Altered States - The Role of "Dummy"

Time to talk about what we're not supposed to talk about.  In May, I walked through the restaurant at the Marriott Hotel and was summoned to a table of Conservatives who were celebrated the anniversary of their election.  "Come on, have a drink with us," they entreated.  I was glad to do it and they were great to be with. At one point in the evening, one of them expressed frustration at how difficult it was for the average MP to speak their mind in the House. One of the women present lamented that the same had to be said about parliamentary committees. All chipped in with the understanding that we couldn't mention of this to the media lest they take it out of context and our respective party establishments take offense.As we've been reflecting during the summer, it wasn't always like this. Pierre Trudeau's assessment that MPs don't really matter the moment they're off the Hill rankles me still, much as it did with the parliamentarians of his day. His statement bothers me for two reasons: the first is that it doesn't take into account the hard work undertaken in home ridings, and the second is that it's close to being true. A year ago I spoke with a Bloc member during a committee who said she wasn't really a separatist. An NDP friend of mine believes the most important thing we have to do is pay off the deficit. There are Conservative MPs who believe in same-sex marriage and Liberals who stridently believe in the right of citizens to own guns. It would be hard for the average citizen to know this, of course, because all of us, including me, are expected to tow the party line.For his entire political career John Kennedy sought to authenticate his own voice, but many in the press wouldn't hear of it. Profiled as a mere tool of his overly influential father, the young senator seeking to become president opted to approach the topic head-on. In a press conference he put it on the table: "I guess Dad has decided that he's going to be the ventriloquist, so I suppose that leaves me the role of dummy." The press, not used to such candor, laughed uproariously. By speaking directly, he at last succeeded in putting some daylight between his candidacy and his dominant father.Maybe that's what we should be doing at present. An authentic voice isn't so much truthful as it is reflective, and it's time all of us as MPs considered whether it's going to be worth the price of party discipline we might very well face. I'd love to provide lots of examples where I spoke up about what I believed. They do exist, but so do those moments when I voted as instructed, even though I disagreed. Before readers start commenting on what a lackey I may be, consider what would have been the consequence of bringing down the government at a time when the majority of Canadians didn't want an election. It's a deal with the devil and we don't always get it right.Perhaps more importantly, would the media get it right if we spoke up? There's hardly an MP in the House who doesn't think we need a serious discussion on whether to raise taxes at some point in the future if we hope to get out of deficit, but we're terrified that journalists will single it out without context, leaving the MP twisting in the wind. Remember Michael Ignatieff?I have read numerous articles where national journalists have stated unequivocally that we have to all tell the truth on taxes. They get away with it because there isn't another estate out there that will cut them to shreds. Alas, for politicians, the time for seriousness might very well be an occasion for political suicide, either from their own party or from the media. MPs would speak up if they could count on the tacit support from their parties and from the journalists. With neither being the case, we content ourselves in the role of "dummy" as we pray for political reform.With apologies to all those I just offended.