Why Trudeau's Closer to Right and Alexander's Falling Behind

In London, Ontario Thursday, Trudeau said Canada should not have "two-tiered" citizenship.

Alexander thinks it's incomprehensible that a national party leader would say that the law, which passed in June and allows the government to revoke citizenship, should be reversed or weakened.

"International terrorism is a serious threat and for him to say this is strange and irresponsible," Alexander said.  "We want to deter Canadians from having anything to do with terrorist groups."

First things first - there are no bad guys here.  Both sides are interested in the same thing - stability, economic prosperity, so on and so forth.

The differences lie in the general framework the two sides see the landscape in and their understanding of motivation.

Alexander is coming from a nationalist frame; there is Canada, wrapped in the flag, strong to the external world.  This Canada is ruled by the PM Harper.  It's kinda unloyal to not be supportive of the PM.  It's kinda unloyal to stray from traditional Canadian values, as defined by that PM.

For Alexander, it's our nation against the world, both for strategic interest and domestic safety.  The idea that a Canadian would be involved in terrorism essentially means that they've given up the right to be Canadian and must therefore be ostracized.  

It's a very 20th Century view of nationhood which doesn't line up with modern realities in the global village (and global marketplace).

For most Canadians, being Canadian doesn't mean belonging to a tribe; it's more like an ethnicity, a physical characteristic.  You have black hair or blond hair; you're tall or short; you're Canadian or your not.

Being Canadian isn't the frame of your ideology, your political leanings, etc - it's just one facet that contributes to who you are.  

People aren't always proud of their heritage, for various reasons; sometimes, they feel like it's a burden, or a source of shame.

Telling Canadians who are getting mixed up in terrorism that they're either with us or against us is like kicking your kids out of the house because you think they're mixing with the wrong crowd.  

We see lots of that happen in Canada where it comes to gangs and recruitment, which is essentially a softer version of what's happening with groups like ISIL.  

What about Trudeau?

Trudeau isn't focusing on the concept of Canadian as a tribal identity, but as the embracing of an idea - the idea that people from anywhere can find ways to build something stronger than the sum of its parts.  Call it airy-fairy if you want, but there's a growing recognition in corporate culture that diversity is a strength, when accomodated and harnessed properly.  Look at RBC for a best practice story.

Trudeau lives comfortably in the 21st Century where the nation state is a concept of the past and national identity is more a brand than it is a loyalty.  It's as true of multi-national corporations that bases their operations to reflect opportunity rather than national pride as it is of kids who like foreign music, films or styles more than what's grown at home.

Ideology is a bit like this, too.  Being Canadian doesn't mean you must be a Protestant anymore than it means you must like Tim Hortons.  If you don't like the way Canada frames its identity, maybe you'd want to push back as a form of rebellion.  Which is sometimes why youth end up connecting with bad crowds and negative ideologies in the first place.

Trudeau feels - and I agree with him on this - that cutting people off isn't a way to force more people at home to stay within the confines of the Canadian tribe, but will raise greater questions about what it means to be Canadian and whether Canada allows for individuals to be multi-faceted in their own identity.

What happens when you have family in a foreign country who is on one side or another of a political divide - is it un-Canadian to support them?  What if it's a situation like the Ukraine, and a Canadian-Ukranian agrees with the pro-Russian arguments?  Does it make them less Canadian to say so?

By putting qualified on being Canadian, Alexander is trying to put walls around our national identity and force people to choose which side they stand on.  In a country increasingly populated by people born beyond our borders, doing so is tantamount to asking them to choose between being a Canadian, as defined by a specific ideology, or being whatever the national/cultural identify of their birth is.

This is not a concept I'm comfortable with and one that has the potential to cause a open great ruptures in our social fabric.

The answer here is not to give people with-us-or-against-us ultimatums, but to present compelling arguments for being Canadian.  

It's the same challenge being embraced in the corporate world - how do we make our workplace and our company so attractive, so engaging, that you can't not want to be part of our world and culture?  How do we help you grow as an individual and contribute to both the firm and your community in positive, brand-building ways?

Yes, it comes back to the committing sociology thing.  Smart businesses are exploring behavioural economics, employee engagement, and maximizing social media and Corporate Social Responsibility for both recruitment and customer-loyalty/user generated content.  This isn't bleeding-heart weakness; it's proving to be good business.

I don't know whether Trudeau gets this in its entirety, nor is looking to the corporate world for inspiration.  

I am, however, fairly confident that Alexander doesn't care about any of this.  If I'm not onside with his perspective, my Canadian-ness is probably in question.  This is the frame his government has taken and maintained since day one.  It's no cooincidence that as a result, we've seen an increase in ideological positioning and a decrease in data collection and publication, public/partner consultation and evidence-based decision making.

There has, however, been an increase in with-us-or-against-us rhetoric and positions that focus on punishment for those who don't fall in line.

Thank goodness that I don't see Canada as a tribe, but an aspiration.  This frame helps inoculate me from all partisan, tribal pressure.  My world is bigger than that.

Which is why my focus is less on picking sides, but figuring out how we can move forward together.