Whenever There is Room For Fear There is Also Room for Hope

David Climenhaga wrote this week:

In the Kabuki theatre that is a Canadian federal election during the post-modern era, the Conservative Party appears set to play its traditional role as the Party of Fear. The policy positions staked out in the past few days and weeks by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper pretty clearly indicate that "scare the beejeepers out of the audience" is the government's stage direction to the Conservative actors about to play their roles the next federal election.

... in virtually every way, the definitive sounding positions put forward by the prime minister in various venues, including what sounded suspiciously like a campaign kick-off interview with a tame Postmedia News interviewer on Wednesday, are profoundly negative, designed to play to the darkest fears of Canadians.

"Playing to our darkest fears". But what if our darkest fears are that Stephen Harper gets another mandate? Or our biggest fear of all, that he gets a majority?

And while he is instilling fear, hoping to draw voters to him, he is also using terror within his own government, and with those who might critique it. Says Linda Diebel in the Star:

It’s no secret Harper runs a tight ship with little room for dissension. In the months leading up to his first minority government’s five-year anniversary on Feb. 6, I interviewed about 30 politicians, public servants, consultants and academics about his style and brand on Parliament. Some requested anonymity because they fear repercussions.

For the most part, what emerged is a portrait of a highly intelligent, skilled and super-partisan politician whose style has created a mood of fear and loathing on Parliament Hill. He hasn’t shied away from stoking an “us versus them” dynamic in the country. Critics use words like “control freak” and “mean-spirited.”

Those being terrified, are too terrified to even complain about it.

The challenge for opposition members, will be to cut through that word 'fear', and replace it with another four letter word: 'Hope'.

And I know that the word 'hope' has become like the word 'freedom'. Overused to the point where for many it is losing it's meaning. But I have to hold onto the word, because this is the first time I am hearing from Canadians that they are frightened.

If they protest they are beaten. If academics speak out, their careers are threatened. When Dr. O'Connor sounded the alarm on the rise of a specific cancer in communities downstream of the tar sands, this family doctor had to leave Alberta, after numerous personal attacks.

There is no safe place to challenge this government, so the only thing we have left is hope that we can vote them out.

Fear and George Bush

Fear kept George Bush in office for eight years, as he capitalized on 9/11. And during those eight years, he threw his country into two devastating wars and almost bankrupted the nation.

Rabbi Michael Lerner discusses the power of fear in politics:

When the paradigm of fear is dominant, people look at all their experiences through that framework. At such times, politicians who speak the language of fear sound realistic, even profound, while those who talk about hope seem foolish and out of touch. These dynamics have been particularly evident in the post-9/11 world of American politics, in which the fear of terrorism has been used to manipulate the public into supporting politicians who seem to be the toughest militarists and are thus able to reassure the population that they can handle the seemingly ever-present threat. (1)

In the past five years we have definitely moved toward militarization. Fear of terrorists, fear of Russians, fear of Israel's enemies. But fear is also used in other areas. Fear of losing your job or not finding one, if we cancel more corporate tax cuts. Fear of job loss if we don't buy the malfunctioning F-35s. Fear of "pirates" if we accept a coalition government.

All discourse presented within a framework of fear.

And as Lerner says:

If we think of a continuum between two poles—the pole of hope and the pole of fear—then we can imagine that at any specific moment each of us is situated at some place on that continuum. In times when a large number of people feel their attention being drawn more toward the pole of fear, we can talk metaphorically about a flow of social energy moving in that direction. And we can experience in ourselves how frequently the voices of fear pop up precisely at the moment when our energies are moving toward hope. (1)

So how do we keep Canadians' energies flowing toward hope? It won't be easy. But Rabbi Lerner suggests that we focus on the positive things in our history, something I tried to do with this short film. One of the neoconservative principles, as outlined by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, is to tap into national symbols. The flag, the anthem, hockey. And then exploit the heck out them.

We need to reclaim those things for the common good. Canada was built as a nation for all Canadians. Not for a chosen few. But the new right-wing is about muscular things, dividing and conquering.

Throughout the world the right wing is the political voice for toughness, for using power to dominate others, for striking at others before they can strike at you. This analysis also explains why some of those men who are part of the spiritual and religious world would be attracted to a muscular Christianity. That muscular quality prevents men from being seen as weak or powerless and attracts women who feel they lack strength and want it in some other form. (2)

Canadian women are not weak and Canadian men do not need muscle to be heard. We have built a just society through the strength of our convictions, and we will use that strength to fight this government's contrived fear.

Sources:

1. The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country From the Religious Right, By: Michael Lerner, Harper-Collins, 2006, ISBN: 978-0-06084247-5, Pg. 78-79

2. Lerner, 2006, Pg. 157

What I Have learned From Rabbi Michael Lerner

It might seem odd that I would look to a Rabbi for enlightenment. I'm not Jewish.

In fact, I'm part agnostic and part atheist, depending on how angry I am with the Religious Right at that particular moment. But Rabbi Lerner is a brilliant and compassionate man. He teaches a gospel of social justice, not hatred and arrogance. More Tommy Douglas than Charles McVety.

And I often turn to his book: The Left Hand of God, when looking for political direction. In it he tells of his days as a social change activist:

I had participated in sit-ins for civil rights, had organized teach-ins and demonstrations and nonviolent civil disobedience against the war in Vietnam, and had been involved in the early development of the environmental movement. Yet I felt uncomfortable with the way movements at times seemed more interested in proving their own righteousness than in finding ways to attract and build an American majority that supports peace and social justice. (1)

That's what I believe is necessary in this country if we want to turn things around. An alliance of all groups marginalized by the neoconservative movement. And our aim will be to remove the Harper government from office, by encouraging political dialogue, and above all getting people out to vote next election. It's our only chance.

Working From the Middle

Lerner relates how in the 1970s, he tried to convince his compatriots to link their movements "with a critique of the prevailing tax structure, which placed a huge burden on middle-income working people." And what he proposed was an initiative to shift more of the tax burden onto the rich.

And four decades later, many are now attempting to do just that. Neoconservatism has often been called 'the revolt of the rich', and they are winning to the detriment of the rest of us.

But understanding their motives and tactics, while important, are not enough. We also have to understand their ideology, and present compelling arguments against their misguided "logic".

William Gairdner is the Canadian William Kristol, and his book The Trouble With Canada, helped to shape the policies of our current government. In his revised edition: The Trouble With Canada ... Still, Gairdner attempts to justify allowing the corporate sector to dominate:

Fundamentally, all socialists are united in believing that present social arrangements are inegalitarian .... They will generally argue that the conditions of our lives are for the most part not of our own doing, that wealth tends to end up in the hands of too few, and therefore the State should play a strong and permanent role in redistributing it. (2)

Most neocons will go right to socialism as being the only opponent to their right-wing philosophy. I am not anti-capitalism, nor do I resent the riches of the wealthy. However, I feel that they should be paying their share and playing by the rules.

They forget that much of their success comes because they have been able to exploit our natural resources. And that public education has helped to give them a pool of employees, who all contribute to their success. And public healthcare, helping to reduce costly sick days.

It is in their best interest to contribute their fair share for the betterment of society. That is the problem with so many foreign takeovers. They have no vested interest in the Canadian community.

I would also challenge another point of Gairdner's:

They [socialists] are careful to ignore the fact that, with the exception of the very top level of earners, whom we reward handsomely for their expertise and for taking the risks they do, democratic-capitalist societies have a record for wealth distribution as good as or better than that of any socialist nation in history. Nor do they consider it important that the wealth created in democratic capitalism is freely exchanged between sellers and buyers, whether individual or corporate, and that it is individual consumers who gladly make certain people wealthy simply by eagerly purchasing what they have to offer. None of the people who made Oprah Winfrey, or Microsoft's Bill Gates, Celine Dion, or Lance Armstrong, or the shareholders of so many companies very wealthy did more than buy a book, some software, a concert ticket, a bicycle or any of a million other moderately priced things ... in very large numbers. (2)

I agree that we voluntarily provide them with our business, but we do it with the confidence that there are measures in place to make sure that they are not selling us products that are harmful to our health and safety. Using Gairdner's simplistic logic we should then allow free rein to con-artists who cheat seniors out of their life savings. I mean, after all, didn't that senior freely hand over their money? There are reasons for laws controlling good business practices.

But there is another factor that Gairdner ignores. In their book, The Trouble With Billionaires, Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, tell the story of Michael Caine and Andrew Lloyd Webber, who opposed the plans of Britain's Labour government to raise the marginal tax rate on high-income earners from 40 to 50 percent.

Webber appealed to the public to reject what he characterized as a tax increase on those who create wealth: "The last thing we need is a Somali pirate-style raid on the few wealth creators who still dare to navigate Britain's gale-force waters." And Michael Caine "... echoed the outrage, threatening to leave Britain if taxes at the upper end went even one percentage point higher."

The suggestion is that the British government had no hand in their wealth creation, so why should they have to give up any of it? But this is a myth.

... the mythology that allows Caine, Andrew Lloyd Webber, and other big earners in the entertainment world to believe that their large incomes are simply the result of the exercise of their talents in the free market. Make no mistake about it: their good fortune has come about because of government intervention in the marketplace. And no, we are not talking about government subsidies for the arts, but rather something much more basic and enriching—the elaborate set of copyright laws that allow artists and performers to receive royalties for their creative efforts. Without these laws the movies Michael Caine appears in could be copied and sold to people all over the world, without Caine receiving a penny.

Under such a wide-open system, no movie production company would be willing to pay Michael Caine a huge wage for his performance, or much of a fee at all. (3)

So it was government intervention that enabled Caine to become rich, and yet he balks at paying for those services. The same would apply to others that Gairdner mentions, like Celine Dion and Bill Gates. If Gates couldn't register his product, and have that registration protected by law, anyone could legally pirate it, and we might now be asking "Bill who"?

Gairdner also mentions that many of the wealthy are rewarded "handsomely for their expertise and for taking the risks they do." But what happens when those risks blow up in their face? They are the first ones with their hands out looking for government "interference" in the name of bailouts.

Governments are not just there to protect and look after the poor, but also the rich. Eliminate safeguards and another collapse would mean the end of businesses like Goldman Sachs.

In the 1970's Lerner tried to convince his colleagues to advocate for fairer taxes on the working class, but they saw no need. They later regretted the decision, because the right-wing anti-tax movement steamrolled over everyone. But the only ones who really benefited were the wealthy, while the middle class stagnated. Yet they were the ones who were the backbone of the economy.

... I thought, this would be a moment when liberal and progressive forces could consolidate power, end the cold war, and devote America's massive resources to promoting social and economic justice. Unfortunately, though, some­thing different was happening beneath the surface, at least among middle-income Americans. I detected the first inkling of a major shift I away from the Democratic Party and the Left on the part of white working males—ironically, people whose economic interests were far better served by the Left than the Right. I was puzzled by this phenomenon. (3)

We need to get everyone committed to change, to work through the centre. The corporate sector and their political backers, will argue that they donate to charity, so are responsible citizens. But the wealthiest providing handouts to the poor, creates a slave state. Whereas labour movements and social activists, promote good jobs and benefits, and social services for those who are unable to work or have already paid their dues. Like seniors and veterans. And they fight against child poverty and homelessness, not suggest that they are poor because they are lazy.

Gairdner says:

This sad truth leads us to the conclusion that all forms of socialism are little more than vast parasitical schemes for the forced redistribution of the freely created wealth of some, to others deemed worthy, by the class of elites ministering the redistribution after taking their considerable commission.

Kinda' sounds like places like the Fraser Institute and the National Citizens Coalition who take enormous commissions to sell citizens on the notion that they need to feed the wealthy first.

Whew!

I've debated Irving Kristol and William Gairdner in the same week. I'm pooped.

Continuation:

1. Where There is Room for Fear There is Room for Hope

Sources:

1. The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country From the Religious Right, By: Michael Lerner, Harper-Collins, 2006, ISBN: 978-0-06084247-5, Pg, 39-41

2. The Trouble With Canada ... Still, By: William D. Gairdner, Key Porter Books, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-55470-247-3, Pg. 118-119

3. The Trouble With Billionaires, By Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, Viking Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-670-06419-9, Pg. 15-18