The Scene and Herd

In the Post today, Lorne Gunter writes on “the Liberal way with hypocrisy.” For years the Liberals have been calling the Conservatives un-Canadian, he says. But now that Harper’s Cons are calling Ignatieff un-Canadian, “the Grits are sputtering with indignation.”

To drive the point home, he assumes the voice of one (crazy!) Liberal talking about policy and patriotism.
“Not a fan of government monopoly health care? You’re un-Canadian. Not big on easy unemployment benefits, official bilingualism, dismantling our military, beggaring our economy in the name of environmentalism, coddling criminals, huge public debts, activist judges, multiculturalism, foreign investment reviews, national energy policies and so on? Shame on you for being so un-Canadian.”
First of all, I want to point out that he put official bilingualism, multiculturalism, and coddling criminals on the same list. (Are people seriously “against” multiculturalism? I mean, do they admit to that kind of thing?)

But besides that, the sarcasm is interesting. It looks like he’s using sarcasm to emphasize the fallacy of determining someone’s patriotism by comparing ideologies. The problem is, the Liberals aren’t doing that right now – the Conservatives are.

Is he trying to shame the Liberals for the poor logic they used in the past? Or is he trying to shame the Conservatives for using the same poor logic that the Liberals used in the past?

I was really hoping this was, indeed, going to be an article about Liberal hypocrisy. I feel much more comfortable in a world where there are Liberals or Conservatives (and a few adorable Idealists and Separatists on the side). I can argue best in this environment. But it looks like this is an article about poor logic all around. It’s so depressing.

I was pretty dissatisfied by all accounts of the Liberal leadership convention. Media put it down as ill attended, underwhelming and unnecessary. Many seemed to take issue with Iggy’s allusioin to the 1968 convention at which Trudeau was elected. That convention spouted Trudeaumania, they argued. This one was just boring.

Thing is, I read an account in the Globe and Mail that claimed the convention was all about free beer and raucous political debate. “That sounds really awesome,” I thought to myself. I would totally be manic for Ignatieff in that environment, not bored at all.

In the Globe today, Lysiane Gagnon writes that Ignatieff wants to be the new Trudeau, but Canadians would “rather have competent, pragmatic leaders than a visionaries.” Sigh. That certainly does’t apply to me. Trudeaumania could “never be replicated,” she writes. Trudeau came at a “specific moment in history, at a time when the youth movement was shaking the world and people were thirsty for new, younger faces. Mr. Trudeau was an elegant, unconventional man of 46, a sharp contrast with the boring political figures of the time.”

That specific moment in time seems to bear a strong resemblance to this specific moment in time (ie. South of the border). I’m usually thirsty for new, young faces in politics. I’m also usually bored with the political figures of my time (against whom Michael Igantieff appears quite elegant). What the hell is going on here? Am I missing something?

Or am I just the same age now as all these disenchanted journalist were then, when Trudeau was on the scene?

I wonder what people would have written about the convention if Iggy had left 1968 out of things. He had to go and remind all those old politicos that they were once young and idealistic, but they’d since aged and nothing is very exciting anymore.

The article concludes with the claim that “’Iggymania’ exists mostly in the imagination of those who are waxing nostalgic about Pierre Elliott Trudeau.”

But I wonder if those waxing nostalgic about 1968 are having the harder time getting manic about anything, now that they’re old and hate free beer with raucous debate.

Canada’s sensitivity levels have shot way up and out of control, ever since Iggy came on the scene a few years ago. You’d think a self-assured political character like Ignatieff would be good for us, but instead our collective self-esteem is all threatened and out of whack. Iggy has ushered in an embarrassing era where money, really good schools, and international travel appear to be the bane of the Canadian psyche.

 This article in the Toronto Star today is exemplary of our nation’s weirdo but typically Canadian attitude towards Ignatieff. As of this morning, we can all add “knowledge” to the list of really awesome things that Canadians are now wary of because they feel threatened by Iggy.

 ”Michael Ignatieff’s embryonic election platform – “a knowledge society” – is safe, smart and stylish. It can be stretched to include everything from basic literacy to advanced scientific research.”

That sounds great. I’m so glad he brought it up.

“But as the former Harvard professor and his brain trust flesh out their policy manifesto, there are a few realities to consider.”

There’s that H-word again. I see where this piece is going. The realities that Carol Goar (the author) is talking about are immigrants who can’t get certified in Canada, recent grads that can’t get a job, and skilled workers that might feel slighted by a “knowledge society.”

“The Liberal leader and his strategists may find the phrase ‘smart is the new black’ appealing, but to millions of hard-working Canadians, it sounds elitist and suggests they’ll be second-class members of the knowledge society.”

This is one of the worst things I’ve ever heard. It’s so childish I want to die. I seriously doubt that millions of hard working Canadians have such a fragile ego, and if they do, it probably doesn’t have anything to do with Michael Ignatieff’s election platform (and if it does… well then the nation is just doomed). Who are these millions anyways?

“Canada needs – and will continue to need – home care workers, tradespeople, cleaners, truck drivers, technicians, shopkeepers and labourers. Their jobs may not be glamorous, but they’re essential. Where do these people fit into Ignatieff’s vision?”

 I happen to know a cleaner and a shopkeeper and I think they would fit into a knowledge vision pretty comfortably. They don’t mind ideas and technology, and I think they might even understand the benefits of science.

 I suspect that Goar is projecting this “second class” mentality onto a particular demographic or two that she’s not even a part of. We’re all concerned about recent grads that can’t find a job, and immigrants that have been denied “the opportunity to use their skills.” These are definitely issues that need to be addressed and fixed, but all the immigrants and recent grads I know could really get behind the idea of a knowledge society…

Can’t we have a competent immigration system, a healthy job market and a knowledge society? (Personally, I think we should employ all recent grads in the poorly staffed immigration department. But nobody asked me.)

As we approach the inevitable election, finally with Ignatieff as Liberal leader, I look forward to fleshed out policies and ideas. So far, I like his optimism. I hope it doesn’t get sucked into the vortex that disappeared Canada’s tolerance for Harvard and … knowledge.

And I really wish we would let those hard working Canadians speak for themselves for once.

While watching Tropic Thunder the other night, I started thinking about how the Vietnam War was funny. More specifically, I thought about how Vietnam War vets were funny. Mostly, of course, I was thinking about Walter from the The Big Lebowski and how much I treasure the invention of that character. Like any good thing that results from a painful situation (especially if it’s not your painful situation), the thought crosses my mind that Walter makes the Vietnam War worthwhile. I’m immediately struck by the inappropriateness of the thought, but it occurs so swiftly, I haven’t the time or nature to curb it. For my generation, this kind of thinking is the most natural thing in the world.

On the same night that I watched Tropic Thunder, I had people over to my house for a potluck. Before the food had even been served, we were cracking jokes about the epidemic, deciding that one of my friends was missing from the festivities because he’d been afflicted. That was before I knew that swine flu was affecting healthy, young adults. I read in the paper the next day that my demographic was certainly at risk and had a brief moment of panic (which involved a lot of sudden flu-like symptoms, I’m sure you can imagine) but I quickly lost interest in my own vulnerabilities the second I read that the EU wanted to call it the novel flu. Is it not enough that Israel and some Muslims want to name it after the Mexicans? This is funny – this and the Vietnam War.

The thing is, we’re not laughing as a defense mechanism. My own panic was brief and I’m convinced that everything is going to be okay. We’re laughing at the novel flu because we don’t believe what we hear. There’s not really going to be an epidemic.

I blame my disbelief on the economy (which is bad but not that bad), SARS and terrorism. I blame Y2K! I especially blame the swine flu outbreaks of 1976 and 1988 respectively, in this case. I blame everything that’s happened in the past 20 that was supposed to be really awful, but turned out to be inconvenient. I blame the media for framing everything as an epidemic (literally and metaphorically). As a people, we’re desensitized, sure. But we’re not desensitized because we hear about bad things like AIDS, poverty and war every day. We’re desensitized because everything we hear about every day is told with a panic that should be reserved for discussing the war in Vietnam etc. People don’t read about Darfur and think, “I’m tired of this and I don’t care.” They read about Darfur and think, “Yeah right. This from the people that told me to keep out of Chinatown in the summer of 2003.”

I blame the media and SARS and the economy. But I also credit these…groups for enabling the creation of Walter and other comical war vet characters. Without all these false alarms, we might still be sensitive about bad things.