Two Issues As I See Them

ken in gazebo 

                         by Kenneth Bagnell

   

             There were days years ago when, as a daily Globe and Mail columnist, so many issues called for attention I now and then dealt briefly with two, sometimes three, in a single column. A couple of readers have recalled those days and so, from time to time, I’ll do so again. Today, an obvious issue is the forthcoming election.

     I’ve been asked if I think it’s possible that given the ever increasing skepticism that Mr. Harper will emerge as PM for another term, there might emerge a new party. That party might in time be composed of the Liberals and the NDP. Well, it will not take place overnight. For one thing Mr. Mulcair is not just a very able man, but a highly individualistic one. He was a Liberal provincial legislator in Quebec for over ten years. In time he became an NDP person and then its leader. Nonetheless, not that long ago, before the election call, it was revealed he just might have offered some political insight to the Liberal party of which he had been an influential member once in Quebec. As with Justin Trudeau it would be the height of naivety for Mulcair to show his hand even slightly as election eve drew closer. The fact is this: the custom of individuals “crossing the floor” and even forming minor and temporary coalitions over one issue or another, is far from impossible. Mr. Mulcair is not the only MP to switch as he did from provincial Liberal to federal NDP. Others include Bob Rae, from NDP to Liberal; David Emerson from Liberal to Conservative; Lawrence Cannon also from Liberal to Conservative and Scott Brison from Conservative to Liberal.

     That said, looking at the possibility of an NDP-Liberal merger overtime, mind you, is not just a worthy hope but perhaps a wise one. I say this not because I see a natural and easy compatibility. In fact I see something verging almost on the very opposite: the diversity and distinctive nature of competing philosophies. This is exactly what the Harper Conservatives lacked and seriously needed. Too late. It’s why their new Conservative party was a mistake because of Harper’s iron-fisted insistence on conformity to his own, deeply individualistic, political viewpoint. Thereby there’s virtually no room for healthy diversity within the ranks. Hence too many ministers quit, one being the promising John Baird. In my mind it’s virtually over – one indicator being the reaching for a new campaign organizer from away: Australia. Australia! What does that tell us?

         In brief, this political science matter or problem — should you be interested — can be explored in some detail in various essays by the late and great Canadian born economist and intellectual: John Kenneth Galbraith. He was raised in rural Ontario, first educated at Ontario’s Agricultural College, then Harvard and Princeton, soon becoming a professor at Harvard and in time a senior advisor to President John Kennedy and later Ambassador to India and advisor to then Prime Minister Nehru. He was the recipient of fifty honorary degrees and one of the few Americans given The Order of Canada. One of his many books dealt with the unique value of countervailing economic principles and ideas.

      That’s what the Harper Conservative caucus needed to offset the stern controlling attitude of their leader. Every political caucus should have the creativity of countervailing ideas. In the Harper years we lost this very valuable principle. We had it in the caucus democracy of Progressive Conservatives like John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, Joe Clarke, Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. Remember Red Tories? I was one.  (To fulfill full disclosure, I in my life as a minister, years ago, married the late Robert Stanfield to my old and dear friend Anne Austin who still receives my blogs.) If only Canada could recover from that unfortunate if not destructive error in our political evolution. Former PC leaders shook their heads, Joe Clarke even becoming an openly Liberal supporter and I suspect — by some of his writings — but cannot prove, Brian Mulroney. So it went.

                              0

     Some readers have asked me what is it about the United States that a rather crude man like Donald Trump can lead the Republican polls heading to the American Presidential election in November 2016.  Several things: in some cases weak public school education and ever more deep ambitions of wealth. But mainly it’s a revelation of “American syncretism.” I mean by that the merger of superficial religiosity, strong patriotism, both tainted by self-centred materialistic ambition. Example?  In a few words: “God Bless America.”

    I know, I know. Trump’s public service qualifications even as a candidate are appalling. When I see, as I did last week, Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush (son of the respected George W. Bush and also a former state governor) smiling on TV as someone, apparently reads out the dreadful current polling numbers, I shake my head. Trump may strike him and others, myself included, as a rude boor, but millions are also wary. Here’s the proof:  the very latest poll on the race for Republican Candidate for President reveals that Trump is surging.

     He’s gained 8 percent to now have 32 percent support as he looks to the Republican Presidential choice next summer  The ORC poll, as of September 10,  saw him: “pulling well away from the rest of the Republican field.” To put it not just mildly, but very mildly, this is most disconcerting. Why? In a word, he has nothing to offer than being excessively rich thereby appealing mainly to poverty stricken dreamers and the materialistic super rich.  Let me very briefly, include a couple of relevant aspects of the man. (First, attention please, all Rabbis and Ministers who receive this blog. This a Red Alert. None of Donald Trump’s quotations you’re about to read are permissible for use in your sermon to add color for the congregation on this Sabbath or future ones for roughly a year and a half. Also they are not suitable for reading to any of today’s children, meaning those under three years of age. Thank you for your understanding.)         

       A man’s language is a window on his character. So here are three sentences from a book complied by a reputable Florida journalist, Michael Kruse, of remarks made by Donald Trump. Do they strike you as, well, say Presidential? (Before you read them please excuse the one spelled “fxxx,’” since if I used the actual word, my strict father would reach from heaven and spank me.)  Trump quotation number one: “Who the fxxk knows? I mean how much will the Japs pay for Manhattan property these days.” (From an edition of Time Magazine.) Number two: “I have black guys counting my money. I hate it…the only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day… (From an issue of USA Today.) One more: “Oftentimes, when I was sleeping with one of the top women in the world, I would say to myself ‘Can you believe what I’m getting…’  (from an edition of Business Life.) That’s enough, thanks very much. I can’t help but ask you: how’s that for character? Seriously, I only hope former President Jimmy Carter, now in the evening of his life, never reads or hears what truly could be ahead.

      In fact, one of Trump’s current competitors, a soft spoken neurosurgeon and dedicated Christian, Ben Carson, considered one of the finest pediatric neurosurgeons in the world, has openly wondered if Christian faith ever influenced Trump’s thinking.  Trump is said to have replied. “I go to church and I love God and I love my church.” I guess that’s revealed in some of his remarks just quoted. Anyway one more won’t be excessive. It was in a 2004 magazine article called How to Get Rich: “For many years I’ve said that if someone screws you, screw them back. When somebody hurts you just go after them as viciously and violently as you can….”

     I see. Can anybody please tell me what church taught him that particular Judeo-Christian perspective?  Anyway, if the surveys are right, he just might become the next American President. He has –- to sort of understate it -– “unique” moral and ethical perspectives. If he ever actually becomes the world leader next door, how will that suit you?  Maybe even more, how sensitively will he approach our increasingly dangerous world? Just wondering.                             

                             30

All past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.com.