John Robson has recently made the argument that the ‘Occupy’ movement is full of folks who do not know how to wash (yes, yes, yes, we get your lame on-running joke about how failing to shower is not a form of political activism) and who don’t understand the fundamentals of human nature. The movement ‘conspicuously despises ideas’. Imagine a movement without leaders and overt rules! Robson sure can’t. He does however argue that compassion is an individual choice and as such is not something which can be transformed into a political ideology. Imagine the nerve and gullibility of a group of (mostly) young people suggesting we can make things better!
When I recently visited Occupy Ottawa I came across three folks who had studied university-level political science and a professor. Clearly none of these people are empty-headed or mistakenly think there are easy answers to complex problems. Unlike our Sun editorialist, there seemed to be an inherent understanding that nuance and complexity are key components to any political equation. And, of course, without offering evidence, Robson is quick to make the supposition that the ‘Occupy’ movement is strictly a left-wing affair. A pretty big assumption – especially when one considers the potential political overlaps with the Tea Party movement (nobody likes ‘big government’ until they need something). As he is intent on documenting the ills of the left, Robson is more than willing to brush aside the role laissez-faire economics has had in the current economic crisis. The neo-liberal/neoconservative twin notions that open markets and free trade will be our saviors look more utopian than most of the ideas I’ve seen from ‘Occupy’.
But what is most troubling about Robson’s piece can be found in his statement: “And I deplore the impulse to transform human nature through politics.” There is an elitist assumption that he knows and understands ‘human nature’ and that it is something clear and unalterable. One can take away from this position that all politics is folly as our true natures are set in stone. There is to be a clear divide between politics and caring. According to Robson, “The problem is that political remedies for life’s fundamental injustice cannot work.” Yet one can’t help but recall that many of the arguments against the abolition of slavery and extending rights for women were made on the basis of some imagined ‘human nature’. Robson is merely offering the same old exhausted one-dimensional right-wing argument: what I have is human nature and common sense and what the left offers is ideology. After all who can argue with ‘nature’?
Still, the Sun itself is not above making overt pleas for more ideology in politics. In a recent editorial (November 9, 2011) there is a rebuke of Jim Flaherty. Apparently our Finance Minister had the nerve to state that the government would ‘not be bound to ideology’ when it came to economic decisions. The editorial wonders why this is the case as obviously Canadians had recently elected a conservative government. To me this line of thought resembles the ‘hollow outrage’ Robson was speaking of.
Any voter who had done even the smallest amount of research on the subject would know that the Prime Minister, and Flaherty by extension, supports the idea of changing economic policy to suit current circumstances and using government revenues to stimulate job growth. In other words, Harper and his Finance Minister are textbook Keynesians. So the real issue is about living up to pre-election commitments. When such transgressions take place at the provincial (read: liberal) level the Premier is a devilish liar. At the federal (read: conservative) level, Stephen Harper is merely not living up to ideological expectations. Perhaps the ‘willful obtuseness’ and ‘deliberate vacuity’ Robson speaks of resides at the Sun as well. Why wouldn’t Mr. Robson be as demanding of the paper he writes for as he is of the ‘Occupy’ movement?
Showering = Political Posturing, anyway.
ReplyDelete