Canada Day, and Politics, and the disconnection between government and people...

[pyat]

A radio address by Stuart McLean (a Canadian broadcaster) is rather worth listening to, I think.

"In politics as in everything, the process is as important as the product. You cannot kill your way to peace or lie your way to justice. The way you walk it is the way it is."

Thanks to ladyperegrine for the link.

Comments

[paka.livejournal.com]

Never attack the individual. We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.

Huh, that's thought-provoking and poignant. Years ago I went to this free lecture about conflict resolution - between couples actually, where the speaker was on about how you always make the conflict about the situation, never the person. Situations can be resolved, but once people feel attacked or insulted, you start losing ground.

And I guess that's American politics on a personal level. Right-wing politics threaten the safety and comfort of American citizens, which is a situation - surely we can compromise and come up with something that works, eh? But this country's right-wingers made it personal immediately, branding any of us to the left of them as unthinking ivory-tower sheeple at best, and viciously dangerous traitors at worst. What else can you expect liberals to do other than vehemently hate and start calling names in return? It's natural and understandible, and maybe we didn't "throw the first punch," but at some point, making this country a better place has to be bigger than how much any of us hate each other.

And unfortunately it isn't.

[sixteenbynine.livejournal.com]

What is, sadly, so tempting about attacking the individual is that I know a few too many people of great intelligence, prodigious eloquence and grand insight who nevertheless attack the individual anyway. They seem to do so as a way of saying, "Stay away from this person; they won't do you any good. I know better now than to try and engage them in any kind of discourse, so I'm saving you a lot of trouble."

The more I think about that stance, though, the more it reminds me of the "kinder, gentler" argument for burning books -- the unspoken assumption is that you're going to be victimized by such a person no matter what, and that you're not capable of protecting yourself from them.

Put it this way: If the sum of your arguments against someone else's arguments is "he's a scumbag", then maybe you need to work on your vocabulary.

[paka.livejournal.com]

It's 'cause people are still people regardless of intelligence or education. I know I might be able to make some seriously coherent, valid, and fairly objective points, but put me in a situation where I feel insulted and threatened, and boom, I'm back in 3rd grade pretty much.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

And it's because attacking the individual is always so monstrously easy. For lack of a better phrase, we are all sinners, and can therefore easily have our sins put on display.

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest example in American politics at the moment is the nearly wholesale denigration of George W. Bush.

I think he's made some seriously piss-poor decisions and has been a rather terrible leader.

I've seen nothing, (I tried to use the IMC shortcut for italics here!) nothing that tells me he's a terrible man.