This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
Don't overvalue our values
Don't overvalue our values
by Rick Salutin
December 3, 2004
NDP Leader Jack Layton has been peppering his politics with the phrase Canadian values. To George Bush, he wrote, I hope Canada will respectfully disagree with those policies . . . at odds with our values. To NDP backers, he said the Bush visit was an opportunity to stand up for Canadian values . . . we need to stand up for Canadian values . . . we can protect Canadian values.
Sounds harmless. What is there to object to? Well, I don't want to sound alarmist, so let me just say it reeks of Nazi racial ideology. Oh. Sorry. I guess that sounded alarmist (what Doug Saunders has called the reductio ad hitlerum). Let me restate the point in academese: The term Canadian values belongs to an essentialist discourse. That's because it treats individuals and societies in terms of what they fundamentally are, rather than what they do and become. It sees them as basically timeless and unchanging instead of open-ended and self-creating. Put that way, it sounds odd for the NDP, those advocates of progressive change.
They are, though, in sync with the zeitgeist. Think of the values on offer today: family values, moral values, religious values, Christian values, Judeo-Christian values, Hindu values, Islamic values. The mentality spreads like a virus. Human Resources Minister Joe Volpe just announced that Canada's new position on Israel at the UN is based on the Canadian values structure. What the hell does that mean?
Recent discussions of Canada-U.S. relations have focused on values, which may conceal more than it reveals. It's true we have universal health care and they don't. But polls show a big majority in the U.S. would like a Canadian-style system. It's not their values that prevent it. It's the might of their medical/pharmaceutical/insurance establishment.
I'd guess the NDP got this gimmick from the U.S., where they often purchase pricey political advice. U.S. politics right now is all about values. In the last election, only 10 per cent of voters chose on the basis of policies; the rest judged by the candidates' values or qualities. In Ottawa this week, George Bush talked about the kind of fella he is, a guy who does what he says. Take me, take my policies.
What a great way to avoid democratic debate. Democracy is not about imposing your values or style. Down that road lies religious war. It's about free-ranging discussion of what projects a people should embark on. Take Tommy Douglas, who beat out even Don Cherry as The Greatest Canadian. I don't think he talked much about Canadian values. He helped create our health-care system by engaging us in a debate over what kind of society we wanted to build: For example, kids should not grow up crippled just because they're poor. The values involved were not Canadian; they were universal. Pierre Trudeau talked about a Just Society, not Canadian justice. Moral is moral; the other values often amount to matters of taste or faith.
What about people who don't share Canadian values as defined by Jack Layton or some poll? Are they less Canadian? What if values shift? If Canadians in the future opt for crappy U.S.-style health care or war on Iraq, does that mean the NDP should shift its values? A neat thing about Tommy Douglas was that he stuck to his views opposing the War Measures Act in 1970, for instance even when Canadians massively rejected his position. The alternative a Canadian values approach sounds annoyingly like the most offensive phrase in public life: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know . . . or Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of hearing . . . Why don't they just tell us what they think and let us decide what we know?
It might be comforting to think all of life is imbued with moral or theological meaning, rather than its lack. But it's dodgy. It can be hard enough to reach a position such as No to missile defence without then claiming to have deduced it from some underlying Canadian value. Like what: Valuing peace more than Americans do? But Canada went to war far more quickly than the U.S. twice in the last century! And what about the oozing sense of moral superiority implied? Just what kind of Canadian value is that?
How relevenat is this comment to Australians? find this article: Rabble News - http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=35664
by Rick Salutin
December 3, 2004
NDP Leader Jack Layton has been peppering his politics with the phrase Canadian values. To George Bush, he wrote, I hope Canada will respectfully disagree with those policies . . . at odds with our values. To NDP backers, he said the Bush visit was an opportunity to stand up for Canadian values . . . we need to stand up for Canadian values . . . we can protect Canadian values.
Sounds harmless. What is there to object to? Well, I don't want to sound alarmist, so let me just say it reeks of Nazi racial ideology. Oh. Sorry. I guess that sounded alarmist (what Doug Saunders has called the reductio ad hitlerum). Let me restate the point in academese: The term Canadian values belongs to an essentialist discourse. That's because it treats individuals and societies in terms of what they fundamentally are, rather than what they do and become. It sees them as basically timeless and unchanging instead of open-ended and self-creating. Put that way, it sounds odd for the NDP, those advocates of progressive change.
They are, though, in sync with the zeitgeist. Think of the values on offer today: family values, moral values, religious values, Christian values, Judeo-Christian values, Hindu values, Islamic values. The mentality spreads like a virus. Human Resources Minister Joe Volpe just announced that Canada's new position on Israel at the UN is based on the Canadian values structure. What the hell does that mean?
Recent discussions of Canada-U.S. relations have focused on values, which may conceal more than it reveals. It's true we have universal health care and they don't. But polls show a big majority in the U.S. would like a Canadian-style system. It's not their values that prevent it. It's the might of their medical/pharmaceutical/insurance establishment.
I'd guess the NDP got this gimmick from the U.S., where they often purchase pricey political advice. U.S. politics right now is all about values. In the last election, only 10 per cent of voters chose on the basis of policies; the rest judged by the candidates' values or qualities. In Ottawa this week, George Bush talked about the kind of fella he is, a guy who does what he says. Take me, take my policies.
What a great way to avoid democratic debate. Democracy is not about imposing your values or style. Down that road lies religious war. It's about free-ranging discussion of what projects a people should embark on. Take Tommy Douglas, who beat out even Don Cherry as The Greatest Canadian. I don't think he talked much about Canadian values. He helped create our health-care system by engaging us in a debate over what kind of society we wanted to build: For example, kids should not grow up crippled just because they're poor. The values involved were not Canadian; they were universal. Pierre Trudeau talked about a Just Society, not Canadian justice. Moral is moral; the other values often amount to matters of taste or faith.
What about people who don't share Canadian values as defined by Jack Layton or some poll? Are they less Canadian? What if values shift? If Canadians in the future opt for crappy U.S.-style health care or war on Iraq, does that mean the NDP should shift its values? A neat thing about Tommy Douglas was that he stuck to his views opposing the War Measures Act in 1970, for instance even when Canadians massively rejected his position. The alternative a Canadian values approach sounds annoyingly like the most offensive phrase in public life: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know . . . or Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of hearing . . . Why don't they just tell us what they think and let us decide what we know?
It might be comforting to think all of life is imbued with moral or theological meaning, rather than its lack. But it's dodgy. It can be hard enough to reach a position such as No to missile defence without then claiming to have deduced it from some underlying Canadian value. Like what: Valuing peace more than Americans do? But Canada went to war far more quickly than the U.S. twice in the last century! And what about the oozing sense of moral superiority implied? Just what kind of Canadian value is that?
How relevenat is this comment to Australians? find this article: Rabble News - http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=35664
Howdy, Stranger!