NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
SUNDAY SPECTATOR
August 1, 2004
Parti pris
Glancing at the Democratic National Convention in Boston this last week one notices that the shoe is on the other foot in the USA. The party and all its speakers were at pains to show their "moderation". But what is mainstream and "moderate" in Canadian politics is quite different from what's in the middle of the American road. Whole subjects for debate suppressed up here by a kind of "gentleman's agreement" of our ruling political class are open to discussion down there. In Canada we must assume from the behaviour of all the party leaders in our recent national election it would be outrageous indecent beyond-the-pale -- to suggest for instance that any sort of restraints be placed on immigration; that healthcare be delivered in other than a purely socialist way; that there could be any objection to bashing a baby's head in while it is being born. These are all "sacred trusts" up here it is unCanadian to think about them. Not so Stateside. The Democrats want people to think they are strong on defence and suspicious of foreigners and eager to fight the "war on terrorism" just like Republicans; that they are fiscally conservative and cautious about expanding the role of government. They want people to see them embracing religion publicly in such as the grand "People of Faith" luncheon on Wednesday. On the hot-button social issues the Democrats flinch audibly and suggestively. They pose as "basically against" such things as abortion or "gay marriage" or universal welfare just like Republicans; the only difference being that unlike Republicans they would never actually do anything to get in the way. And yet the resemblance between our Liberals and their Democrats is unmistakable. Most conspicuously both parties aim their message and efforts squarely at the voters who can be most easily herded or else bought with other people's tax money. They target ethnic and racial constituencies organized labour or professional groups that behave like organized labour such as teachers and bureaucrats and journalists. It is not that their opponents don't have such constituencies but rather the kinds of constituencies and how they are held -- "the degree of ownership". The U.S. armed forces for example are in the Republican camp. But the military is drawn from diverse social backgrounds which means the Republicans can harvest only 60 percent of their votes. Whereas among e.g. "African Americans" or public schoolteachers or media people some 90 percent will vote Democrat once again regardless of the candidates they are fielding; and then half of the rest will vote for Ralph Nader. So the Democrats effectively own these people. Similarly in Canada the Liberal party has managed "multiculturalism" to give it ownership of various ethnic constituencies which can then be if you will forgive a metaphor piped into traditional Tory territory. We read the other day for instance of carnage in an Edmonton restaurant when a Vietnamese wedding reception was booked adjacently to a Chinese one. It turned out that despite Canada's "sacred trust" gun registry guests on both sides came armed (one dead six to hospital). How odd that they didn't get along: since even in Edmonton almost everyone at both receptions had probably just voted Liberal. Both U.S. Democrats and Canadian Liberals have come to envision the role of the political party within the State as the creation and nurturing of vested interests that will bind whole constituencies to the party in permanent dependency. It is to create and preserve ghettoes of one sort or another and the groupthink of the ghetto. For both the demonization of political opponents is the most effective tactic for herding the vote. What made Bill Clinton exceptional as a post-modern Democrat leader was his obsession with public policy. President Clinton as we were reminded by his rousing speech at the beginning of the Convention talks like a demagogue; but his willingness to discuss ideas made him a different kind of animal from the Democrat leaders both before and after. Also in the U.S. a more successful one. This I think is the growing difference between our two countries. The Liberals have through interminable re-election been able to remake Canada in their own image as a country in which ideas will not be discussed. The Democrats failed to do that in the U.S. It was not always so. In a former generation both Liberals and Democrats had ideas worth discussing; whereas for the last few decades only "conservatives" have had ideas. I hope it will not always be so. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top