The political climate has become heated almost everywhere—and this one is, without a shred of doubt, “man-made”. Civil debate of issues is no longer possible, as politicians keep attacking and haranguing each other. Playing blinkered political games is all that seems to matter, regardless of the cost.
Once upon a time, going into politics was a noble venture, a way of serving the public and giving back to society. The ultimate goal was to create maximum benefit for the highest possible number of people. It was a good system, and while there have always been different ways of looking at the world, the “maximum benefit” principle was heeded and observed by all holders of public office. As such, it mattered precious little to the average citizen whether those in charge of government were to the left or to the right of the “centre”. The important thing was that those leaders got the job done, that is, the job of generating maximum benefits for a vast majority of people.
But, boy, things have sure changed a lot since those halcyon days. It’s next to impossible to open a news site or newspaper without reading about the latest skirmishes in parliaments, senates and what have you. While politicians seem quite happy to engage in such jousting, people just about everywhere are feeling let-down and betrayed by those who were elected to represent them, and when asked, they’ll readily tell you that they sense that their country is broken—this is now the status quo in places such as the United States, Canada, most of Europe and virtually every country that, at least on paper, is supposed to be a democracy.
Venting on social media or writing one of those now-old-fashioned letters to the editor of a newspaper is no longer enough for increasingly frustrated voters: they take to the streets, lay siege to an entire city by driving a truck convoy into town, or launch an all-out attack on the seat of government—if they’re not already busy chucking harmless pebbles at a prime minister and earning themselves a criminal conviction. What’s that sound, you ask? No, it’s not a giant sucking sound to the south. It’s the sound of gears ratcheting their way up some type of scale… the scale of polarization and extremism.
Has it to do with ideology? Only to a certain extent. I remember a time when most people didn’t care whether those in power for four or five years were ideologically from the left side or the right side. In Canada, for example, Conservatives and Liberals would take turns, and if one of them really messed up, the other guys came and cleaned up and moved on. Overall, however, Canadians were never too concerned about which of the two parties was in power at any given time; they knew that both parties were always trying to look out for the best interest of all Canadians and to do right by them. The same was true in the U.S., with respect to Republicans and Democrats.
Of course, there were always ideological differences, because, well, Conservatives and Liberals or Republicans and Democrats see the world in slightly different shades of color. But, essentially, they all agreed that their country mattered, that their people mattered, and so they were all trying to figure out the best ways of achieving maximum benefit for a maximum number of people.
I can still remember, in the U.S. and Canada, when both sides of the political divide pursued the same goals and ideals; only when it came to executing new laws or new measures or new programs, did you notice any differences in nuance at all.
All of this started changing, very slowly at first, but then it really accelerated, probably over the last 10 or 15 years in particular.
I mentioned before that all this is related to ideology only marginally. While the two sides are, indeed, divided by ideological differences, doing politics through the prism of one’s beliefs and convictions is no longer the goal. It has been replaced by a more vulgar and downright vile modus operandi that could be described in a variety of ways: settling scores, taking revenge, tit for tat, poking and provoking the other side, etc.
Looking at politics in Canada and the U.S., I see nothing left of the noble “maximum benefit” principle. Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals now pass new legislation and issue regulations that are designed solely for the purpose of angering, provoking, poking and thumbing their noses at the guys across the aisle. Then, one day, when the other side is back in the driver’s seat, they reciprocate in kind—thus ratcheting up the level of polarization even further. A perfect vicious circle.
The politicians themselves are having fun; they’re enjoying this kind of jousting and matching of wits. But voters are left in no-man’s land, while the country around them is slowly disintegrating, with education, healthcare and infrastructure becoming the front-line casualties.
Let me give you a few recent examples from Canada.
The Liberal government in Ottawa recently passed a law that will regulate “Canadian content” on the Internet and force major players like Amazon, Netflix, Google, Facebook and others to tweak their algorithms so that Canadians see recommendations for Canadian content whenever they go to one of those platforms. In addition, those major players will also be forced to pay for links to Canadian news content and chip in substantial amounts of money to fund Canadian TV and film productions. There are further plans in the works that will target people’s freedom of speech online, which to many smacks of George Orwell’s 1984.
To be sure, Canadian voters didn’t ask for this. They know only too well that these new measures and laws will have terrible consequences for them: streaming services will become more expensive or leave Canada altogether. In a nutshell, Canadians may end up having a lot less choice, and whatever they are offered will be considerably more expensive.
So, why did the Liberal government go ahead with this? Clearly, there is no maximum benefit for a maximum number of people—except those in the news business or Canadian TV producers, who are already salivating at the thought of all that money heading their way.
So, why then?
Frankly, Liberals don’t care about any of that. But they know that these issues of controlling news, opinion and entertainment content do matter a great deal to their Conservative opponents. By passing those laws, the Liberals have poked their opponents—unnecessarily, but highly effectively. The tone and quality of discourse in Canada’s House of Commons has inevitably deteriorated even further and plumbed new depths. Needless to say that if (when?) the Conservatives win the next federal election, they will first of all scrap those Liberal laws and then move on to keeping their promise of defunding the public broadcaster (CBC). Again none of this will serve Canadian voters, unless they’re card-carrying members of the Conservative Party, but it will drive a sword through the hearts Liberals as well as small-L liberals. Scores settled, tit delivered for tat, the country and its people be damned.
As I said, it’s all about settling scores and aggravating one’s opponents. What voters think, want or need is of no concern. For that matter, the more people express their misgivings over the constant vapid and empty woke virtue-signaling, for example, the more the Liberals double down (such as when prime minister Justin Trudeau seriously suggested using the term “peoplekind” instead of “mankind”).
Unlike the U.S., Canada has a lot more parties competing. So as not to be overlooked, the upstart People’s Party of Canada has now begun poking and aggravating both the Liberals and Conservatives, thus promoting bans on abortions and being just about as anti-immigrant as one can be without breaking out into involuntary goose-stepping spasms with raised arms. Poke, poke, poke… .
But, at least, we in Canada haven’t seen a clone of Donald Trump (yet). The arrival of Trump on the political stage, as well as his subsequent election as president, should have been a wake-up call for Americans, Canadians and everyone else. The media and the Democrats would constantly attack and berate him as if he were the source of all evil. No, he’s not the cause, but merely a symptom. A symptom of the disease I have described in this article. A disease that has been allowed to fester and spread unchecked for far too long.
You think the symptom Donald Trump was bad? Just wait until the pressure cooker that these silly political games have put on the stove blows sky-high. In a future not that far off, it’s quite possible that we’ll see a president emerge who thinks that Hitler wasn’t man enough to do what was needed. Sure, Trump talked about immigration from south of the border, about building walls and such, but, truthfully, he was all hat and no cattle on that issue. Ratchet up the pressure, the polarization and ensuing extremism, and I can picture a future president who has all immigrants rounded up and put down.
Politicians everywhere, and of every stripe, need to come to their senses and return to the maxim of creating maximum benefit for a maximum number of people. Or to quote an old Vulcan saying: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few—or the one.