Liberalism - "Do Not Disturb"

These posts have generated more responses than normal.  That’s only natural; some of the subject matter has cut pretty close to the bone for many.  One of the recurring themes is that the country has some serious difficulties to surmount that nevertheless lie unattended.It was surprising then to read some insights from a nationally syndicated columnist this past weekend, claiming that only in a country like Canada, where there is nothing really wrong, would something as obscure as the long census become such a big deal.  I understand where he was coming from, yet in the context of some of these recent blog postings the columnist seemed strangely detached from where so many citizens are situated.The more I pondered the article, the more it made sense.  He was, after all, speaking of the “comfortable.”  They basically have what they require.  Don’t want tax hikes? No worries.  Can’t stomach elections? No problem.  A little too uncomfortable to really deal with the imminent challenges of climate change?  We’ll ignore it.  This critical mass of citizens doesn’t want to be disturbed, and the important entities in society at the moment – corporatism, politics, entertainment, and, yes, the media – seem content to oblige.  It’s almost as if the logic of inaction is inescapable.The traditional media today are just as dependent on citizens as are politicians.  Their bread and butter are found in the comfortable and, for the present, they seem undeterred.  They don’t wish to acknowledge decay.  Our crumbling infrastructure, the aforementioned environmental damage, low voter turnout, loss of world influence – these and more are pressing realities whether Canadians wish to acknowledge them or not.True liberalism (small “l”) simply can’t abide with such drifting.  Yet those political parties imbibed with a healthy dose of liberalism – NDP. Liberals, Bloc, Greens, and the struggling Progessive Conservative remnant – have arrived at a precarious bargain.  Whatever their personal opinion concerning the storm clouds gathering on the horizon, they must be practical if they want to win, and therefore must not, in any serious way, disturb the comfortable.  The theory is that you won’t get the vote if you do, and it’s likely correct.Media representatives find themselves in the same awkward predicament.  It is to the comfortable that they are directed.  To maintain readership, advertising and hopefully market share, they unwittingly accept the same intolerances as the citizens they are striving to reach.  And so they take a jaundiced view of government and politicians, viewing the federal system as large and onerous.  Inevitably the common belief becomes the truth for both the media and politics.The media is assisted in this direction by the fact that it is part of the comfortable itself, as are those that employ them.  This must never be admitted in danger of making them appear overly subjective, which does happen on occasion.And so the media becomes like the very political structure it decries.  Media personalities and politicians have far more in common than acknowledged.  They both want to be liked, respected even.  They hold positions that are remarkably fragile and vulnerable to the whims of the public.  They each profess to hold out the objective truth.  Both are in fields undergoing rapid transformation and deep insecurity results.  Both are near the bottom of citizen respect.  And each cultivates a relationship with the other.Politics and journalism should both be about reality, but that would mean admitting that reality itself would be with the events that would destroy the mood of the comfortable elite.  Our lakes, watersheds and rivers are in vulnerable condition.  Long-term infrastructure required to build for tomorrow is in serious disrepair.  A looming health crisis will be here within a decade.  Aboriginals are still marginalized.  The deficit is looming and huge.  And our partners in the world are concerned at our apparent drift in diplomacy, development and defence.  These are real conditions, points of danger for our future well being as a people.But there is one clear advantage one has over the other.  Media must, of necessity, always have the last word.  By playing to the comfortable, like politics it should come under scrutiny for its failure to objectively read the tealeaves.  But who could challenge it?  To do so could result in serious harm to all those in politics, business or civil society that require the media venue to get their message out.  Knowing this, a certain sense of smugness can work its way into media thinking.Liberalism has always viewed the media as a fundamental tool for the growth of the human spirit and for the legitimacy of democracy.  But when that responsibility is undermined by modern market pressures and the punishment that might accrue from disturbing the comfortable, liberalism, in its historic and modern form, must challenge the status quo.  Nothing really wrong with this country, my eye.