11
01
05

The True North

Still trying to get over the jet lag, but I’m back from Europe, with a changed perspective. My experiences there and the reading I’ve been doing have me more convinced then ever that what we need in this country is a uniquely Canadian approach. That the childish divisions between left and right, liberal and conservative, are incapable of explaining our situation or guiding our course. (Alevo: “What is ‘the left?’ Are they a team? A party? A rock band?”) And that the mythology of Western civilization is also powerless to guide us forward.

That mythology is on full display in Paris, to a degree I never imagined – in fact, I had never really realized just how powerful this mythology was to Europeans in previous centuries, or how pervasive it is over there. It involves two main elements: Christianity, symbolized mainly by angels and crosses, and military supremacy, symbolized mainly by horses and swords. These two themes are commonly combined in the sword-wielding angel, who appears in various forms in statues, paintings, and cathedrals.

angel and sword

The beauty of this mythology, and the throngs of tourists – myself included – oohing and aahing over it made it easy to forget that it’s dead. Dead painters, dead architects, dead sculptors, creating things funded by dead rulers. Based on beliefs that are also dead. The churches of Paris are filled with more tourists than believers. The great cathedrals of Notre Dame and Sacre Coeur each appeal for funds from the many tourists, each sell candles, each have tawdry vending machines selling medallions as they try to scrape up funds. The sword-wielding angel no longer protects the West, so the West no longer pays for her services.

Not every marvel in Paris is dead, of course. Their most impressive modern creation, and the one most worth imitating here, I think, is the public transportation system. This efficient system of trains and buses is simply incredible. But for visitors to the city, this modern marvel is just a way of getting to more dead stuff. We tourists are there to marvel at the past, not to be inspired by the Parisian present.

Perhaps because we can’t rely on the mythology of the past, we insist on creating new mythologies for the present. Left versus right, liberals versus conservatives: the constant battle between these ill-defined mythical forces eats up probably billions of words a day on thousands of blogs. It’s irritating, boring and pointless. Most of the time it doesn’t even make any sense. What is the connection, for example, between abortion and taxation? Why is it that when someone announces they are a left- or a right-winger, we automatically know where they stand on both of these issues? Instead of making up our own minds, we buy complete packages of beliefs and ideas. Does that easy way out really make sense?

Canada needs a different approach. An approach that recognizes the complexity and simplicity of our situation. Complexity in that we live in one of the world’s most unique societies. Simplicity in that we are still able to pose simple questions about it. Does it make sense to allow production of essential goods like steel and food to shift to other countries whose long-term cooperation or stability is not guaranteed? Should Canadians pay more for gas when hurricanes hit the gas production facilities of other countries, when we have the world’s second-largest proven reserves of oil?

Can we separate questions like these from ideologies – “free trade”, for example, or “globalization” – in order to come up with reasonable, common sense policies?

I think we can. In Canada we have a unique opportunity: a country where the Western experience and freedoms are combined with a variety of non-Western cultures, including those of our native peoples. A country flexible enough to allow experimentation, new ideas, new ways of being. We can show the way.

That attitude, although it might be bold, is not arrogant. The truth is that the way forward must be shown. The West is mired in confusion and stagnation. The European dream of integration is disintegrating. France is certainly not showing the way. The United States has its own well-publicized problems. Canada stands at a cross-roads: accept the ideas of others, or take the lead and forge a new society. Not Western or Eastern, instead, Northern.

The true North, strong and free. An example for the world!

8 Responses to “The True North”
  1. Jd:

    Of course in this particular example of the Canadian blog entry, you’ve indulged in the only thing more truly canuk than rancorously arguing between non existant sides of unimportant debates: bitching about the aforementioned stagnation in our collective social imagination.

    The question remains, oh philosopher, of how to implement the change from our current pedantic, misdirected, misanthropic and misrepresented social agenda to the uniquely Canadian utopia of which we all dream…

    Maybe the first step is to define that dream, although it might be more politically effective to galvanise the vulgar masses with allusions to a loosely defined, therefore open to personal support, utopian vision. But that’s the methodology of the past. So what is the future -you- dream of?

    How do you seed the gestalt with the germs of change? How do we make Joe Everyman feel as though he has the affect, effect and right to have a hand in determining a positive future for himself, his family and his loved ones. How do we make democracy work?

    Do we need a charismatic leader to polarize the people? To strike the match? To pull the dullards from the mud and give them a hand in their own future. Or do we need the same to instead draw the masses in their wake as they forge a new road? Pick a metaphor. Democracy or dictatorship? Which one serves the end… and is their any ultimate difference? Hitler or Trudeau… or were they of the same silk but shaded with different intents?

    I do have to agree that good governance has to come not from a venerance of a stunted, nationalistic, beligerent (and therefore selfish) past. It needs to spring up from communal exemplars, individuals who will stand as pillars to their communities and nations. Nations that will ultimately do the same.

    This ramble is still getting me nowhere… and it’s been going for a few years now… so for the moment, it’ll end here.
    -=J=-

  2. Ade:

    The collective social imagination isn’t stagnant. I think the opposite is true: I think many Canadians are fired up, imaginative and interested. The growing number of Canadian bloggers and readers is perhaps one sign of that. And there’s certainly no shortage of NGOs, activists, writers, informed and opinionated citizens.

    What is stagnant, as you are quite aware, is the relationship between society and government. For most people the only participation in government is a secret ballot every few years, and even that is in decline. My dream for the country – which I think is probably the same dream you have – is the one that underpins our democracy, perhaps best summed up by Abraham Lincoln: “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

    Not a utopian vision, by any means. How do we get there? There is no shortage of answers to that question. Lots of solutions, many of which are probably perfectly workable, have been proposed, discussed, argued, and finally not acted on. No big surprise there: our current situation suits our current elites just fine.

    That’s why the charismatic leader you allude to – and yes, of course we need leaders, charismatic or not – is in such short supply. Government, being the big bureaucratic boring structure it is today, is packed full of big boring bureaucrats. Managers, not leaders, who effectively manage to keep out anybody who would shake things up. The political parties themselves are no different. And this situtation exists across the board in federal, provincial and municipal politics. I tried watching the city councillor debate in Hamilton’s last municipal election: BORING!

    With all the creative, imaginative, eager talent in Canada today, why do we have such a lack of it in those who run for office? For starters, being in office doesn’t seem particularly appealing. Heck, it doesn’t even SOUND appealing. Who wants to spend their time in an “office”? To make matters worse, you’re expected to live a perfect life (no drugs, barely any alcohol, no affairs, no dirt, no swearing, no strange beliefs, in other words, you can’t be anything like the people who voted for you), you have to work all the time, you need to spend a LOT of time in Ottawa (as an MP) which frankly does not appeal to me at all, and so on. And to really get anywhere you need to be bilingual and have either an MBA, a degree in political science, or both.

    There are concrete things that could be done to change this. For example, limit the hours MPs put in so they have time for family, relaxation and what seems to be in dire short supply in government, reflection. Allow MPs to telecommute to Parliament, so they can debate and vote on issues from constituency offices equipped with webcams and microphones. But again, answers and solutions are a dime a dozen. Action is the rarity.

    J, you seem pessimistic, even cynical. I feel optimistic. People are reading, writing, interested. Instead of a leader pulling Canadians along, I think Canadians are going to end up pulling our leaders along and creating new ones in the process. A new vision of Canada – realistic, not utopian – is achievable. Part of that depends on people like you, whose ramble really is getting you somewhere.

  3. alevo:

    I think part of the answer to J’s numerous questions, and part of Ade’s new vision, has to be found in a redress of our federal government’s mechanics. This includes a careful historical appreciation of what these institutions claim to represent. Who benefits in the party system, bi-cameral legislature, cabinet government, commonwealth affiliations, Prime Ministerial powers. There is a long history to these institutions (Ade be careful when you claim the death of western religiousity – iparticulalry those of the Frenc tradition – they are found everywhere in our government hierarchies). I know that change is not a once for all battle. So gradually shifting the pact between citizen and government is the best we can hope for. I would encourage you both to consider the implications of class, and how commonly held ideas ascend to become practical changes in governance. If popular opinion is effective in moving govenrments to action, then we will likely see a great number of changes happen as a result of the Gomery inquiry. Rather, if our Goverment is still no better than an autocratic Chateau Clique, well… let’s just wait and see.

    Like Plato’s ‘Noble Lie,’ maybe we would be happier if we just bought in?