On Penguins and Politics
“God, I hope they work something out over there (Copenhagen). My granddaughter loves penguins and if we lose them she’ll never forgive me.” An MP friend of mine made that comment in humorous tone today, but those gathered around him had a tinge of doubt in their laughter. That was because the joke might very well turn out to be true.It got me to thinking that there are actually a lot of similarities between penguins and those of us who are in politics. Like those Antarctic inhabitants, we wear suits all the time and we grow a little more portly over time. We gather together for tribal survival and are occasionally capable of demonstrating remarkable sacrifice to save others.And then there’s our habitat. The penguins live their lives on ice sometimes two kilometers thick but which is changing dramatically in their lifetime. The ice is getter thinner, and large chunks if it are breaking off into the ocean, altering their migrating patterns. The ground is changing under our feet as politicians as well, only more symbolically. Our sphere of influence is steadily shrinking, and both politicians and penguins watch their world collapse in around them.As the new century continues to open up, it is becoming increasingly obvious that economic power is the defining characteristic of advanced nations. Neither size nor military power matters if there’s no economic strength. This development is now universal and stands directly across the path of the hoped-for agreement at Copenhagen. Lest we’re deluded, we need reminding that the climate conference is not about the environment at all but about economies and money.Stephen Harper used to see everything through a Canada-only lens, but that is changing. For a time in global life, all politics was local while all economics was international. But internationalism - Afghanistan, climate change, trade, etc. – undercuts the ability of politicians to make a distinct difference in their own land, unless they get on board with the new realities. Countries and peoples who are willing to place domestic second best over international best will always lose out over time. Perhaps too late, this reality is dawning on the Prime Minister. When was the last example of an inward-looking country that had long-term success? Even China has learned this lesson. Protectionist politicians are no longer sure what to protect.Since the end of the Second World War, internationalism has become more pragmatic and less ideological. We have to function in this world of internationalism if we are to survive. Yet Canadian politics today has everything to do with attaining power and nothing to do with using it. More and more, a politician’s life is about getting elected, then staying elected. Whatever larger challenges might be out there to which the politician should apply his or her attention, they pale in comparison to doing whatever it takes to get the vote. Sadly, it is increasingly becoming the politician who stands in the way of effective administration, as Harper has done now with Copenhagen, despite bureaucratic advice. Defying his earlier stance, he now embraces China because he actually requires their money if he’s to pay off his deficit – internationalism has transcended his parochialism. But with Copenhagen he has failed to apply the same understanding. He continues with the tribal worldview that separates the environment from the economy – the former expendable, the latter essential.As the influence of politicians shrinks, there nevertheless comes those times where moments of greatness can be achieved that would not have been possible in their absence. Being in a position to call the shots, however, doesn’t mean that the shots will be called. Not much we have done in recent years can constitute true leadership; we merely responded to events as they swept us up in their wake. But here, at Copenhagen, we could claim that one essential moment where the fate of our grandchildren and the penguins could be rescued. It was our one shot and Canada failed. Now it’s back to getting the vote.