The Parallel Parliament

by Glen Pearson

The Declaration of Conscience

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong,” wrote Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower during a particularly troubling occasion during his tenure in office. How would he feel today, if he witnessed that sage advice being spurned by his own party?

The Republican Party in America appears to be slowly losing whatever cohesion it may have possessed prior to Donald Trump’s remarkable election win last November. As it wrestles with foreign intrigues and domestic extremes, it appears as a party lost in the proverbial wilderness even after winning the promised land of electoral success only a few months ago.

Despite the extremes, the Grand Old Party (GOP) still contains many moderate and experienced voices that for whatever reason have gone silent instead of rogue. Many had hoped that, following his surprise election win, Donald Trump would himself become more moderate as he listened to the experienced lights in the party and in the public service. They held their breath but it wasn’t to be – the President is just as unpredictable as during the campaign, only with the keys of ultimate power in his hands. What are they to do?

They remember those better days, when the Republican Party successfully found common ground with their opponents, regardless of who was in power. They were diplomatic women and men who, despite their differences, reached across the aisle on those initiatives vital for the country – infrastructure, the Cold War, civil rights, education and Social Security, and many more. These individuals still exist yet have opted to remain largely quiet as the extremes of their party slowly drag it to shreds in polarized directions.

Could the example of one of their great predecessors, Margaret Chase Smith, yet stir them to take a principled stand?

Reams of books on the turbulent times of Senator Joseph McCarthy fill shelves, especially in the Senate library, yet there are no books on Smith, despite her remarkable courage and insightful reasoning at one of those pivotal points in American history where a darker path could have been taken. She first served in the House of Representatives and then as a Senator from 1949 -1973 – the first woman to do so. She was a Republican from Main – the first woman to represent that state in both Houses – and, more importantly for our purposes here, was a deeply respected moderate.  

When McCarthy had gone too far in his Communist witch hunts and began dragging the Republican Party down with him, Smith gave one of the most stirring speeches in the Capitol, titling it, “The Declaration of Conscience.” Here words now speak for themselves, and must surely speak to moderate Republicans in their present dilemma. She rose in the Senate to say:

“I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States senator. I speak as an American. I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of calumny – fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear … I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching — for us to weigh our consciences — on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America — on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.”

It was enough and it was monumental. Many of her fellow Republicans in the Senate came to their senses, largely through her challenge, and before long McCarthy was gone and the party he threatened to defile recaptured its conscience and its future.

Here was a woman of her time, and of all time, reminding her party that acquiring power at the expense of conscience is merely a deal with the devil. Powerful individuals listened to her on that day and the better angels of their natures captured their imaginations. The decisions they made over the next few months permitted the Republican Party to regain its footing and its fitting place in Washington.

Republicans control both Houses and the Executive, but decades of moderate leadership have given way, first to extremes and now to possible anarchy. Margaret Chase Smith’s counsel is still there for them to consider and her portrait yet hangs in the Senate gallery above them to witness their actions. Though dead since 1995, her voice still calls to her compatriots, urging them to stand not only for their own conscience, but equally for the future of the very nation they profess to love and serve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Digital Citizenship

Now that he’s out of public office, former President Barack Obama has been going more public with some of the causes that carry special meaning for him, as has his wife Michelle. To be clear, he’s not calling for an increase in the quantity of people to expand but the quality of how they utilize their online resources to better their communities, their countries, their world.

Recently the Obama Foundation issued a challenge to better examine digital citizenship – its potential and pitfalls. The positives everyone is aware of: broader engagement, developments in real time, massive education opportunities, and the ability for everyone to have a voice. But the former president is worried that a whole negative side is emerging from these advantages. As he put it to college students recently in his hometown of Chicago:

“We now have a situation in which everybody’s listening to people who already agree with them. Rather than expanding their viewpoints, or perhaps even changing them, millions are instead surfing the Net for those things that affirm what they already believe. Obama believes this is happening, “to the neglect of a common reality that allows us to have a healthy debate and then try to find common ground and actually move solutions forward.

As a result, the Obama Foundation is focusing less on digital participation and more on what it terms “digital demeanour.” So it asks its online website visitors to answer some basic questions at the outset:

  • Who’s a model of digital citizenship in your world?
  • What habits to do you want to change about your online life? What’s one simple thing you could do to improve your “digital health?”
  • What people or organizations do you think exemplify digital citizenship when it comes to questions of embracing difference – of thought, identity, or any other variable that you value?

This all sounds great, but Obama has been increasingly voicing his concern over those online trolls and haters who use the medium to blow up their communities instead of building them. And some troubling new research is validating his worries. It’s not just about the fact that Internet can bring out the worst in people, but that such individuals desire their worst to be on public display.

Researchers from the School of Health and Psychology at Federation University at Mount Helen (Australia) discovered that, though trolls may indeed possess a certain sympathy for a subject or group of people, never turn it all ugly and vindictive as a result of their psychopathy. They are astute enough to know what really hurts people or brings out the insecurity in others and use those traits as they engage in online activity. Many hold to important causes like climate change, equality, poverty, race, etc., but their real desire is to harm others. In other words, their hateful state of mind overpowers their care for such causes in a way that it destroys any hope of collaboration or solidarity.

The research concluded that, “creating mayhem online is a central motivator to trolls.” Moreover, research also confirmed that trolls were likely to be high in sadism and have a strong desire to hurt others.

Research like this is something Obama and his foundation are closely following, for good reason: such individuals are relentlessly are looking to destroy others online at the same time as they purport to believe in valued causes – like citizenship itself. Obama knows well enough that most citizens avoid such caustic voices. The problem is that those naturally inclined to collaboration, goodwill, or compassion remain silent to such a negative online presence. The former president is increasingly calling for citizens who care about their community and their country to emerge from their hesitancy and denounce such pathological behaviour, just as they would if it happened on their street or in their business or school. Digital citizenship means little if it can’t be guarded or defended.

The poet Robert Frost used to say that key to preserving freedom was the courage to be bold. This is what Barack Obama is calling for. But the time will come when we will have to speak out online and denounce those who demean, malign and destroy others online. Compassionate opinions build solidarity and understanding; malignant opinions are a cancer leading to death. Obama thinks the time has come for us to join in the former in order to defeat the latter.

Payette’s Appointment Breaks New Ground – Again

As appointments go, the choice of Julie Payette as Canada’s new Governor General was figuratively out of this world. The former astronaut had completed two missions to the space station and spent seven years as the Canadian Space Agency’s chief astronaut. But her qualifications were far more wide ranging: speaking six languages, commercial pilot, a computer engineer, and active participant in numerous social causes.

Yet there was one key component to add to the appeal of the 53-year old from Montreal and it was pivotal: Payette perfectly fit Canada’s present view of itself. The almost universal testimonials to her appointment were proof enough of that reality and the celebrations prompted by the announcement spoke to our own collective view of present-day Canada in the midst of a troubled world.

This country has a history of doing the unexpected when it comes to the Governor General selection. Two of the last three Governors General were women and each played a dynamic role in presenting a Canadian face that was acceptable not only for domestic consumption but for international appeal. Payette appears more than ready to break new ground in the pattern of Adrienne Clarkson and Michelle Jean, not to mention David Johnson, who preceded her. Their appointments were a tribute, not only the remarkable individuality of these leaders, but to a nation that discerned in them a reflection of itself.

In recent months I’ve been authoring a thematic study of John Buchan, one of John F, Kennedy’s favourite authors, and Canada’s 15th Governor General (1935-1940). Even in those pivotal years as we entered World War Two Canada was willing to break the mould. His appointment created a sensation when it was reported that he was the first commoner ever selected for the position (he was actually the second). Rather than some kind of convenient placeholder from the British House of Lords, as was the tradition, Buchan was an internationally acclaimed author – his most famous work being Thirty-Nine Steps, a spy thriller later made into two major movies.

But Buchan was more than a wordsmith. He worked for the British government in South Africa, oversaw Britain’s spies in World War One, was a Member of Parliament for Scottish universities, an avid adventurer, and a successful businessman and publisher. What Canada was getting in those formative years was an appointee that transcended politics. This was Canada’s first great challenge to the British parliament in saying that it wanted to choose its own Governor General – breaking the historical pattern of selection only by the monarch of England.

Buchan travelled Canada extensively, especially First Nations communities, and fought for the right of individual groups to have their own identities recognized by both government and citizens. After spending years writing on the uniqueness of Canada’s character prior to his appointment, Buchan then began to build on what he had written and helped to transform Canada in the process.

As the appointment of Buchan revealed, and as Payette’s selection affirms, this country loves those individual leaders who are larger than life. When author Brian Moore wrote of the Canada he knew in the 1960s, he spoke honestly: “Walls, both physical and political, have always partitioned this enormous land, turning its citizens’ gaze inward.” Yet our selection of Governors General, especially in recent years, has blown the lid off that assessment. Jean was a refugee who came to Canada from Haiti. Clarkson became a dynamic journalist after arriving from Hong Kong. David Johnson was a brilliant academic and university leader. These last three Governors General alone defy our collective parochialism and domestic preoccupations.

And now we have an astronaut/humanitarian/engineer/francophone/musician/pilot and athlete about to take up residence in Rideau Hall and reflecting the dynamism of a modern nation that is in the process of discovering its role in a changing world. Having orbited the planet some 400 times, Payette’s view of Canada has been of its position within a larger context. For the next few years this remarkably able woman will have the privilege of showing us our own uniqueness and potential in that world. The timing couldn’t have been more fitting.

It’s Time for Canada 150+

This post can be read in its original Huffington Post format here.

Festivities will continue for months yet, but the focal point for this country’s 150th birthday culminated last week in birthday celebrations across the country and even with expat Canadians situated around the world. Though Shakespeare noted that, “With mirth and laughter let old wrinkles come,” there is yet through the land a sense that we are vibrant enough to chart a more enhanced future for ourselves.

Call it 150+ – the opportunity to see ourselves with all our potential, challenges, and opportunities to have a larger effect in a world more chaotic than at any time in recent memory.

Can we become more? To answer that question we require a good understanding of who we are and what our world has become. If we were honest, most Canadians would profess to being thankful to live in a comparatively quiet corner of the world that is as beautiful as it is vast, that is compassionate and smart, and that is seen as a civil nation capable of housing countless agendas. On top of that, however, we would have to admit that we have been too comfortably slow at respecting our natural environment enough to fight for its future or of finding the adequate healing mechanism for moving forward with our indigenous citizens.

So, it could be true that our vast country is bigger than our ability to manage it properly. It is likely true that, despite Vimy, Stanley Cups, Nobel prizes, Olympic medals, generosity to the world’s poor, and an enduring peaceful federalism, that we are not yet what we can be. We would have to admit that underlying all that compliance and moderation we harbour those subtle prejudices and bigotries that have eventually unravelled other nations in different times. We are known for how many times we say “sorry,” but have yet to develop the urgency that make our collective apologies effective enough to move on together with those we have failed or offended in the past.

Yet for all these challenges, there is a sense in the country that we are perhaps viewing ourselves differently. There has been more of a commitment to fight for gender equality, an improved willingness globally to struggle for an international development program that focuses on the advancement of women and girls to a degree unprecedented in our history. We have recommitted ourselves to a new era of peacekeeping that, though oblique at the moment, is a good match for our willingness to take a larger role in global military responsibility.

There was a time when pop star Bono declared that the world needed more Canada. We smiled, offered ourselves kudos, and then went about our business as though it didn’t matter. Now it does and there is a growing understanding among Canadians that this country could well have an expanded role as the world moves into the challenging decades ahead.

Not all that many years ago (1978), Saturday Night editor Robert Fulford said he had learned that Canadian culture remained virtually hidden in the broader world. It now seems likely that such a statement is no longer true. Yes, Justin Trudeau has captured much of the world’s attention, as with Edinburgh University’s announcement yesterday that it will honour him with an honourary degree for his work on gender equality. But Canada’s new presence in the world is about much more than one person or one party. It’s not just because this country has changed but that the world itself has entered a troubled era – a time in which Canada’s peaceful domestic accomplishments stand out all the more and, in fact, become the envy of the world.

True, as a people we are 150 years old, but all indications seem to point a future of greater global influence – not of the superpower kind but of the humanizing variety. We contain multitudes, more diversity than ever in our history, and yet in the process of making our accommodations with one another we are forging our place in the world. We have not only endured but have matured at just the time a challenged international order is looking for models for survival. In fighting for over a century for civic peace and global moderation we have made a greater place for ourselves in the larger world. We might be 150, but the legacy of our struggles is now about to have greater effect.
 

The Process of Becoming

This post can be found in its original London Free Press format here.

“I suppose that a Canadian is someone who has a logical reason to think he is one,” wrote Mavis Gallant in 1981, to which she added a personal note: “My logical reason is that I have never been anything else, nor has it occurred to me that I might be.”

As we celebrate our country’s 150th birthday today, it’s likely that, in a world full of turmoil and identity crises, millions of Canadians will move through the day in the spirit of Gallant – peaceful, quietly thankful and usually pleasant.

It’s odd that this placid reason for being has survived the tumults of the modern era. Identity struggles are epic across the globe. China, Syria, Britain, Germany, France, Venezuela, and, of course, a deeply divided America – these and many like them are in the throes of questioning their past, fighting through the present, and seeking a different kind of future. This phenomenon has been with us for more some time, causing political scientist Samuel Huntington to ask, “Who are we? Where do we belong?”

Since our birth as a nation we were led to believe that our national character has been formed by three great influences: Britain, France and the United States. We have accommodated the most useful of these societies and tossed out the rest. But only lately have we come to discover that this country’s original indigenous populations were rarely given the opportunity to disseminate the best of their cultural values, natural spirituality, and innate knowledge of this land we call home. For all of our pride about this country, this particular aspect of our past remains our greatest blemish and challenge.

How we have changed in recent decades. We are now far more vast and diverse a people than ever in our history. The world leaves great portions of itself in us as families from every culture expand on what was once familiar and comfortable to us. We are now something “more,” a greater expression of what we once were. We have absorbed so much human character and yet, unlike the current fate of other nations, haven’t come apart – the centre yet holds. We are neither a military or economic superpower, but we are what nations of such magnitude envy – a good people capable of compromise. For all our flaws and imperfections we have refused the path of hatred.

But we are being tested. The greatest changes in our democracy are technology and diversity. We have always had our divisions – East vs. West, North vs. South, English vs. French, rural vs. urban, generation vs. generation – and we have found sufficient accommodation to live in a wary peace. Yet with rapid advances in technology has come the transformational possibility of jumping over historical social boundaries and learning of one another. Nevertheless a new meanness has also been unleashed on the land as citizens use the same technologies to spread animosity, fear, racism and hatred in a fashion that knows no sense of respect, of humility, or even basic decency. These aren’t forces running through our streets, but through our digital networks, and increasingly in our heads. This has become the greatest threat to our bonhomie and will require all of us to raise our standard of collective self-respect.

We have much to protect, attitudes to overcome, and greatness to strive for. But for the moment – this moment – we are the envy of the world for how we have balanced our wealth, our vast natural resources, sense of global responsibility, and our ability to keep it together despite the same pressures that confront other nations. We have become the venerable Swiss Army knife of global utility. Need technological leadership? We are qualified. Peacekeepers? It’s in our national DNA. A righting of wrongs against indigenous communities? We’re working on it, as we are gender equality. An ability to transcend our divisions? That’s been our whole history.

We are fully in the world and an essential part to it. We have been to Dieppe, Dunkirk and D-Day. We flow through the very sinews of the United Nations and global hope. We have invented, skated, taught, sacrificed, and cared for the marginalized of the world, and the respect shown to us is something to which every person travelling with a Canadian flag on their backpack can attest.

We are a people in process and we are not yet as socially just as we will be. But the better angels of our natures still tempt us with the possibilities of sacrifice for the greater good. In an aging and troubled world 150 years is nothing. We are still young enough to believe in our ideals and our ability to turn them into transformation change. We are in the process of “becoming” and a 150th birthday is as good a time to celebrate that as any. Happy Canada Day.

%d bloggers like this: