Is Democracy Hypocrisy?
"Democracy is hypocrisy" was the (in)famous line by Malcom X.
I received a comment about yesterday's post from fellow blogger The Shotgun Solution. I am grateful for her/his visit. Her/his words reminded me of what Malcom X said. S/he accuses my suggestions of hypocrisy. I'll make a couple of comments about her/his reply, but first here is what s/he said:
2. To me, homosexual marriage is not the center of the issue, and neither does it seem to be for Shotgun Solution. For her/him is party unity and media reaction. We seem to agree that the question of democracy, however, is central here.
3. The prudential counsel that the media will have a field day is well taken, and should not be discounted. I have no doubt that this is true. That is why I said that it would be a little hellish. But that is no reason to do nothing. If, for example, the Media (by which I assume Shotgun Solution means the liberal media) were the principle concern of every good Tory, if Mr Prentice were solely worried about the portrayal of optics of disunity within the party, he would not have EVER made his announcement. If Shotgun Solution calls immoderate anyone who would not tug the party line and puts the party in a position of having to defend itself against charges of disunity, then I am afraid that Jim Prentice fits that description as well.
The question then is: Why are Prentice's actions, in full display of disunity, a good thing, but dissenting from his decision labeled "poor politics"? In all evidence, Prentice was not worried about the optics through which the media would portray his about face. In his calculations (see this post) he knew that he would get favored media attention; he also knew that the media would say all kinds of things about a rift in the party (as indeed they did). He put at risk the unity of the party in the wake of the national convention. That much seems clear to anyone that can see. But he went ahead and did it anyway, right? Shotgun Solution seems to be saying that after Prentice rocked the (party) boat and compromised unity, no one should be allowed to rock the boat. I'd be surprised if the party constituents in North-Centre will swallow that.
4. Prentice made a decision based on conscience, on principle, on can say. Personally, I don't really buy that, but I'd respect it if it were true. So in a spirit of respect, let us assume that it is true. Then, if Mr. Prentice can act on his convictions, why can his party constituents not act on theirs?
5. If Prentice possesses the resolve of his conviction, he should not fear facing the convictions of others, much less the convictions of those whom he serves, the constituents of Calgary-North-Centre. Neither should Shotgun Solution fear them.
6. At bottom here, there may be a conflict between the will of the MP and the will of those who selected him and gave him the party nomination, both apparently based on conviction. If this is the case, and if we profess that the party is a democratic community (not an authoritarian one), it is clearly the will of the selectors that ought to prevail. To deny this would be authoritarian or anti-democratic.
7. Given these, the considerations of the media, liberal or not, and the considerations of the rest of the party, important --no doubt-- though they may be, do not supersede in any way the will of the constituency party members, the Conservative members of Calgary-Centre-North.
8. Hypocrisy, let us be clear, would be to advocate one thing and to do another. Hypocrisy would be to claim the right to adopt a position on grounds of conscience and then blatantly or subtly to deny to others the benefit of the same position. I am not trying to call Shotgun Solution hypocritical by saying this, let me be clear. Insofar as I ignore her/his motivations, I could not reach that conclusion. But the position is not very consistent.
9. Finally, there is nothing authoritarian about my suggestions. On the contrary, they are "more democratic, accountable and transparent." My suggestions may not be convenient to Mr. Prentice and his acolytes; they may not even be convenient to the party brass, but that is another matter. It is up to the party constituents of Centre-North to decide. There is nothing intolerant or immoderate about my suggestions. They are perfectly consistent with the most fundamental principles of the democratic ideal, and with the principles upon which the party rests.
Malcom X was simply wrong. Shotgun Solution might be in good company.
I received a comment about yesterday's post from fellow blogger The Shotgun Solution. I am grateful for her/his visit. Her/his words reminded me of what Malcom X said. S/he accuses my suggestions of hypocrisy. I'll make a couple of comments about her/his reply, but first here is what s/he said:
Politically, the Conservatives can't do anything about Jim Prentice. Imagine the Conservatives, after a policy convention which they were supposed to leave united, block the nomination of a moderate member because of his views on same-sex marriage. If you think the national media was harsh on the Conservatives DURING the convention, check out the massive slamming the Conservatives will get in the media (and public opinion) if they try and silence their moderate members. The Conservatives would lose legitimacy on several fronts. 1) A few days ago they could perhaps be considered a pluralist, moderate conservative voice. Canadians have a new impression of the Conservative party (slightly, Harper is still leader and Canadians will always be skeptical of him) and now the party is considering tarnishing this image. 2) The party claims it will be more democratic, accountable and transparent in government. Apparently, the suggestion is to silence a member through an authoritarian process. How democratic is that?1. Let me take the first line of the comment: "the Conservatives can't do anything about Jim Prentice." Here, it is obvious that Shotgun Solution and I may have a different understanding of what a democracy is supposed to be. Contrary to the Shotgun Solution's contention, if one reads my previous post, I am arguing that the constituents of Calgary North-Centre are not invalids. They have choices, real political choices; they have abilities, and no one should tell them that there is nothing that they can do. That kind of politics, the top down kind, don't go very well in Alberta. I am arguing that they are in charge of their own course, and that they can make sure --if they wish-- to have choices when next election comes.
Your suggestions are hypocritical and poor politics.
2. To me, homosexual marriage is not the center of the issue, and neither does it seem to be for Shotgun Solution. For her/him is party unity and media reaction. We seem to agree that the question of democracy, however, is central here.
3. The prudential counsel that the media will have a field day is well taken, and should not be discounted. I have no doubt that this is true. That is why I said that it would be a little hellish. But that is no reason to do nothing. If, for example, the Media (by which I assume Shotgun Solution means the liberal media) were the principle concern of every good Tory, if Mr Prentice were solely worried about the portrayal of optics of disunity within the party, he would not have EVER made his announcement. If Shotgun Solution calls immoderate anyone who would not tug the party line and puts the party in a position of having to defend itself against charges of disunity, then I am afraid that Jim Prentice fits that description as well.
The question then is: Why are Prentice's actions, in full display of disunity, a good thing, but dissenting from his decision labeled "poor politics"? In all evidence, Prentice was not worried about the optics through which the media would portray his about face. In his calculations (see this post) he knew that he would get favored media attention; he also knew that the media would say all kinds of things about a rift in the party (as indeed they did). He put at risk the unity of the party in the wake of the national convention. That much seems clear to anyone that can see. But he went ahead and did it anyway, right? Shotgun Solution seems to be saying that after Prentice rocked the (party) boat and compromised unity, no one should be allowed to rock the boat. I'd be surprised if the party constituents in North-Centre will swallow that.
4. Prentice made a decision based on conscience, on principle, on can say. Personally, I don't really buy that, but I'd respect it if it were true. So in a spirit of respect, let us assume that it is true. Then, if Mr. Prentice can act on his convictions, why can his party constituents not act on theirs?
5. If Prentice possesses the resolve of his conviction, he should not fear facing the convictions of others, much less the convictions of those whom he serves, the constituents of Calgary-North-Centre. Neither should Shotgun Solution fear them.
6. At bottom here, there may be a conflict between the will of the MP and the will of those who selected him and gave him the party nomination, both apparently based on conviction. If this is the case, and if we profess that the party is a democratic community (not an authoritarian one), it is clearly the will of the selectors that ought to prevail. To deny this would be authoritarian or anti-democratic.
7. Given these, the considerations of the media, liberal or not, and the considerations of the rest of the party, important --no doubt-- though they may be, do not supersede in any way the will of the constituency party members, the Conservative members of Calgary-Centre-North.
8. Hypocrisy, let us be clear, would be to advocate one thing and to do another. Hypocrisy would be to claim the right to adopt a position on grounds of conscience and then blatantly or subtly to deny to others the benefit of the same position. I am not trying to call Shotgun Solution hypocritical by saying this, let me be clear. Insofar as I ignore her/his motivations, I could not reach that conclusion. But the position is not very consistent.
9. Finally, there is nothing authoritarian about my suggestions. On the contrary, they are "more democratic, accountable and transparent." My suggestions may not be convenient to Mr. Prentice and his acolytes; they may not even be convenient to the party brass, but that is another matter. It is up to the party constituents of Centre-North to decide. There is nothing intolerant or immoderate about my suggestions. They are perfectly consistent with the most fundamental principles of the democratic ideal, and with the principles upon which the party rests.
Malcom X was simply wrong. Shotgun Solution might be in good company.
posted by kaqchikel at
3/23/2005 11:23:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home