The Shotgun Blog
« IDRC is working to bring tobacco control to the developing world. Don’t these countries have enough problems? |
Main
| Do No Harm? »
Monday, June 01, 2009
The Principles of Civilization
"...they flee from principle with the consummate agility of men who love their popularity."
Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind
John Robson was complaining. David Warren chimed in too. Mr Warren, in addition to lamenting the moral decline of the Conservative Party of Canada, predicts its electoral demise. Whatever the intellectual flexibility of the party, its supporters will eventually grow weary of its strenuous efforts to narrow the order paper's width of difference between themselves and the opposition. The partisan will call this treason. We borrow from Patrick Henry here. Gentlemen may cry conservative, conservative but there are no conservatives, the Liberals are already in power. Why stand we here idle?
My old confrere, Edward Michael George, displays his atavistic tendencies with this post. I think he is hinting at the return of the pillory. His anger is directed at the political classes. Their incompetent and juvenile behaviour must be punished. It is one of the maxims of my blogging career that people get the government they deserve. A nation of scoundrels will elect a government of scoundrels. Our democratic age, worshipful of the Common Man, believes that the people are always right. The priests of the Church of Vox Populi fail to mention, a casual omission surely, in their sermons when their God has failed. Allende and Hitler being the more famous examples. When, in the monarchical age, injustice was seen in the land the blame was laid not on the King - who by virtue of his office and person was virtuous - but on his evil advisors. If the King could only see the truth, surely he would rule justly. The people being sovereign today, it is clearly their servants - the politicians - who have failed them. The people are always virtuous.
Among the riddles of early 20th century Canadian politics, the election of 1911 is among the most troubling. Sir Wilfred Laurier, a beloved figure even then, was defeated by his Conservative rival Robert Borden. Laurier had bested the Nova Scotian twice before - 1904, 1908 - yet this time the Tory leader won. There was only one issue in 1911, a limited free trade agreement with the United States. Had Laurier simply stayed away from the issue of free trade, he almost certainly would have won the election. Much of industrial Ontario had become dependent on Macdonald's system of industrial tariffs. Some inopportune comments from American politicians had raised annexationist fears. Why had Laurier taken the risk? He was a liberal, in the original meanings of the word. Among the central political tenets of liberalism is a belief in free trade. In other words, Laurier took a political risk on principle. When faced with a similar political choice in 1878 Alexander Mackenzie, Laurier's predecessor as Liberal Party leader, had declared that the principles of free trade were the principles of civilization. Mackenzie too went down to defeat in 1878, just as his junior minister would lose three decades later.
Principled men going down to defeat may suggest a timeless quality to our predicament. Yet it is not so. Would men like Mackenize and Laurier get anywhere near elective office today? Not simply men of their political beliefs - classical liberalism - but men of their integrity, regardless of belief. They were not immune to political realities. Laurier was especially adept at avoiding crisis, neatly side stepping the Manitoba Schools Problem - which had no real political solution - and continuing to shovel millions in railways subsidies to provide an alternative to the reign of the Macdonald created CPR. Yet their calculations exhibited a willingness to lose the game, if necessary. More recently John Robarts, the Premier of Ontario in the 1960s, would often advise young lawyer MPPs to keep up their legal practice. Should they have to resign on a matter of principle, a financial exit was always available.
Such men have largely disappeared from political life. Even the scoundrels of previous eras felt a need to maintain a respectable facade. The game today makes men scoundrels, if they are not already. The logic of the welfare state, of the state that tries to be everything to everyone, is that not everyone, or even most people can be satisfied. In the recent British MPs expenses scandal, where the public was outraged at the members expensing phantom mortgages and moat maintenance charges, there was an air of the lady protesting too much. People expect free health care, free education and a clutch of free or subsidized government services. They view government as a dispenser of goodies. Who pays for these services? There are the mentally disadvantage who cannot grasp that government has no resources of its own. The vast majority understand, at least implicitly, they are robbing Peter for their own benefit. Conduct that would have them arrested if engaged individually, is sanctified when being done in great majorities.
It is not shocking that their elected servants should have the same attitude, albeit in a more dramatic manner. A principled man cannot survive long in politics because be must meet the contradictory demands of the voters. They want more services, but lower taxes, yet no deficits. Jim Flaherty is faulted for having escalated the size of the deficit by several billions in as many weeks. Where was the outrage - aside from that tiny and hardy band of small government types - from the media and electorate when the minister was dispensing gifts in late January? The outrage of the modern electorate is like that of Captain Renault. They are shocked, shocked to find dishonesty in public affairs. Yet rarely is the servant better than his master.
Posted by Richard Anderson on June 1, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Hit the nail on the head
"Yet rarely is the servant better than his master"
gone are the days when the roles of master and servant are clearly distinguished.
Posted by: Condor | 2009-06-01 2:02:55 PM
There was only one issue in 1911, a limited free trade agreement with the United States.
What about the naval bill? Sure he lost big in Ontario but Laurier also dropped 16 seats in Quebec.
Within Canada itself the Naval Service Bill was very controversial. The bill was strongly criticized by both the French Canadian Nationalists and the English Canadians. Imperialistic minded Canadians claimed that Canada was doing too little and/or was not showing enough loyalty to Britain. Conservatives famously dubbed Laurier’s new policy as the “Tin Pot Navy”.[5] The bill was highly criticized by the French Canadian Nationalists, led by Henri Bourassa.[7] Bourassa felt that the establishment of a Canadian navy that could be placed under British control was even worse than transferring cash to the British Admiralty, and that Canada risked being dragged into every single British war. In addition, the French Nationalists were concerned that the navy would mean conscription for the Canadian people.[2]
Posted by: DJ | 2009-06-01 4:15:32 PM
That's a fair point DJ. I'd still say the trade deal was the MAIN issue in 1911, but the naval bill was very controversial in Quebec. Bourassa had been waiting to knife Laurier since the Boer War, 1911 was his chance. Laurier's losses in Ontario doomed him, those losses were almost entirely due to the Free Trade controversy. Just on the naval bill, he probably could have survived.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-06-01 4:21:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
