Liberalism - The New War of 1812
At some point along the way, Karl Rove invaded Canada. As George W. Bush’s key political strategist, Rove introduced a new kind of politics based on dominance over consensus or compromise. His forceful incursion into the political domain directly challenged a common understanding that had dominated much of twentieth century politics.In closely guarded documents sent to the more ardent faction of the Republican Party, Rove reasoned that liberal democracies had established a pattern of fair-mindedness, respected reciprocity, or trust in viable procedure. Because of such traits, liberalism was the primary choice of the “middle.” But Rove reasoned that as citizens became more empowered under small “l” liberal progress, they also were becoming more detached and distracted. The decline in voter turnout was a clear indication of this development.Traditionally, 20th century politics had been characterized by informal agreements between the leaders of major parties not to challenge each other too harshly. This was not only the respectful way but also the most effective means of finding compromise and of steering effective legislation through the maze of legal and procedural requirements. Fierce debates aside, it was an accepted system that largely worked.Rove’s problem was that it mainly worked to Democratic advantage. And so he approached George Bush with a new strategy – one destined to turn politics into a blood sport. He reasoned that with the “checking out” of a significant portion of the citizenry, a political movement could win just enough votes to hold office and secure legislation by appealing to the ideological base of its own party rather than going after independents or the soft votes in other parties. Rove also reasoned that the remarkable rise of cable television and the Internet could provide the opportunity to move outside of traditional media, with its prejudices and objective requirements for fact, and reach the public directly without the historic and editorial controls followed by mainstream media.Bush bought it, and for the next decade the consensual approach of the middle gave way to the winner-take-all style of the ideological. For a time it worked, especially as Democrats and Independents remained frozen in place by such a harsh kind of politics.With the gift of hindsight, we now perceive what this did to politics in general, both domestically and internationally. Independent-minded voters checked out of the system in droves. More troubling, traditional compromising Republicans looked on in alarm. Elated at acquiring power, they nevertheless rejected the politics of Rove, and ultimately the Republican collapsed under the weight of its own harshness and regressive policies.At some point during that cycle, key Canadian ideological conservatives met with Rove strategists and imported the outlook into Canada. We all know what happened. Key to these posts is the understanding that we have lost that ability to compromise, to forge consensus, to enhance respect and find effective legislation in the rough and tumble world of Canadian politics. Liberals – both small “l” and large “L” – were unprepared for the sheer divisiveness forging its way through the federal structure. But the greatest damage has been seen in the turning off, or tuning out, of moderate Canadians from the political process. The result has been largely as Rove predicted: with moderates and independents removed, the conservative base has been able to seize and maintain minority control of the government.Canadians are increasingly waking up to the results of this new kind of hyper-partisan politics in Canada and there are troubling rumblings forming at the edge of their complacency. For liberally minded people this represents a challenge. They have traditionally viewed politics as a means to an end – the empowerment of the individual and the ability to self-organize – but for ideological conservatives it is an end in itself because it arrives at power, regardless of the cost. For liberals, politics has certain places where it ends; for these conservatives, however, politics never ends. They advance ideologically conservative goals through ideologically conservative means.All of this has left progressive conservatives in an ongoing quandary. Through three decades of community work I have formed great friendships with many of these folk. They are community builders, people of sincere faith, believe heartily in the civil service and care about the country’s image overseas. We spent a lot of time together here and overseas. Despite the fact they would never vote Liberal in any election, they work with Liberals like me every day to build a stronger community, to provide food for the hungry, and to assist with our projects overseas (as we do with theirs). They are as perplexed and frustrated with today’s hyper-partisan conservatism as are liberals. They believe the respect the various persuasions shared at community levels should be replicated nationally. But it’s not, and they, too, are isolated.Karl Rove invaded Canada through his cohorts and has established a beachhead. Canadians remain confused and increasingly disheartened at this kind of politics. Good conservatives are exploring ways to get respectful conservatism back. Those who are liberal should be helping them fight for the same thing.