Frighteningly Familiar

For Mr. Putin, the fate of Ukraine is an existential matter, vital to his drive to rebuilt Russia's global influence by building a block of former-Soviet neighbours led fro Moscow.

 

 

You know what I would do, if I was functionally-fixed on strength, supremacy absolute authority like Put is, and facing reproach from Europe?  I'd make sure they have other concerns to worry about - like Jobbik and Golden Dawn.  Maybe boost North Korea to be a threat to the Rest of the West's eastern flank.

 

Whatever it takes to win, right?

 

Then I could get back to the business of solving the problems that get in the way of growing the Russian population - like gays, for instance. 

 

But back to the Olympics.

 

A State of Fear: When Citizens Become Terrorists

 

Ukraine's security service has announced a nationwide "anti-terrorist" operation to restore order, while the defence ministry said it was sending paratroopers to Kiev - to defend government offices and military installations, it stressed, and not to confront anti-government protesters.

 

The Global War on Terror has been used as an excuse by dictators to clamp down hard on dissidents since it was declared by George Bush thirteen years ago.  Over the same time period, our general understanding of what a terrorist is has changed.

 

Technically speaking, a terrorist is someone who uses terror - fear - as a tool to achieve political aims.  This fear can be induced through violence, threats, intimidation or coercion.

 

The blowing up of the Twin Towers was undeniably an example of terrorism - al Qaeda wanted to ignite fear among Americans, cause panic and disrupt their and the rest of the West's ability to function internally and engage externally.

 

Of course, technically speaking, much of how politics is conducted in Western countries like the US and Canada these days counts as terrorism, too - attack ads, bullying, voter suppression, so on and so forth.  These tactics are absolutely intended to achieve political aims.

 

Despite the common-place nature of the Political War Room, however, political parties don't declare war on each other; States declare war on States.  Terrorism isn't a state.  It's the collective actions of an individual or individuals that seek to terrorize citizens of a state.

 

Or is it?  We've seen a shift in political rhetoric that seems to redefine terrorists as people who seek to disrupt the best interests of the State, not the people.  Of course, those best interests are determined by the State itself - or at least, the elected representatives of the people who form government.

 

What happens when the interests of the state as defined by government differ with those of groups of citizens?  What happens when the state stops listening to concerns, starts stifling information and starts identifying those groups as enemies of the state's best interests?

 

This is the nature of escalation.  The state makes decisions without consultation; parts of the public resist.  Those who resist get marginalized - and in response, they protest.  Frustrated with protests and displeased with the potential of bad press, the state may want to provoke legitimate protesters into becoming violent protesters.  It's easier to declare them terrorists that way.

 

If anyone else interjects, the state can accuse them of trying to undermine the legitimate state and support a coup.  Instead of it being a matter of policy for the people, it becomes about power and control of the state.

 

Both sides will have friends who will probably support their horse in the race, meaning the tools and tactics grow beyond the power of the state alone.

 

At what point does a line get crossed - when does the state become the terrorist?

 

It's a slippery slope, this - one to be conscious of.

 

 

 

Envisioning Canada's Future: Strong Individuals for a Strong Society

 

 

 

With growing volatility in the workplace forcing people to undertake multiple careers over the course of their working lives, Morneau says: "We need to enable people to be successful but I think that's possible but only if we invest in education and training and the kind of infrastructure that enables people to be successful."

 

 

In Canadian politics, we've gotten used to looking for strong leaders to maintain stable societies through a stern-father approach.  You'd think that, given his personal brand and name recognition, Trudeau would be leaning more heavily on his super-star appeal.

 

But governing isn't about being a superstar - it's about leading and more specifically, leading from the front.  This isn't what Harper does; he micro-manages from the back.  Mulcair is front-and-centre, but he likes being there enough that his team isn't sharing his spotlight - and Canadians aren't getting to know them.  Leaders don't demand that their front lines cow town to middle managers - they empower everyone from top to bottom to own and be part of realizing their vision.

 

We've also gotten away from the notion of "teach a person to fish" and seeing infrastructure as more than a make-work project.  In fact, we've gotten away from the notion of community; Canada is now seen as a nation full of independent consumers and special interest groups instead of a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.

 

Team Trudeau has a long way to in terms of earning trust, properly identifying our collective problems and co-designing shared solutions to carry us forward.  They've also got some internal cultural challenges that are inevitable when you have people weaned on the old system trying to envision a new one.

 

But they're getting there.

 

 

Having said that, if I hear anyone in their ranks say "strong individuals for a strong society," I'm sending KT an invoice.

 

 

Don't You Know That Rules Are Not Enough?

 

But we would welcome the arrival in this town of the rare politician or bureaucrat who can replace the "I was following the rules," creed with a new mantra: "I was just using common sense."

 

I don't think so, Tim.  Not really.

 

There's two reasons for this - one, people who do the right thing, live clean lives and put others before themselves make for lousy scandals.  In fact, if ever we come across someone that seems to be too good to be true, we will (or at least their opposition will) leave no stone unturned in their drive to find a fatal flaw.  We almost relish tearing down our heroes.

 

This is particularly true where the media is concerned - after all, it's part of their job to hold people like politicians and leaders of corporations both profit and not to account.  Scandal sells - do-gooders are boring.

 

We know this to be true for a simple reason - there are politicians and bureaucrats who try to do what is right instead of what the rules state or what convention suggests.  More than that, there are countless individuals who give freely of their time for causes they believe in.

 

These stories aren't celebrated because the media isn't looking for them and people who focus on doing for others tend not to be good at sales (or golf).

 

Two - we keep using this phrase, "common sense;" I don't think it means what we think it means.

 

If a person's goal is to be personally successful and wealthy, then it's common sense to follow the rules that put more money in your pocket.  If you're at all experienced in the ways of partisan politics, then common sense tells you that it's possible to spin your way out of almost anything.

 

On the other hand, common sense also suggests that doing the right thing in a social context can be bad for your personal success.  It's common sense, maybe, to bring forward legislation that's good for everyone, but will that sell?  Who can you pick fights with and get media traction/funding dollars through if you're not pissing people off strategically?

 

If anything, common sense tells us that proactively doing what's right provides no tangible benefit while "following the rules" can provide benefit with a minimum, easily-deflected complaint.

 

So where does this leave us?

 

Any solution requires proper identification of the problem.  Our problem isn't that people aren't using "common sense" - it's that the whole notion of common sense is a myth.

 

People aren't rational actors - we like to think we are, because we like the idea that we're in control of our lives, but we aren't.  Much of what we think of as "common sense" is evolutionary hard-wiring; the rest is emotionally-filtered experiential memory run through a our cognitive sequencer.

 

Until we accept that we're not consciously in charge of our own actions, we shall remain beholden to neurochemical behaviours.  We have to stop waiting for that fictional perfect leader to come to town and set us right and start carrying the torch ourselves.

 

That may not be common sense, but it's the truth.

 

A Post-Partisan Charter

Are they aware, all these partisans, how very similar they look from beyond the magic bubble?

If there is a single true message emerging from all Parties in Ottawa, it's that working people are struggling, particularly in declining manufacturing regions such as southwestern Ontario.  How wonderful it would be if all these bright folks - or any of them - could offer a solution to that problem.

There are a lot of smart people in politics.  Some of them are achingly so - folk whose brains work at such a speed that they are literally incomprehensible to more ordinary citizens.  If these smart people got it into their heads to work collaboratively and to consult with regular people, I have no doubt that we could land on some amazing shared solutions to our collective problems.  Maybe even set some best practices other jurisdictions would follow.

But that's not how the system works.  People who get in and manage to stay in function at the upper echelons of society - they are courted by the heads of interest groups, attend the fanciest of functions and eat at the finest restaurants.  That goes for partisans of all stripes.

A big part of partisan operation is believing your side deserves power more than the other guys.  You have to believe that, otherwise what are you selling to voters?  Partisans have to believe in their cause and almost revile their opponents - it's the basic ABC of sales.

And sales is what it's about.  Voters aren't participants, they're consumers that partisan shillers need to woo, cajole, threaten into donating and voting for them (or against the other Parties).  And if you're doing a good sales job on behalf of your clients, you're entitled to some entitlements, right?

So picture this collective brain trust viewing citizens as consumers whose behavior needs to be shaped via messaging, nudging them into behaving one way or another.  Picture them sitting in separate-yet-similar wood-walled board rooms pouring all their energy, creativity and savvy into framing partisan wins.

This is more than just an inefficient use of resources - it's a tragedy.

But these staff are only doing the job they are paid to do.  Remember, they are staff - not officials themselves.  They are paid by partisans (either their Party or elected officials of their Party) to serve the partisans, not the people.  Winning, not the public good, is their motivation.  Nowhere in their contract is it said that they have any form of accountability to Canadians themselves.

There was a time in the past where something similar was the case for government; it was answerable to the Crown, not to Parliament.  Cabinet Ministers are still agents of the crown - which is why we call them "Ministers of the Crown."  There's not even a legal obligation that these Ministers be elected officials.  It took the Magna Carta and English Civil War for that accountability to shift from the Monarch to the People's Representatives.

I would honestly love to see these big political brains go into work every day asking the question "how do we best serve Canadians?" instead of "how can we secure wins for our Party?"  In a dream future, I'd love to see political staff of all stripes pooling their experiences and ideas to land on collective win-win solutions.

 

That's not how it works now; it's definitely an unconventional approach.  But maybe Canada has been relying on convention a little too much of late.  

But nothing's going to change under the status quo.  Especially as jobs are tight and the emphasis is on skills and abilities other than those politics provides, staff are going to be focused on keeping their paycheques coming by serving their boss and Party to the best of their ability.  It will take more than a rare politician to change this partisan-centric culture.

Maybe it's time to rethink the system a bit - and to put a post-partisan charter on paper.

The Fool Who Follows: A Lesson for the CPC

 

But the list raises uncomfortable questions for the Harper government about overall expense oversight in the military at a time when $2.1 billion has been slashed from the defence budget, and Conservatives are just getting back on their feet from the political drubbing of the Senate expense scandal.

 

I wouldn't quite say the CPC is back on its feet post Senate Scandal - it's not quite over yet, is it?

 

But that's besides the point.  The Tories have done their best to reshape Canadian politics into a game they think they can perpetually win - one that is aggressive, antagonistic, cynical and above all, costly.  They can raise more money, aren't afraid to hit below the belt, etc.; they win because they're winners, and everyone else is a loser.

 

It's not working out quite the way the boys in PMO had planned, is it?  The more successful the Party becomes, the more liberties they are taking with political tradition and conventional wisdom - moving away from their own values in pursuit of the win. 

 

The more they win, the more confident they become in their own superiority; it's not that they're intentionally taking greater liberties with ethical pursuits so much as they have started to believe that they are smart, everyone else is dumb.

 

Put it another way - losers commit sociology, winners build empires.

 

How far can you push the envelope before you feel the need to rewrite the rules in your favour?  How long can you maintain the fiction of holding the same values as even your base before the only way to stay in power is through more coercive means?  How far can you push those boundaries before someone knocks you down a peg?

 

Here's where the CPC can learn a lesson, although it means committing sociology.  In the complex, interwoven society we live in where information is becoming the modern-day sucrose, it's folly to think you can cynically bash an individual with the woes of the system and not expect to face some of your own blowback.

 

The solution is easy - instead of looking for ways to smear any and every opponent, stand for something.  Support all efforts that work in that direction, wherever they come from. 

 

And be forgiving of your neighbour - you may even want to really consider how you'd want them to treat you and respond in kind.

 

Altruism is selfishness that plans ahead.  Selfishness that doesn't think through content, context and consequences, on the other hand, looks a lot more like foolishness.

 

 

I have been shot at by real bullets

 

I knew when I signed on to be an advisor to Justin Trudeau that I would be subject to partisan attacks and scrutiny very different than other soldiers.  I can take it.  I have been shot at by real bullets.

 

Andrew Leslie just gained himself a host of fans with that statement, while also hopefully bringing some clarity to the discussion. 

 

All partisans over-inflate their strengths and their opponents weaknesses.  Whether it's tanks in your streets or illegal coalitions, we make mountains out of molehills, making war games out of politics.

 

We have no appreciation of how good we have it here - nor, apparently, do too many of our leaders.  We call for elections here in Canada - not heads.

 

But Leslie goes on:

 

What is disappointing is that this particular attack may raise questions over a military retirement benefit and I do not think veterans deserve to have another measure called into question.

 

Anyone can complain when they're fired upon.  That's not exceptional.  The tough might be able to take a hit and then hit back with equal or greater force.

 

What makes a leader, though, is the ability to turn everything into an opportunity to support the people, especially those in greatest need.

 

We keep saying we want our politics rough and bloody, because it's under fire that you see the true measure of a person.  Leslie is under fire now - and if he continues in this vein, he's going to bring into clarity just what we've been missing.