Black out, speak out

Opposing the #HarperRegime: thinking strategically over the next four years

Sorry, dear friends. This is going to be one of those times when I try to get cerebral, but not too cerebral, and end up sounding like a wanker. Business as usual, in other words.

In the context of last week's Twitter exchange with @thekeenanwire over the question of what we deserve, I admitted that I hadn't thought through all the implications of what I was saying or where I was going. To the extent that we could arrive at common ground in 140-character bursts, we managed to agree that "need" was probably a better word than "deserve" when we're talking about a police force, or a society, or a government. At least that's the impression I was left with; if I'm wrong, Ed, please feel free to correct me.

@thekeenanwire and the police / government / society we deserve

Over at The Grid, Edward Keenan's got a thoughtful and compelling piece about the police assault on Dorian Barton at last summer's G20, and the shameful saga surrounding the SIU's on-again, off-again attempts to investigate.

We all know how that song goes. The whole police force goes Tommy. Nobody saw anything. Nobody knows who the asshole cop is, even though his face and badge number are visible in the picture AND the force actually provided his name to the SIU, Mark Pugash says. Not even his roommate recognizes him. Chief Bill Blair can't or won't do anything about it. Mike McCormack insists that there's no Blue Wall of silence. And I'm not even going to talk about the police services board.

The night before the election: what we can expect

Imagine a government that doesn't operate for the benefit of a handful of CEOs and international investors.

A government that cultivates the best in its citizens, that represents everything good and decent and caring about the nation it serves.

A government that recognizes that as humans, we are all fallible, but that as citizens, we have obligations both to one another and to something bigger than ourselves.

A government that values and preserves all the myriad threads that tie us together, that allow us to pool our efforts and act collectively for the greater good.

A government that safeguards our right to disagree with one another, and with the institutions of government itself.

A government that sees us as intelligent thoughtful adults, and speaks to us, with us, and for us accordingly.

A government that aspires to reflect the better angels of our nature.

In return, all that's asked of us is genuine engagement, thoughtful participation, and a commitment to something beyond ourselves: our neighbours, our communities, our society, our country. Both we and the institutions we build share and reflect certain values: democracy, stewardship, transparency, decency, accountability, citizenship, civic engagement, civil society, fundamental freedoms, civil discourse, and mutual support and respect. This is our character. This is who we are.

This isn't some idealistic fantasy. This is something we have a right to expect.

Tomorrow, let's go out and get it.

Another election meme: #progressivemajority

Worthwhile suggestion on the Tweeter from @Falsum.

Really, isn't everyone thoroughly sick by now of the Harpobots' coalition fearmongering? It's time to kneecap this cynical strategy of falsehood, distortion and misdirection once and for all.

A note from Sheenagh McMahon

The gutsy woman who got in John Baird's face yesterday has a message for us.

Follow the links. It's worth your time.

She's also very graciously allowed me to reproduce her e-mail messages to me. I can only stand back and applaud. While I wank on about citizenship and civic engagement from behind a keyboard, this lady's actually walking the walk. (h/t CuriosityCat)

Elizabeth May excluded? What Coyne said

Seriously? What century is this? Can you say "arbitrary?"

Welcome to OB's inaugural edition of What Andrew Coyne said. Dude's been making good use of the Tweeter on this one.

Another late-evening edition of What Beijing York said

And finally tonight:

We have to actively kill those memes - costly election, unwanted election, economic stability and scary coalition government.

How can Canadians by and large be cheering on demands for democracy on the "Arab street" while re-electing a party found to be in CONTEMPT of Parliament? Hopefully more Canadians will put two and two together and realize that they have to put a stop to the erosion of our freedoms and democracy.

Election strategy and modest aims

Guys: If you accomplish nothing else, just don't let them turn the word "coalition" into a scare tactic or an epithet.

OK? Think you can handle that? kthxbye.

More to come.

The Harper Government's tipping point

The Globe's Lawrence Martin catalogues the many indicators of the Harper Government's abuse of power.

Read it here.

Democracy: the latest word to be stripped of its meaning

If you're not reading DownWithTyranny – a marvellous, thoughtful, progressive source from one of our friends to the south – then start now.

Egypt and the death of the American Empire

What was I saying a few weeks ago about Tucson?

Looks like Thomas Walkom's thinking the same thing. Bet he's not the only one, either.

What thwap said (how many are we up to now?)

Go. Read this, now.

Coalitions and reclaiming the discursive turf

This is how Steve Harpoon wants us to think about the idea of a coalition.

(All right, all right. I wanted an image for "monster under the bed," and, well ... whaddayagonnado. Cheap laugh.)

Conservatism, stewardship, and Edmund Burke

I cannot conceive how any man can have brought himself to that pitch of presumption, to consider his country as nothing but carte blanche, upon which he may scribble whatever he pleases.

It's worth taking a few moments to reflect upon the words of Edmund Burke. In the late 18^th century, Europe was in the midst of the social, political and intellectual ferment stirred up by the French Revolution. Burke was presented to me, during my early years at university, as one of the greatest figures in conservative political thought. The passage cited above is from his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), and continues:

A man full of warm speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise constituted than he finds it; but a good patriot and a true politician always considers how he shall make the most of the existing materials of his country. A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve taken together would be my standard of a statesman. Every thing else is vulgar in the conception, perilous in the execution.

I'm choosing to cite Burke for two reasons. Firstly, his warning about “presumption” has always resonated with me, not just because of its integrity and principled eloquence, but also because of the way he uses the word. In this context, the word embodies everything we've come to dislike about “leaders,” whether they're in politics, business, academia, or anything else. It carries noxious connotations of arrogance, single-mindedness, disdain for opponents, condescension, authoritarianism, high-handedness, arbitrary behaviour, and entitlement.

Secondly, because he's been cited, so regularly, as one of the paragons of conservatism. Just so we're clear, I have no problem or complaint with principled conservatism, at least as I understand it. If it means you argue for the preservation of worthwhile traditions and retaining the best parts of our character, our history and the lessons we've learned from it, you get no argument from me. While I prefer not to throw too many labels around, that's also part of the way I've always understood the term “Tory.” Especially of the pink or red variety. It may not coincide with the dictionary definition, but at least in terms of the connotations it's acquired, the Tory tradition – indeed, conservatism itself – is a proud and honourable framework from which to address whatever issues one is confronted with. It embodies all the best things about citizenship: decency, respect, caring, and acceptance of obligations to one's society, community, and fellow citizens.

So what is to be preserved? One can't really do justice to it in the space of a single blog post, but I'd like to consider the question of character: in particular, the qualities of the Canadian national character. Yes, much of it is based on stereotype and caricature, and yes, in real life we may frequently fail to live up to it, but at a minimum, I'd like to believe that they include:

• generosity
• civility
• tolerance
• respect for different points of view
• a wholesome ethic of common provision
• deference – perhaps we are, in truth, a tad too deferential, but I'd submit that our readiness to accommodate is also a measure of our character.

Obviously this is just scratching the surface. And just as obviously, any one of these could spark extensive debate. It's an off-the-cuff enumeration, rather than an exhaustive or definitive list. Given that our real-life history is full of examples wherein we have fallen short of those qualities, perhaps the enumeration borders on the mythic. And perhaps I'm betraying an attachment to that myth that may even be a little excessive.

Be that as it may, however, it is for that reason that I will not refer to the present collection of Harperite / Reformist thugs and their media lickspittles as conservatives. They aren't worthy of that. They are not conservatives, they're pale U.S. Republican wannabes with a revolting extra layer of teabaggery. They and their ideological bed partners have hijacked the good name of conservatism and bent it to one of the most destructive and antisocial currents in recent intellectual and political history.

Over the span of generations Canadians have created, through our democratic institutions and processes (flawed and vulnerable though those may be), one of the most generous and envied societies in the world. Health care, education, a social safety net – all informed by perhaps the most fundamental principle in Judeo-Christian moral teaching: the notion that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers. (I'm not suggesting, of course, that this notion is unique to the Western European Judeo-Christian heritage.) In other words, a body of character, tradition, and established social convention that we've collectively decided, over the decades, are worth preserving. That ought to warm any conservative heart.

So how is it that we have entrusted the care and stewardship of our country and our character to a man who has built his entire career on contempt for those very principles? On his disgust for everything we are and everything that defines us? In a blog post today, Chet Scoville writes about contempt. But it's not just, as he suggests, contempt for us as people and as citizens. It's contempt for us as a society, as a body of tradition and sociopolitical culture, and of everything we've built and everything we stand for.

But let's linger for a moment on stewardship. At its core, it's the idea that we have an obligation to care for our society, our environment, and our fellow citizens, so that what we pass on to succeeding generations is in as good a condition as the way we found it.

When you go camping, you don't leave the campsite a mess for the next person.

When you use public space, you clean up after yourself.

When you find a source of clean water, you don't hoard it all to yourself and you don't pollute it or ruin it for others. Simple good manners. Everything we know about sustainability, about avoiding profligate consumption or resource exploitation, about taking what we need and leaving enough for others, is related to the idea of stewardship.

When you're entrusted with a mandate to govern, your every action should, in my submission, be informed by an awareness of the responsibilities inherent in stewardship. That's the definition of good government in one sentence. You're inheriting something that generations of Canadians have built, have poured their lives, their hearts, their work and their souls into. You don't get to piss on it, tell your audiences how worthless or contemptible you think it is, or demolish it in favour of a pathetic attempt to remake it in the image of the worst aspects of U.S. Republican legacy.

We are a better nation than that.