Liberalism, Canada, and the 21st Century

A hat-tip to a post over at Riley's blog for helping me to coalesce some thoughts floating through my head in the last couple of days. In this Liberal leadership race I have noticed on many occasions the lack of dialogue over the direction of 21st century liberalism. Far too much discussion has been devoted to debating which candidate will have the most electability vis-a-vis Stephen Harper. Harper features prominently in virtually discussion of the candidates, but rarely seen is the invokation of liberalism and how it fits within the Liberal Party vision for 21st century governance. What kind of Canada do we want to see? What direction and role do we want to see the federal government assume? How should Canada interact with the world and conduct its international relations and foreign policy? These are all major questions which require answers, and have not been broached with enough regularity or passion. Instead, people would rather dump trash on Harper for not appearing at an AIDS convention or the OutGames.

That many Canadians and Canadian politicians are opposing the Harper government's strong stance in support of Israel concerns me greatly. So long gone are the days when liberals would proudly support the notion of JFK's "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty" policy. Instead we are expected to sit on the fence and not cast our lot in with a democratic ally and friend while it battles terrorists who deny its very right to exist. To do so would apparently be to cater to George Bush's foreign policy and make us a lapdog to the Americans, wouldn't it, Jack Layton? After all, what sense is there in echoing a voice that's already there, right, Bill Graham?

There was a time when liberals, both small-l and Big-L, in this country wouldn't give a second thought to taking the same stance as our ally to the south, which also represented a genuinely liberal tone regardless of which party was represented in the White House. Yet it appears that there has been a divergence between "Canadian liberalism" and "American liberalism." Whereas the latter seeks to advance and the extend the promise of liberal ideology throughout the world, we tend to oppose that policy and believe that these things will just magically work out for themselves. Never mind that during the Cold War, not a single left-wing state under the heel of the Soviets became a democracy, or that there has been a generational absence of democratic institutions in the Middle East. Dictators do not cede power to citizens. Terrorists working within a state do not enhance the ability of people to make their own decisions or live a life free of external compulsions.

Why, then, do our liberals not take a strong position that supports democracies when they engage in conflict against terrorists and tyrants? There have been exceptions to this, of course, but there is an ever-growing tide that seeks a voice of neutralism or of condemnation of both sides. Perhaps, as my colleague says, this is due to a lack of information being distributed to the Canadian people. I beg to differ. In the age of the internet and 24/7 mass media, information is in abundance. What is lacking is insight and moral clarity. As I wrote earlier this week, there is a major distinction between terrorists & tyrants who deliberate target civilians and put civilians at risk, and democracies which go to great lengths to avoid killing civilians and sometimes regrettably do so incidentally. The message is out there but it's not being given any meaning, and sometimes the wrong message altogether is getting out.

Last night, just before bed, I watched a news story on CTV that covered a public event discussing the Middle East. In attendance were Alexa Macdonough and a number of others; there were flyers plastered throughout the streets of Halifax, and immediately I knew that little good was to come out of it. The one interview they showed confirmed my worst fears, as the man blasted Israel and the Harper government for its support of Israel "killing Muslims." Put in such fashion, one is left with the impression that Israel takes some form of joy in killing people of the Muslim faith. This is categorically false and a pathological lie designed to leave people with the notion that Jews deliberately kill Muslims. Israel's objective is not, and never has been, to "kill Muslims," it is to defend itself against terrorism. The piece offered no counter-response or rebuttal to that statement, and simply left it there unchallenged.

As someone who is a liberal at his core, I am dismayed by the lack of direction given by Canada's liberals and Liberals. The party once stood for a set of beliefs and values, and often I have a hard time making them out in public statements. The ideology stands for something good in the world, the belief in human progress and a natural evolution toward liberal institutions such as democracy and the rule of law. At some point being "ideological" became a perjorative, as it was a term often lobbed at the old Reform/Alliance party to highlight their *cue scary music* nefarious ways. I've never been one to subscribe to the notion that having a core set of values, beliefs, and ideals was a bad thing, and it is disheartening to see the Liberal Party of Canada and Canadian liberals to see it as such. I'm hopeful that at some point they find their way and eliminate the gross inconsistencies between the values of liberalism and party policy.