- One Small Step for Harper, One Giant Leap for Con'ism

Submitted: 7/26/2010 11:44:53 AM The Globe and Mail
and: 7/26/2010 1:05:16 PM
Harper’s census push months in the making, Michael Valpy, Jul. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-census-push-months-in-the-making/article1651526/ Tab 63 and Tab 66

"Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said on the weekend that he thinks census data can be collected voluntarily without being compromised."

Perhaps Mr. Flaherty could explain just exactly what he is basing that statement on. Presumably, he is talking in the context of mathematical and science theory as opposed to simply a expression of an irrational, emotionally based right wing philosophy. Other than being elected, which, obviously, has absolutely no educational or professional prerequisites, what kind of rational basis does Jim Flaherty have to make this statement.

If Flaherty has no rational basis, then he ought not be making such statements for two reasons:

- it sets mathematics back to the dark ages, before the Age of Reason, where science and mathematics, as presented to the common people, were bases on religion and irrational fears; and,

- Flaherty is making such statements on behalf of the Canadian government and so as our representative. I think we have a right to demand that the people running our country be more responsible. If he does then why hide it.

And this is the whole crux of the problem. We have the Harper government simply making bald statements that this is the 'right' thing to do.

If we understand right as in 'morally' right, as in what is best for our great nation and all those in it, then this move makes no sense.

If you are talking about what promotes Harper extreme right wing agenda and his dream of tearing Canada as a united whole asunder, then it makes great sense and in fact is in line with the persona of political acumen (although I think that if the truth be know the real acumen flows from a source much to the South of us).

However, we, modern, scientifically advanced and dependent, developed, complex, multi-faceted, tolerant, economy based and democratic societies are in a circumstance that has never in the history of mankind been seen, or even close.

Our whole way of life depends on rational thought. Our science is based on rational thought. Our economics is based on rational thought. Our educational system is based on rational thought.

However, politics is still based on approaching the voter on an emotional level and irrational level - employing the socially dead-end evolutionarily principles of: our camp against your camp; we're right - you're wrong; we're good - you're bad; we're big - you're small, all relying on the basic premise: we're strong - you're week. (cicblog.com/comments.html; 02 January, 2010, 'Our Society is based on Rationality, It's Time We Insisted that Our Politics is as Well')

Reliable, factually based information is vital to our way of life as it is right now. Stephen Harper and the Con's want to change our way of life, back to the 'good ol' days' of a new dark age. This is a great step. That's the Harper reality. That's the Harper logic. That's the hypocrisy - Harper is very logical, rational, including use of statistics - polls, in approaching Canadians on an emotional, irrational bases.

This is not a struggle for the minds of the people between the the 'common folk' and the 'intellectually elite', although Harper and the Con's have been very carefully trying to present it as such.

It is struggle between a philosophy that developed in the context of an antiquated society, one that we have outgrown in a process that started with the Age of Reason. Our society has benefited from rationalism to a degree that was unimaginable even 100 years ago.

This Conservative philosophy may have been successful in that old context (something like observing that the Attila the Hun philosophy was successful, or the philosophy of the ancient Romans, for which we as a society have spent 2000 years throwing off, although apparently not successful according to Tom Flanagan).

However, it is no longer, and has not been for some time, well suited to our, modern, society.

It is not a democratic society in that decision making was based on a top-down power structure (as with a regency, dictatorship, totalitarian rule, military rule).

It is not a universally applicable since it was based upon a homogenous society where everyone (except for, perhaps, a few enlightened individuals and groups) had essentially same personal belief set and philosophical outlook.

It was belief oriented, if for no other reason than, other than auguring or reading entrails, people had no other, rational, way of analysis - putting in context what they observed in order to reasonable and with reliability, predict the future (i.e. what we call science).

The 'authorities' controlled the information that the people received, they controlled the message, they withheld the truth and the means for people to learn the truth, they 'knew' what was right for the people and it had very little to do with the actual realities but everything to do with control. They stomped on anyone that dared to stand up to them, one need only think of the Inquisition, witch hunts and, of course, Galileo.

Sound familiar.

This is exactly what we are looking at with Harper and his Con's (except a bit more subtle than the Inquisition and with hunts, so far anyway, but one need only refer to McCarthyism for a recent example of the extremes it can go to even in our modern society - "McCarthyism is the political action of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence." wikipedia).

It is manifest in Harper's plan to undermine the census. If we do not have reliable data to refer to, that just leaves the 'authorities' (back then it was the king, or queen, the elite nobility, the Church, the military leaders, etc.). Truth and knowledge are the food of Democracy and requires it to survive, let alone thrive.

There are many differences that go to the heart of why this conservative philosophy is antiquated and no applicable to the current context. It may have been useful in our past and we can certainly benefit from a rational analysis of it, but let us, first tip our hats, then relegate it to our history books and keep it there.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html