Centrist nostalgia

I can't remember a time that I was more angry while voting.

My partner had tipped me to our MP's presence at our polling station. I found myself imagining the conversation, as I pushed the double pram to nursery. What started off as very level-headed comments -- and compliments, truly: whatever Mr. Chalk's colours, I don't question his commitment to his constituency, and found myself enjoying our one conversation, which actually had nothing to do with politics -- over the course of dropping off my son and then heading to the polling station, turned decidedly sour, and, by the time the helpful polling staff were directing me to the proper side of the station, was a full-blown rant.

It was completely incongruous: these boiling emotions inside me, while around me, polling station staff cooed at my infant daughter, smiling as she's so apt to.

Mr. Chalk had moved on by this point, but, to be honest, it wouldn't have mattered who was there, vying to represent the constituency: I had something for everyone, and none of it complimentary (or even coherent at that point, likely). I wanted to spoil my ballot with a concise summary of what I thought of the politics of attack and lies, on all sides; I still had a sliver of hope, however, that holding my nose and voting tactically would have some part to play.

You know what I miss? The days of old -- I know, "OK Boomer" or whatever they say now -- when most of the parties could be summed up as variations on vanilla. Where you really had to dig to find the nuances between the policies, even if the manifestos were based on different (but tamely so, with hindsight) philosophies. And, yes, there were attack ads, but they were regulated; you knew who paid for them, and they paid at the polls for such tactics (in as much as I could influence things, anyway). And, yes, there was "_Read_ _my_ _lips_," and all sorts of other horse-pucky, but, at the end of the day, you still felt that they could work with those they disagreed with, for the betterment of the country.

Now, parties are tripping over themselves to declare who they won't work with, months before we even know the lay of the political landscape. It's completely cut-throat. It's about winning, and holding power, at all costs. It's short-sighted, petty, frantic, and it has set this country on a course of harm, for the medium term certainly, and likely for the long term as well. Why aren't these people more invested in the country? In its actual future, thirty or forty years from now? It makes me sick. Truly, it does.

On history and reverence

I had planned to write a post questioning the wisdom of removing the statue of General Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville, Virginia. While I thought I understood the motives behind it, the whole enterprise struck me as wrong-headed; the energy could be better spent, was to be my sentiment. (Plus, I'd loved the Dukes of Hazzard as a kid!)

I've had a change of heart.

But a few hours' research has shown this latest effort by Charlottesville's City Council to be but one part of a groundswell across the American South, over many years, against all symbols of the Confederacy. I'd remembered that there was a lot of controversy around the Confederate flag about two years ago, but it was the many retailers' bans that stuck with me; and that, as erring on the safe side, for sales. What I didn't take in, at all, was the public sentiment against the flag, particularly amongst black, and more educated white, Americans in the South.¹ And now reading about locals avoiding, not only the vicinity of these monuments, but also parks bearing the prominent names²... It strikes a chord.

The Mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu, was quoted referencing the decision to remove their statue of Lee:³

It's not good to continue to revere... [to] put the Confederacy on a pedestal... [And if critics of the removal don't believe that,] the people of New Orleans believe it and we don't want these statues in places of reverence, they need to be in places of remembrance.

Even if I had the hubris to rail against the wishes of the people who must live in the shadows of these monuments, that distinction -- history versus reverence -- has undone the last of my conviction. It isn't about sanitizing [America's] history,⁴ as Condoleeza Rice has been quoted, speaking against the removals and renamings in general: it's about acknowledgement and reconciliation, which Lee himself was a proponent of in the wake of the Civil War. In 1866, he was called to testify before the Joint Congressional Committee on Reconstruction:⁵

... [E]very one with whom I associate expresses kind feelings towards the freedmen. They wish to see them get on in the world, and particularly to take up some occupation for a living, and to turn their hands to some work.

It sounds to me like these communities need this.

---

1. Poll: Majority sees Confederate flag as Southern pride symbol, not racist, CNN, 02/07/2015.
2. People Show Support for, Opposition to Lee Statue in Charlottesville, NBC 29 WVIR, 22/03/2016.
3. New Orleans removes its final Confederate-era statue, The Guardian, 20/05/2017.
4. Condoleezza Rice on Removing Civil War Monuments: 'Sanitizing History to Make You Feel Better Is a Bad Thing', Independent Journal Review, 05/2017.
5. The Making of Robert E. Lee, Michael Fellman, 2000.

---

EDIT (28/08/2017): CBC published an analysis by Aaron Wherry a few days ago entitled, ANALYSIS: Should John A. Macdonald's name be removed from schools? It is at least a question worth asking: Confronting the good and the bad of Canada's first prime minister.

Initially, I'd planned to draw parallels to the situation in Canada in this post; these sentiments were similarly uninformed, unsurprisingly. I'd actually thought, while reading about what was happening to everything bearing Lee's name and image, that, by that rationale, Sir John A.'s got to go then, for what his government did to Riel alone, never mind those awful schools. It was a sarcastic thought.

In this too, I've had a change of heart.

Quoted by Wherry, Isadore Day, Regional Chief of Ontario, actually hit a note similar to Landrieu's when he questioned the wisdom of [e]levating people to that stature. And National Chief Perry Bellegarde, quoted in an article linked in the piece, really drives the point home, for me:

How would you feel if you were a young First Nations person going to that school, knowing full well that Sir John A. Macdonald was one of the architects behind the residential school system? ... You wouldn't want to feel good about attending that school, would you? Because I wouldn't.

Be sure to teach what both the government of the day, and its official opposition, advocated regarding the Indigenous population. But leave it off the outside of the building where it's done.

ICG report on the Gaza stand-still

Efforts should focus on an outcome that meets [Fatah and Hamas'] immediate needs. Neither wants to give up the territory it controls, so for now let them keep it. That should not prevent forming a government that helps rebuild Gaza, gives Ramallah a foothold in Gaza and Abbas the greater legitimacy he needs to deal effectively with Israel – and with his own people...

Words matter, but actions matter more. The international community should judge the government on... willingness (or not) to enforce a mutual ceasefire with Israel, acceptance of Abbas’s authority to negotiate an agreement with Israel and respect for a referendum on an eventual accord. Hamas’s position on whether a Palestinian state would recognise Israel will matter only once that state exists. Prior to that, it is academic.

Sage words. It's hard to believe it's been two years since the last National Unity Government.

Godwin's Law

I hadn't heard of Godwin's Law before reading today's xkcd strip, and while the law specifies on-line discussions, a follow-on point attributed to Godwin got me thinking. First, the law:

As an on-line discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

I'm going to make another leap and say that the same logic applies to Neville Chamberlain comparisons. And I know I'm a bit late on this one, but, even after the public disaster, I don't think Elizabeth May gets that. Yes, she was sorry the day before, but, ooo, ooo! They did it too!

I'm sorry, if she couldn't do without the glass-houses comment, at least reiterate that it was a mistake. And I did laugh at the CBC radio news bit that played Layton's "I would never..." followed by his very own - deeply disgusted, I might add - Chamberlain reference in parliament a few years ago. So, no, I'm not claiming that no one should've pointed out this double standard. I just get this... smugness from the Green party site that seems to miss the point.

The age-old story of income inequality

In another of those coincidences I do so enjoy, I happened upon this article by Wheelan as I'm reading Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton. Where I would normally tend to side with Wheelan's argument regarding income inequality, de Botton reminds me of just how old not only the gap between the rich and the poor is, but also the very idea of taking responsibility for one's station in life. Wheelan says:

If the gap between rich and poor gets too large, and if those at the bottom feel they have no meaningful route to the riches at the top, then the fabric of society will fray, or even come unraveled entirely.

Utter hyperbole. As Smith and Hume said well over 200 years ago (in their backhanded fashion), it's the rich that provide the greatest service to society, fueling economies with their desires and silly whims.

Wheelan does temper his thoughts as he goes along, though, and raises many of the same points as de Botton, such as our peers wielding more influence on how we view our station than absolute figures, while acknowledging that television can distort one's peer group (it's almost like I *know* Tomkat, ya know). :-)

The Prime Ministers: Louis St. Laurent

My correspondence on the CPAC series continues:

Hmmm... This is a strange series. I didn't like this episode either. He was voted our greatest post-war Prime Minister, yet they spent little time explaining why he'd get the vote of so many historians. What truly positive material we did see came from his own family (relevant, but not very surprising, one would think).

This emphasis on the 'Uncle Louis' facade, and, later, his, and his cabinet's, air of entitlement - which seemed to be much worse than the situations that fall under that category today - were not flattering. And whatever the true proportion of these episodes during his entire leadership, by paying lip service to his great achievements and lack of involvement in the PR machine, the producers are passing judgment on the man.

And this isn't the first example of that. I just found this one to be particularly heavy handed. Man, and I thought CPAC was a more balanced alternative to the CBC; guess no one can resist the opportunity to spin.

Later correspondence focused on Byfield's negativity:

Well, he's a journalist, and I have to say, I valued his perspective on St. Laurent more than, say, on Laurier, because Byfield was there covering the '57 election, for example. The fact that he relates how all the old-timers in his profession were unhappy with the government at that time, for example, is fine with me. I want to know. But it's the producer's job to balance that with St. Laurent's earlier success, and give Byfield a chance to reflect on that, if possible (don't know if he was even working then).

And CPAC's spin:

Well, I for one would seize any media source that showed the sort of balance I'm talkin' about; and I wouldn't let 'em go. :-) I know there are other people who feel that way too. There is such a thing as scoopin' and spinnin' yourself to death, I think. You're certainly sentencing your credibility to death, let's say.

La Convivencia

I just finished watching the BBC documentary An Islamic History of Europe. Its stirring depiction of la Convivencia, with Muslims and Christians sharing the best of their cultures in Spain, while hotly contested, got me thinking about these first decades of the 21st century: it may be naïve, but I feel that Canada is well placed to revive this idea of coexistence.

The Prime Ministers: William Lyon Mackenzie King

My correspondence on the CPAC series continues:

Well, in my opinion, the blame for [the seemingly harsh comments of Jack Granatstein and Ted Byfield] falls on the editors of this series; I was actually going to use the adjective 'stupid' in that sentence (take your pick of places; more than one's appropriate), but thought better of it. They are focusing on inconsequential crap, and, given that, I think both Granatstein and Byfield did a good job of relating what we - unfortunately - know about King's private life, in all its strange detail, but without dwelling on it, and then getting on to the "and so what?" of it all. Who cares? Byfield ends a segment with I think his decisions ultimately were always pragmatic. He did his job, in other words.

I [also feel it wasn't write to publish King's diary, instead of burying it with him, as was his wish]. Did his family make that decision? Did they come to regret it, I wonder? People are entitled to their private thoughts; and they're entitled to put them down for later review. You can't keep a life of thoughts in your head, and being able to read them would probably help one sort through a lot of problems. That aside, whatever his reasons for writing, the public doesn't have the right to read it, just because he wrote it.

The Prime Ministers: Wilfrid Laurier: Addendum

In the light of all this nonsense about Harper's waistline - no, I won't even hyperlink to it and give any 'news' site the satisfaction of traffic - I thought this later point in the correspondence was also germane:

... and Chretien made a point of saying the press didn't question [Laurier]. I thought that was fantastic! Imagine knowing no more about your prime minister's private life than, say, your doctor's.

It does not matter, people.

The job they're doing, that's what it's all about.

The Prime Ministers: Wilfrid Laurier

This is the first of a few posts on correspondence I've had re CPAC's The Prime Ministers television series:

When a Quebec supporter complained few immigrants were francophone, Laurier said, We trust in the long run they will come out right true Canadians.

I love this line. That was the highlight of the show, so I thought I'd lead with it. I'll be pullin' that one out in a future conversation with Dad, you can be sure, that, and the “tough” people that made Western Canada under him. (Canadians are English and French... Pffft!) ;-)

I was struck by how strongly people need heroes. The man described for most of the thirty minutes was well beyond his considerable 6' frame. Chretien said he was an institution in his family, and clearly he isn't alone. (I found him very convincing in that moment, by the way; very sincere. I didn't think much of his comments overall, but when he spoke about francophones talking their place after Laurier, I felt the importance of it.)

But clearly he was human. I mean, however reverently it was read, Laurier's thoughts on politics were clearly that the end - his “certain object” - justifies the means, which “could not be approved of”. I don't agree, but acknowledge that I prefer to think in the ideal, and have long since ruled out a career in politics as a result. :-)

Finally, all the comments on Laurier's appearance went over the top, eventually; somewhere around the comment that he probably spent a lot of time in front of a mirror. I certainly wouldn't want to be remembered that way.