Apathy mixed with Hypocrisy
Wonder Woman made it back from CPAC and has, aparently, recovered from the hangover...
The concepts of practicality and principle rarely, if ever, coincide in the realm of politics. More often than not, the practical choice requires a compromise of principle ethics, and the principled choice tends to weigh very impractically against precedent and popularity. The result of this conflict being, that in order to stay in power, or accomplish anything of note, our elected representatives are forced into juggling between the two, and in the interest of picking the fights they can win, they will usually choose the practical route. This leads the citizenry to regard most political decisions with a systemic cynicism. We shrug our shoulders and reassure ourselves that this is simply the nature of politics. Such is the political reality, we are told, and those of us who expect and demand more from our elected representatives are often denounced as idealists, or simply politically illiterate. This could very well be, but what does it say about those who are willing to accept such low standards, simply because it’s politically advantageous to do so?
A healthy dose of cynicism is required of anyone who wishes to engage in an analysis of the political process, but it can also be a hypnotic influence that leads to ethical apathy. Such is the state that many of us find ourselves in, whenever the subject of politics comes up. The inherent expectation that all politicians are crooks and liars, in varying degrees, leads us to accept unethical behavior as a consequence of political reality. “Everybody does it” becomes the blanket excuse and “all politicians are the same” dismisses any argument that they should be held to a higher standard than this. All politicians may be the same, and everybody may do it, but my question is…when are we going to expect more from them?
The acceptance of David Emerson into the Conservative fold is certainly a practical choice. He is eminently qualified and although his constituents would be justified in feeling mislead, I believe it would be stretching to call his ethics into question. His defection was poorly timed, yes but likely not a deliberate deception on his part, so much as a way to maximize his impact in parliament. His choice was shrewd, but not dishonest.
The same can be said about Stephen Harper. The arguments, that he is simply exercising his rights within the rules at hand, and making the best of the party’s tenuous grip on parliament, are all valid. And regardless of what some may say about my political astuteness, I am aware of what is entailed in the political reality of today. I simply choose not to pare back my expectations, to meet it. After all, are we to be the ones to influence our own political reality, or are we willing to simply let the political reality influence us and our choices?
Those of us who compromise on our professed values, to allow for political expediency truly deserve the kind of government we get, when we neglect to make them reach for higher standards. And the fact that the rules don’t expressly forbid it, doesn’t make it an ethically sound choice.
The party faithful, who are loathe, to criticize this action can argue all they like about the practical reasons for allowing this. They can call names and question my loyalty to conservatism and write me off as a political illiterate. However, this impulse to circle the wagons, and attack all who dare question, makes them no better than the many thousands of people who spent 12 years voting for the Liberal Party -- despite every scandal -- simply because they have always voted Liberal. My loyalty is to Conservatism, and that extends to the Conservative Party, only for as long as they adhere to those principles. Straying from them for the sake of power building is a road that leads to corruption and apathy.
And apathy is what is killing Conservatism in this country. [read the rest here]
I agree. Especially with that last statement. Apathy is killing Conservatism.
Not just in Canada but throughout North America.
I'd take it even further and say that apathy will be the destruction of western civilisation itself and not just the concept of "Conservatism". Am I being an alarmist or extremeist? Not so much. I'm just looking back through history. Look at the failed Greek empire. The failed Roman empire. Those societies weren't conquored by mighty armies. They ceased to exist because of erosion from within.
It's time people woke up and started caring.
The concepts of practicality and principle rarely, if ever, coincide in the realm of politics. More often than not, the practical choice requires a compromise of principle ethics, and the principled choice tends to weigh very impractically against precedent and popularity. The result of this conflict being, that in order to stay in power, or accomplish anything of note, our elected representatives are forced into juggling between the two, and in the interest of picking the fights they can win, they will usually choose the practical route. This leads the citizenry to regard most political decisions with a systemic cynicism. We shrug our shoulders and reassure ourselves that this is simply the nature of politics. Such is the political reality, we are told, and those of us who expect and demand more from our elected representatives are often denounced as idealists, or simply politically illiterate. This could very well be, but what does it say about those who are willing to accept such low standards, simply because it’s politically advantageous to do so?
A healthy dose of cynicism is required of anyone who wishes to engage in an analysis of the political process, but it can also be a hypnotic influence that leads to ethical apathy. Such is the state that many of us find ourselves in, whenever the subject of politics comes up. The inherent expectation that all politicians are crooks and liars, in varying degrees, leads us to accept unethical behavior as a consequence of political reality. “Everybody does it” becomes the blanket excuse and “all politicians are the same” dismisses any argument that they should be held to a higher standard than this. All politicians may be the same, and everybody may do it, but my question is…when are we going to expect more from them?
The acceptance of David Emerson into the Conservative fold is certainly a practical choice. He is eminently qualified and although his constituents would be justified in feeling mislead, I believe it would be stretching to call his ethics into question. His defection was poorly timed, yes but likely not a deliberate deception on his part, so much as a way to maximize his impact in parliament. His choice was shrewd, but not dishonest.
The same can be said about Stephen Harper. The arguments, that he is simply exercising his rights within the rules at hand, and making the best of the party’s tenuous grip on parliament, are all valid. And regardless of what some may say about my political astuteness, I am aware of what is entailed in the political reality of today. I simply choose not to pare back my expectations, to meet it. After all, are we to be the ones to influence our own political reality, or are we willing to simply let the political reality influence us and our choices?
Those of us who compromise on our professed values, to allow for political expediency truly deserve the kind of government we get, when we neglect to make them reach for higher standards. And the fact that the rules don’t expressly forbid it, doesn’t make it an ethically sound choice.
The party faithful, who are loathe, to criticize this action can argue all they like about the practical reasons for allowing this. They can call names and question my loyalty to conservatism and write me off as a political illiterate. However, this impulse to circle the wagons, and attack all who dare question, makes them no better than the many thousands of people who spent 12 years voting for the Liberal Party -- despite every scandal -- simply because they have always voted Liberal. My loyalty is to Conservatism, and that extends to the Conservative Party, only for as long as they adhere to those principles. Straying from them for the sake of power building is a road that leads to corruption and apathy.
And apathy is what is killing Conservatism in this country. [read the rest here]
I agree. Especially with that last statement. Apathy is killing Conservatism.
Not just in Canada but throughout North America.
I'd take it even further and say that apathy will be the destruction of western civilisation itself and not just the concept of "Conservatism". Am I being an alarmist or extremeist? Not so much. I'm just looking back through history. Look at the failed Greek empire. The failed Roman empire. Those societies weren't conquored by mighty armies. They ceased to exist because of erosion from within.
It's time people woke up and started caring.
posted by Richard at 07:39
<< Home