Oh, Canada – Chapter 12 - Canadians As Happy Subjects of Imperialism
The question of leadership is not primarily biological, but moral. Leaders may vary in quality from the man so loyal to sound standards that he inspires right conduct in others by the sheer rightness of his example, to the man who stands for nothing higher than the law of cunning and the law of force, and so is…imperialistic.
One’s choice may be, not between a democracy that is properly led and a democracy that hopes to find the equivalent of standards and leadership in the appeal to a numerical majority…but between a democracy that is properly led and a decadent imperialism.
If democracy means simply the attempt to eliminate the qualitative and selective principle in favour of some general will...it may prove to be only a form of the vertigo of the abyss. Democracy and Leadership – Irving Babbitt
How fitting that Mr. Justice Gomery’s first report should be released on a dreary, rainy day (both in Ottawa and where I sit here in B.C.) and on the eve of All Soul’s Day – the Day of the Dead. If there is any remainder of morality in the collective soul of this nation we call Canada, today will mark the death of the Liberal Party as it existed.
If, as I fear, we as a nation have completely lost our way when it comes to the realm of making moral decisions, this day rather will mark the point where we tipped further into the abyss of which Irving Babbitt wrote over 80 years ago.
Canadians would do well to reflect upon what they really express when they cast a vote. Are they truly concerned about electing good leaders, in the moral sense, or do they simply assume that leadership elected by a majority of the electorate, will stumble upon a set of policies and standards of conduct, which will be satisfactory to the majority.
During Paul Martin’s press conference this morning there were two questions and answers that stood out for me. The first was whether Mr. Martin felt proud to be a Liberal as he read Mr. Justice Gomery’s report this morning. Mr. Martin pulled back his shoulders and puffed out his chest and declared that indeed he was proud to be a Liberal, since after all it was the Liberal Party he leads which has taken all the initiatives to clean up the mess.
How sad that Mr. Martin has so little sense of responsibility and remorse that he should continue to speak with pride and even self-congratulation over his role in cleaning up the mess of his own party. Instead he should have said: “I am deeply ashamed of the actions of my party, I am deeply regretful of my own lack of vigilance in allowing these activities to go on while I was the Finance Minister and the senior Cabinet Minister from Quebec, and I have this morning asked the Governor General to dissolve this parliament so that the people of Canada can determine whether I and my party are to be entrusted with the ongoing governance of the nation’s affairs.”
During Question Period Martin refused to express any sense of shame or remorse, even ducking his responsibility as a member of the Cabinet that Gomery found shared collective blame for establishing an illegitimate program, and as Vice-Chair of the Treasury Board which Gomery found did not exercise its responsibilities of oversight.
The situation might be laughable if the picture was only one of Martin as the personification of the 3 monkey triumvirate – see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. The picture is rather one of the member of a gang of thieves that had carefully planned a bank heist, and who having slept in and missed the van when it left to carry out the deed, and the gang now having been caught, emerges as head of a citizen’s coalition dedicated to the cleaning up crime.
The other question asked of Mr. Martin was this: “Mr. Martin how did you feel in your heart this morning as you read the Gomery Report?” Finally, here was a perceptive question, the answer to which could give us a glimpse into the heart of a leader. What kind of man is Mr. Martin – “a man so loyal to sound standards that he inspires right conduct in others by the sheer rightness of his example”, or “a man who stands for nothing higher than the law of cunning and the law of force”.
Martin answered by saying he wished it (the scandal) had never happened. What kind of heart does this tell us beats within that chest? Is it the heart of a man who can inspire right conduct by the rightness of his example? Or is this is the heart of a man who clings to power, a man who talks but who does not act, a man who leads a party that we now know has for decades operated on the principles of entitlement and decadent self-service?
Are enough Canadians so blind to what has gone on here that they do not see the implications in Mr. Martin's responses? If as a parent you confronted your child with the fact you now knew he or she had been involved, if only marginally, with others in a scheme to steal from their schoolmates funds raised for a field trip; would you be satisfied if the child said that all it felt in its heart was regret the incident had happened? Surely you would demand that the child express some remorse and experience a sense of shame for having participated. Why would you hold your politicians to a lower standard, considering how many of your hard earned dollars you entrust to them?
Martin is the master of the art of willful blindness and if in the next election sufficient numbers of Canadians continue to vote for Liberals to re-elect them, Canada will prove itself to be a nation of the blind, deceived into believing they are governed by a democracy when in fact they are nothing more than the subjects of a “decadent imperialism.”
One’s choice may be, not between a democracy that is properly led and a democracy that hopes to find the equivalent of standards and leadership in the appeal to a numerical majority…but between a democracy that is properly led and a decadent imperialism.
If democracy means simply the attempt to eliminate the qualitative and selective principle in favour of some general will...it may prove to be only a form of the vertigo of the abyss. Democracy and Leadership – Irving Babbitt
How fitting that Mr. Justice Gomery’s first report should be released on a dreary, rainy day (both in Ottawa and where I sit here in B.C.) and on the eve of All Soul’s Day – the Day of the Dead. If there is any remainder of morality in the collective soul of this nation we call Canada, today will mark the death of the Liberal Party as it existed.
If, as I fear, we as a nation have completely lost our way when it comes to the realm of making moral decisions, this day rather will mark the point where we tipped further into the abyss of which Irving Babbitt wrote over 80 years ago.
Canadians would do well to reflect upon what they really express when they cast a vote. Are they truly concerned about electing good leaders, in the moral sense, or do they simply assume that leadership elected by a majority of the electorate, will stumble upon a set of policies and standards of conduct, which will be satisfactory to the majority.
During Paul Martin’s press conference this morning there were two questions and answers that stood out for me. The first was whether Mr. Martin felt proud to be a Liberal as he read Mr. Justice Gomery’s report this morning. Mr. Martin pulled back his shoulders and puffed out his chest and declared that indeed he was proud to be a Liberal, since after all it was the Liberal Party he leads which has taken all the initiatives to clean up the mess.
How sad that Mr. Martin has so little sense of responsibility and remorse that he should continue to speak with pride and even self-congratulation over his role in cleaning up the mess of his own party. Instead he should have said: “I am deeply ashamed of the actions of my party, I am deeply regretful of my own lack of vigilance in allowing these activities to go on while I was the Finance Minister and the senior Cabinet Minister from Quebec, and I have this morning asked the Governor General to dissolve this parliament so that the people of Canada can determine whether I and my party are to be entrusted with the ongoing governance of the nation’s affairs.”
During Question Period Martin refused to express any sense of shame or remorse, even ducking his responsibility as a member of the Cabinet that Gomery found shared collective blame for establishing an illegitimate program, and as Vice-Chair of the Treasury Board which Gomery found did not exercise its responsibilities of oversight.
The situation might be laughable if the picture was only one of Martin as the personification of the 3 monkey triumvirate – see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. The picture is rather one of the member of a gang of thieves that had carefully planned a bank heist, and who having slept in and missed the van when it left to carry out the deed, and the gang now having been caught, emerges as head of a citizen’s coalition dedicated to the cleaning up crime.
The other question asked of Mr. Martin was this: “Mr. Martin how did you feel in your heart this morning as you read the Gomery Report?” Finally, here was a perceptive question, the answer to which could give us a glimpse into the heart of a leader. What kind of man is Mr. Martin – “a man so loyal to sound standards that he inspires right conduct in others by the sheer rightness of his example”, or “a man who stands for nothing higher than the law of cunning and the law of force”.
Martin answered by saying he wished it (the scandal) had never happened. What kind of heart does this tell us beats within that chest? Is it the heart of a man who can inspire right conduct by the rightness of his example? Or is this is the heart of a man who clings to power, a man who talks but who does not act, a man who leads a party that we now know has for decades operated on the principles of entitlement and decadent self-service?
Are enough Canadians so blind to what has gone on here that they do not see the implications in Mr. Martin's responses? If as a parent you confronted your child with the fact you now knew he or she had been involved, if only marginally, with others in a scheme to steal from their schoolmates funds raised for a field trip; would you be satisfied if the child said that all it felt in its heart was regret the incident had happened? Surely you would demand that the child express some remorse and experience a sense of shame for having participated. Why would you hold your politicians to a lower standard, considering how many of your hard earned dollars you entrust to them?
Martin is the master of the art of willful blindness and if in the next election sufficient numbers of Canadians continue to vote for Liberals to re-elect them, Canada will prove itself to be a nation of the blind, deceived into believing they are governed by a democracy when in fact they are nothing more than the subjects of a “decadent imperialism.”
posted by Ben Buan | 12:28 p.m.
<< Home