
That is an equally profound summation...
Sun, 2009-09-13 09:21
#20
As Marx discovered (in the early days of the U.K.'s working out just who should be able to vote in the nascent democracy of his time) what people worked at was reflected in the social order. Putting workers in power would guarantee a future - which meant just continued improvements on the present.
I think that too few are now sure of where we should be going (in my youth, not all that far back, there was no doubt about the concept "progress").
The most reactionary are coming to understand that that has become a debateable notion. If there could be some common understanding of how to fashion our future, its economics (there must not be a "market") and politics, we might be off and running again, not hunkered down waiting for godot.
Sun, 2009-09-13 09:33
#21
Robert Heinlein had an interesting notion of who should get to vote and why in Starship Troopers.
During the Ontario Citizens' Assembly I tried to get the Assembly to think a bit about these issues. Of course I failed to intrude on their "regularly scheduled programme". I know I asked too much of them. But it's important to understand what you're trying to accomplish -- the poblem at hand -- before deciding what to do.
The practice of politics in Canada serves to make the average person powerless -- in reality but more importantly in perception. Canadians need to believe that they can make a difference and have access to poltical tools that in fact have real traction.
We need to work on both fronts. Grassroots actions to effect real change on big issues like sustainability help foster the former (as well as a success in attacking the problem itself) and could be applied to the latter in terms of pressing for more formal democratic reforms -- an electoral system that supports true democracy.
Sun, 2009-09-13 10:14
#22
We need to work on both fronts. Grassroots actions to effect real change on big issues like sustainability help foster the former (as well as a success in attacking the problem itself) and could be applied to the latter in terms of pressing for more formal democratic reforms -- an electoral system that supports true democracy.
That's true, and I agree whole heartedly with Siamdave above. And, many of us have said the same, in whole or in part, on different issues over time.
Thing is, do you really think you'd get different groups on the left even to buy into it, let alone turn it into something that would grab the general public's attention?
I mean, no greater words were ever put to paper about democracy and liberty, and equality than what you'd find in the Declaration of Independance. But slavery ran on for 87 years with force of law under that document, and well into my lifetime African Americans were treated in a way not consistant with those principles, and that fight goes on today. And women waited well over a hundred years just for the vote.
Sun, 2009-09-13 14:31
#23
Yes but look at the success of the grassroots movements that did the heavy lifting to address slavery, women's sufferage, etc... and people like Gandhi.
We have the rich benefit of wonderful examples. We can indeed stand on the shoulders of giants (Isaac Newton reference)
Take a look at "Right Relationship" by Brown and Garver.
On vote, one step, one dollar. The biggest obstacle in making a difference is not believing that it can make a difference.
But it does.
Mon, 2009-09-14 04:03
#24
Could we just place these warming, inspiring thoughts back within easy reach? Sort of a template for consideration in other deliberations?
Mon, 2009-09-14 11:21
#25
Yep, the Globe points out this morning just how the attack on the Tar Patch is expanding and hardening. I think Steve's home base is about to be confronted with a coup de main (? spelling) from international government as well as environmental agencies.
And it is this kind of spirit that renews mine, skeiseid:
"And always avoid the excuses that "they" are nor doing anything so what good is it when we do. Every single act has import. Just do it, eh."
Mon, 2009-09-14 11:23
#26
Yeah, I read that too.
Good for the Norwegians, good for the world.
Go team!
Mon, 2009-09-14 12:13
#27
I think Steve's home base is about to be confronted with a coup de main (? spelling) from international government as well as environmental agencies.
Not sure this is what you mean: A coup de main is a "helping hand".
That G&M article "Oil sands under attack on environment"
Mon, 2009-09-14 12:37
#28
Then what IS that military term meaning full, frontal assault? (Need to get this right, obviously).
Hey, google gives me:A sudden action undertaken to surprise an enemy. [French : coup, stroke, blow + de, of + main, hand.] An offensive operation that capitalizes on surprise ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/coup+de+main - Cached - Similar
What's up with your translator, martin? Or does it mean both, and of course, this dotty Anglo must mean this, and not that? Vive tolerance.
Mon, 2009-09-14 12:52
#29
Template?
How 'bout a template for citizen action?
That;s what's described in "Right Relationship".
The steps are:
1. Gather evidence and prepare case studies, pilot projects and plans.
2. Publicize, educate and involve.
3. Withdraw from the present system and highlight its illegitimacy.
There's more in the book.
The thing of it is that we can "just do" a lot of what needs doing. The trick is doing it in a coordinated way that emphasizes citizen leadership and political shortcoming.
Specifically in terms of morphing our eco-economy we need to take a hard look at the big picture and the overall consequences of implementation. For instance we'll need to have good opportunities for them tarsands oilmen if -- sorry, when -- their business is marginalized. Or at least point out that real cooperative business opportunities exist. It's their responsibility to choose their own ne paths. By thinking and talking inclusively throughout we should avoid the partisan "us and them" crap that gets us nowhere.
And always avoid the excuses that "they" are not doing anything so what good is it when we do. Every single act has import. Just do it, eh.
Mon, 2009-09-14 13:08
#30
SiamDave:
Earlier in this thread...
The large problems are all one problem -- the enviroment-economic problems are a part of the overall unsupportable (insupportable?) human modus operandi. Mankind has to learn to live within its means. This will entail profound change and massive effort.
Politically, we are running democracies without adequate connection of the people to the political process. Fix that disconnect and you enable and empower citizens to effect meaningful change.
There's a lot of benefit to operating outside of the establishment by creating a more personal engagement along the lines of Judy Rebick's Transforming Power (mentioned in anothe thread). That should happen in any event.
But the other essential objective for everyone is electoral reform. We cannot make the car run with a broken transmission. In this we need to make the political the personal. The voices of Canadians need to be heard on a fair and equal footing where discussion matters -- in our parliaments. PR is not enough because people matter.
Its a democracy but you wouldn't know it as government has ears for big business only. And Reform is necessary if Canadians what to see their Democratic system work for them. Right now it is not, its working for big business and government and your 60 billion in debt federally and who knows how much provincially. And who knows if its even true? Another reason for reform is we have to take politicians word for it when telling voters how the Country is doing economically and fact is politicians can't be trusted, as will lie to get re elected.
Just check out BC as despite promises of transparency and accountability we have full blown corruption. What do the people want in BC another election only problem is can't as gave the lying premier, Campbell a majority so BC residents feel ripped off and given the once over and left out of the equation. Changes, big changes are needed as if anything people in this country have little say, even on election day and if its all lies well then your living the lie and that is no way to live.
Mon, 2009-09-14 13:42
#31
That makes my point, remind. If people felt that we should be treating others the way we would be treated, they wouldn't be voting Liberal or Conservative. To my mind, they are voting purely on the basis of selfishness and they're influenced into delusion about who can give them the best deal (the most services and the least taxes). It's greed-based rather than based on respect and care.
Its sillyness for sure and marketing as voting in the government who best services the interests of society and its not like buying your favorite box of cereal and getting back a dollar on your purchase. We presently have a government whose entire focus is on what is in the best interests of big business, foreign business as government gets ready to empty the pockets of struggling Canadians so it can fill the pockets of strangers. I wonder what's in it for government but there sure isn't anything in the HST for the people?
A tax, to help out the struggling economy to ensure vital services aren't hindered instead of giving big coporations cheap Canadian labor while handing over much needed tax dollars to foreign investors who can pull their money out at anytime while services become almost nonexsistent and many jobs are lost in both public and private sector as has ripple effect. Instead of creating jobs as told its going to cost Canadians dearly as government beefs up the taxes of the middle class while reducing the taxes of the rich as the wealthy take from our country without giving back or cleaning up as how do you cover up the environmential damage being done in Alberta?
And don't forget the wealth of cheap labor government allows corporations as Canada keeps a reserve of at least a couple hundred thousand immigrants on her shores as don't have to worry about EI or unemployment numbers as unemployed immigrants on Canadian soil are not included in the unemployment equation. And that isn't even the numbers of immigrants that don't have their sin number yet or foreign students who skip school and go right to work. So what are the true number of Canadians out there looking for work? Well your quess is as good as mine but it sure isn't the numbers government is dishing out. And the 5 weeks added to EI will do nothing to help unemployed workers as the number looking for work far exceeds any jobs out there. And the cuts are only a promise of more job loses.
It shouldn't be who ran a better campaign and promises that most often aren't kept or running government like a business. What kinda of business, monkey business and CEO's and few key employee's and government split the spoils as no competition to worry about and of course laws because government makes them, didn't you know and really good at breaking them and getting away scott free as if there is any evidence laying around no problem as can be easily destroyed without any worries of being held accountable as same premier says No! you can't look at my holdings?????
Mon, 2009-09-14 14:24
#32
September 14, 2009 - 12:13pm #27 (permalink)
I think Steve's home base is about to be confronted with a coup de main (? spelling) from international government as well as environmental agencies.
Not sure this is what you mean: A coup de main is a "helping hand".
That G&M article "Oil sands under attack on environment"
Not up to explaining that snotty little shot, martin? You can't even understand honest to god attempts at incorporating a second language, eh? Is it something in the water? The stuff you walk on, I mean.
Mon, 2009-09-14 16:18
#33
Looking forward (but not "looking forward" if you know what I mean) to the upcoming election I've been thinking about advocacy and what we might be able to do as citizens to effect real progress. Or at least nudge things in the right direction.
During the Ontario referendum on electoral reform I tried to get the Star to provide a public service by donating lightly moderated daily space -- I figured a page would be nice -- for readers to have their say in a broad dialogue of letters and articles. Of course that didn't fly. I didn't even get a repsonse.
But it occurred to me that amongst the environmentalists and the electoral reformers and the groups representing us we might be able to muster the resources to publicize a list of collective and coherent thoughts on what we need from the next government regardless who wins via one of the broadcast media. In short we could buy space to describe what and why we need it and to solicit people to sign a petition on our GUIs. As well it could be the introduction to a web site that would provide a venue for directed discussion.
Thoughts?
Mon, 2009-09-14 16:41
#34
I think some might point to Proportional Representation, for example. I'm not sure that's exactly it, (though I'd put it right up there) but it is an issue that if we were successfull in promoting, could be seen as enabling more diverse voices in government, which, we might theorize, would lead to more progressive government. Something women, workers, environmentalists, etc., could benifit from.I agree with this because it's an potentially an "enabler" to move forward on other issues. No, it's not a panacea for all that ails us but it does expose the undemocratic hold that corporate canada maintains over the country and provide a better terrain for those on the left to engage in electoral politics. I disagree with the positions that 1) because PR may allow parties on the right to get seats, it should be rejected (the CAW position during the Ontario referendum) and 2) that it's just tinkering around the edges of useless electoral politics.
However, were the question worded a bit differently - i.e. - what one issue (or set of issues) should progressives rally around because it's the right thing to do? - I would suggest that resolving First Nations issues is at the top of the list. This is not to diminish anti-poverty work and the environment (in fact, it includes them) BUT if we could only choose one, let's start with the one that's been on the "books" the longest.
Mon, 2009-09-14 17:14
#35
In Canada we are so disconnected from our political mechanisms that we really have to focus first on reconnecting citizens to the engine of governance -- and once we've let out the clutch we can move forward.
Really the situation is similar to an emergency in an aeroplane: the masks have dropped in-flight and the best advice is to put on your own mask first and then help others to put on theirs.
How's that for combining metaphors? And a broken record. [sigh]
In any event what I mean is once we reclaim our democratic rights and franchise we can move forward effectively on any number of other fronts.
Mon, 2009-09-14 17:57
#36
once we reclaim our democratic rightsDon't you mean "claim" them? It's not like we've had more rights in the past is it?
Mon, 2009-09-14 18:11
#37
Harper says Canada is out of recession and this is the same leader that didn't know Canada was in one?
Who do you believe a guy trying to stay in office or the facts? Harper's economic plan is a complete faliure along with everything else as soilders die for not.
Mon, 2009-09-14 18:26
#38
No I mean reclaim. Before the evolution of the hydra we call party politics, FPTP performed reasonably well in representing the electorate (that the "electorate" wasn't representative was a different issue)
On the other hand... if Canadians implemented a new electoral deal with their representatives -- one that established citizens'dominance in the hierarchy of repsonsible representation and emphasized the election of critical thinkers into parliament to debate and vote on our behalf -- Canadian democracy would redefine the meaning of the word and become the model for democracies worldwide.
So maybe I do mean "claim".
Mon, 2009-09-14 18:38
#39
Perhaps you're referring to some time when there were no political parties? Pre: Whigs and Tories? I thought there were always whigs and tories? When there were only 2 parties, some say that FPTP worked well because every riding had a clear winner with more than 50% of the votes.
But... That was about as unfair to the voters are the current system. Let's take a hypothetical example where there are 25 ridings. Let's say that Party A won every riding by 51%. That means that 49% of the voters who chose Party B would have absolutely no representation.
So from what I can see, the system has never worked well for voters.
Mon, 2009-09-14 18:58
#40
From one point of view, perhaps.
But one could also take the view that in an election where a majority in every riding chose a representative -- resulting in a parliamentary majority -- that they got the parliament they voted for. For the time, elections functioned adequately according to the contextual notion of democracy.
In any event you and I are quibbling about semantics. I've been clear in advocating that voters have representative voices in the debates in parliament as well as the votes that matter -- those in the House. To ensure that, I 've argued that proportional representation is not enough to attain a representative democracy that is fair and equal to, for and between voters.
Are we good now?
Mon, 2009-09-14 19:52
#41
The devil's in the details but in terms of the big question in this thread, we are pretty much on the same page - i.e. strengthening democracy is a project that we should all be able to wrap our heads around although we may all have slightly different perspectives on what reforms are needed and in what order.
Thing is, do you really think you'd get different groups on the left even to buy into it, let alone turn it into something that would grab the general public's attention?Funny you should ask Tommy. I proposed just this to the followup meetings of the first "Rebuilding the Left" Conference in Toronto 9 or 10 years ago. I suggested we might actually make some progress toward electoral reform while getting experience working together across different political lines. I got lots of rolly-eyes. I heard about all the other righteous and critical issues that others thought should be THE ONE GUI that we all subjugate our existing campaigns to. Needless to say, there was no agreement and things fell apart shortly after. (Not to be confused with the 2nd RTL conference which led to the formation of the Socialist Project which is still going).
When there was an opportunity to campaign for proportional representation in Ontario in 2007, none of the different groups on the left were there except one which objected that the 3% threshold for parties to win seats was too high. Aside from that, from my recollection, the "left" was aloof and AWOL from the Ontario MMP campaign. The ONDP's contribution was to declare that the campaign was doomed to fail before it even began.
Tue, 2009-09-15 01:27
#42
The practice of politics in Canada serves to make the average person powerless -- in reality but more importantly in perception. Canadians need to believe that they can make a difference and have access to poltical tools that in fact have real traction.
This summarizes clearly a problem in a lot of what is being hinted at or touched on here - it's not so much that people percieve thay have no power, I think, that is our problem (although a few of us certainly understand that) - it is that most people think things are fine, and they do not need to be worrying about change. Most people believe they really do live in a democracy in Canada - and not just any ol democracy, one of the very best in the world, by golly! - and as long as they think that, they are naturally going to also think anyone who approaches them talking about a need for 'democracy' is just a dissatisfied nut case of some kind, and get back to more interesting stuff on tv. The story from NB a few days ago about making kids listen to the national anthem each day, to learn to honor our country etc, was instructive - most people would be insulted deeply if you suggested this was part and parcel of the indoctrination we all receive from the day we are born - but that's exactly what it is, and that is how successful the indoctrination has been. And how we break through that indoctrination is the question that really needs addressing.
Tue, 2009-09-15 08:33
#43
Well, here we're in Neil Postman territory again.
How do you get dogmatic-thinking (sorry, was that an oxymoron?) people to think -- and think critically -- for themselves? Education from a young age is probably the best answer but not one that can help us this fall.
There is a sub-class that might be reachable -- those who can be convinced that things are not OK and not how they believed them to be.
Getting a coherent story out to people through the small, seeverely-filtered window of our communications venues is a trick.