Sun
Jan 23/05
Nuclear reactionary
Read
here the silly tale of a bureaucratic mix-up: a woman born
on a Canadian Forces base in Germany has been told by Human
Resources Canada that her birth certificate is insufficient
proof of her Canadian citizenship, thus requiring her to shell
out $75 for the new citizenship card that was invented after
9/11 to improve security. Is it ridiculous? Of course it is. But
far more ridiculous is the headline — "Forces' babies
deprived" — and far more ridiculous still is Peter
Worthington's concluding sentence: "What kind of prime
minister is Paul Martin that he allows such an indignity imposed
on those who serve the country overseas?"
He's
the kind who doesn't spend his days dealing with silly
bureaucratic mix-ups, to answer that outrageous query. I'm
reminded of Simon Jenkins' well-delivered
response to the Nazi Prince Harry fiasco:
We
have lost the ability to express proportion. There is no longer
such a thing as an accident. There is only a catastrophe.
Whatever happens is "big news", unless something else
turns up that is bigger. Someone somewhere… must be involved,
be blamed and, with luck, be sued or sacked. Public figures no
longer make mistakes. They make "massive errors of
judgment" for which they must resign or be roasted alive.
This is almost medieval. However minor, and however sincerely
regretted, a mistake may be redeemed only with trial by ordeal.
This
sort of reactionary thinking is what Stephen Harper is beginning
to tap into, and it's a powerful force indeed. It's a
natural decision for the Conservatives. They already have the
"everything is an outrage" thing down pat, with their
incessant calls for resignations at the first hints of
impropriety. The alternative is reason, and logic, and
restraint; but you can't have any of those things without the
other, and Paul Martin's dithering comportment has thus far
displayed none of the above. Thus, the Liberals are forced to
fight fear-mongering and artificial outrage via other
artificial, dishonest means. Conservatives often wonder what it
was that made Trudeau so appealing, writing it off as something
to do with charisma (i.e., cheating) and good looks (i.e., the
chick vote). Call me a dreamer, but I think the ability to form
and articulate a coherent position might have had something to
do with it as well.
-contact-
|
