Having spent three months now examining the issue of the separation of church and state, I've concluded that politics is a poor method for obtaining moral objectives that are not already included in prevailing societal norms.
[By morality, I am referring to the concept as understood by Christians who draw their system of principles, virtues, ethics, and morals from the Christian Bible. In the U.S., this is typically referred to as Judeo-Christian morality. Of course, most of Christianity's moral positions are shared by the world's other faiths.]
There are precious few moral giants* among our current crop of political
leaders, and not many modern-day Martin Luther Kings or Ralph Naders
bringing influence to bear. Consequently, if one wants to pursue a moral objective (whether it is addressing aboriginal alienation, having affordable housing and homeless policies with teeth, or establishing fetal rights and ending abortion, to name a few that are important to me) where society generally is either opposed or indifferent to you, or is not changing rapidly enough to achieve a critical mass, then methods other than agitating for changes to laws must be found.**
With respect to issues related to fetal rights, abortion, and crisis pregnancies, much useful laying of the ground is happening, although a lot of it is being done on a shoestring by hardworking, unsupported, and unappreciated amateurs. I want to start highlighting some of these noble efforts in subsequent posts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*A fascinating study has just been released by the Manning Foundation for Democratic Action (http://www.manningfoundation.org/our-work). 162 current and former politicians were asked to rate themselves on a variety of politically-relevant issues. They gave themselves a score of just 3.95 out of 10 for overall performance of politicians (Canadians generally give a rating of 4.49). Only one-third of the respondents believed that "ethics and integrity" was the most important skill set for a politician.
**I have had many opportunities to observe the political scene up close over the years. My late father
Donald J. Sutherland (pictured right) was quite active in politics as a municipal politician, campaign manager, and a federal candidate in Ontario. He was on a first-name basis with former Prime Minister Joe Clark and several federal and provincial cabinet ministers. I have been, as my reader knows, a school trustee since 1983, which requires frequent interaction with the Ministry of Education. Two of my former colleagues on the board of education are now cabinet ministers, one federal and one provincial. Others have served on our city's council. In addition, I was charged with lobbying the Ministry of Labour when I worked with CLAC, a labour union. I have been invited by three different provincial/federal parties to consider running myself. I couldn't say NO fast enough. Through it all, I have developed a fairly dubious attitude towards what can be accomplished politically, and what cannot, as a result of my experience.
Just today I read an article from Sun News (not a source I normally consult, but it was emailed to me and the headline grabbed my attention). The author has arrived at conclusions much like my own regarding a political leader's reluctance to step outside of societal norms (he calls it society's "sweet spot") despite their personal moral convictions (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/09/20140912-154619.html).
Here is an excerpt. The context is the political scene in New Brunswick, where the provincial Liberals, under the leadership of Brian Gallant, are leading the polls. The author's observations could not be truer to my own experience.
Now most political know-it-alls from all parties will tell you abortion is like a third rail, take any position on the issue - pro-life or pro-choice - and you lose more votes than you can get.
Their logic is that the sweet spot in politics is in the middle and taking any position on abortion moves you away from that big-tent sweet spot and towards a place where there are fewer votes.
And yet, here is Gallant, leading in the polls in New Brunswick across every demographic, income level, education level, and gender.
And not only is Trudeau leading every poll these days, but in May, the Liberal party actually sent out a letter soliciting membership and support using his pro-choice stand as the hot-button issue.
Sounds like those parties are in a pretty sweet spot.
Meanwhile, the conservative opponents of Gallant and Trudeau - those to whom pro-life advocates in Canada look to champion their views and who they hope would legislate restrictions on abortion - are timid and weak in their opposition to the bold, moral certitude of Gallant, Trudeau and, it must be said, New Democrat leaders at both levels.
The best that both Alward's Progressive Conservatives and Stephen Harper's Conservatives have been able to do is to point to inconsistencies in their opponents' parties. Gallant, they note, will have pro-life Liberal MLAs in his caucus if he wins, just as Trudeau does right now.
Conservatives also like to mutter something about being proud that they would allow free votes on matters of conscience like abortion.
Except that conservative governments do all they can to avoid ever having a debate, let alone a vote, on any abortion-related issue.
And while Trudeau's Liberals sent a membership pitch using abortion as a hot-button topic, I guarantee you there has never been a fundraising pitch from a conservative party that reads, "Send us $5 to help us protect the unborn."
Now, this column is not an argument in favour of restricting or extending abortion access in Canada.
But it is arguing for truth and candour in politics.
On abortion, political leaders on the left are advancing their position in an honest, upfront manner.
But conservative leaders shun the issue, making weak "process" arguments about their opponent rather than dealing with the substance of the issue: Should abortions, as Hillary Clinton said in 2005, be "safe, legal and rare"?
Leaders of the federal and provincial Liberals and New Democrats are loudly answering: Yes. Their conservative opponents would rather you asked them something else.
I rest my case
[By morality, I am referring to the concept as understood by Christians who draw their system of principles, virtues, ethics, and morals from the Christian Bible. In the U.S., this is typically referred to as Judeo-Christian morality. Of course, most of Christianity's moral positions are shared by the world's other faiths.]
With respect to issues related to fetal rights, abortion, and crisis pregnancies, much useful laying of the ground is happening, although a lot of it is being done on a shoestring by hardworking, unsupported, and unappreciated amateurs. I want to start highlighting some of these noble efforts in subsequent posts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*A fascinating study has just been released by the Manning Foundation for Democratic Action (http://www.manningfoundation.org/our-work). 162 current and former politicians were asked to rate themselves on a variety of politically-relevant issues. They gave themselves a score of just 3.95 out of 10 for overall performance of politicians (Canadians generally give a rating of 4.49). Only one-third of the respondents believed that "ethics and integrity" was the most important skill set for a politician.
**I have had many opportunities to observe the political scene up close over the years. My late father
Just today I read an article from Sun News (not a source I normally consult, but it was emailed to me and the headline grabbed my attention). The author has arrived at conclusions much like my own regarding a political leader's reluctance to step outside of societal norms (he calls it society's "sweet spot") despite their personal moral convictions (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/09/20140912-154619.html).
Here is an excerpt. The context is the political scene in New Brunswick, where the provincial Liberals, under the leadership of Brian Gallant, are leading the polls. The author's observations could not be truer to my own experience.
Their logic is that the sweet spot in politics is in the middle and taking any position on abortion moves you away from that big-tent sweet spot and towards a place where there are fewer votes.
And yet, here is Gallant, leading in the polls in New Brunswick across every demographic, income level, education level, and gender.
And not only is Trudeau leading every poll these days, but in May, the Liberal party actually sent out a letter soliciting membership and support using his pro-choice stand as the hot-button issue.
Sounds like those parties are in a pretty sweet spot.
Meanwhile, the conservative opponents of Gallant and Trudeau - those to whom pro-life advocates in Canada look to champion their views and who they hope would legislate restrictions on abortion - are timid and weak in their opposition to the bold, moral certitude of Gallant, Trudeau and, it must be said, New Democrat leaders at both levels.
The best that both Alward's Progressive Conservatives and Stephen Harper's Conservatives have been able to do is to point to inconsistencies in their opponents' parties. Gallant, they note, will have pro-life Liberal MLAs in his caucus if he wins, just as Trudeau does right now.
Conservatives also like to mutter something about being proud that they would allow free votes on matters of conscience like abortion.
Except that conservative governments do all they can to avoid ever having a debate, let alone a vote, on any abortion-related issue.
And while Trudeau's Liberals sent a membership pitch using abortion as a hot-button topic, I guarantee you there has never been a fundraising pitch from a conservative party that reads, "Send us $5 to help us protect the unborn."
Now, this column is not an argument in favour of restricting or extending abortion access in Canada.
But it is arguing for truth and candour in politics.
On abortion, political leaders on the left are advancing their position in an honest, upfront manner.
But conservative leaders shun the issue, making weak "process" arguments about their opponent rather than dealing with the substance of the issue: Should abortions, as Hillary Clinton said in 2005, be "safe, legal and rare"?
Leaders of the federal and provincial Liberals and New Democrats are loudly answering: Yes. Their conservative opponents would rather you asked them something else.
I rest my case
No comments:
Post a Comment