I'm not biased; I just know what's true!

“Confirmation Bias” explains why we choose the books we read, the people with whom we associate, the news sources we attend to. Our beliefs, our assumptions, our “biases” are central to our character, and self-worth is built upon the “confirmation” that what we are is good, is proper, is commendable, is TRUE. Naturally, we attend more to voices that agree with our biases, less to voices that question them. In A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership, former FBI director James Comey writes:

Our brains have evolved to crave information consistent with what we already believe. We seek out and focus on facts and arguments that support our beliefs. More worrisome, when we are trapped in confirmation bias, we may not consciously perceive facts that challenge us, that are inconsistent with what we have already concluded. In a complicated, changing and integrated world, our confirmation bias makes us very difficult people. We simply can’t change our minds. (Kindle, p.104)

Well, “we simply can’t change our minds” is a bit much; we can and do change our minds on occasion. Many of us assumed the warming climate was a natural phenomenon that would reverse itself in nature’s own time. Presently, many of these many have “changed their minds” and now accept the phenomenon to be tied to human activity. What it will take for all of us to grasp that climate change can’t be fought without economic sacrifice is anybody’s guess; confirmation bias weighs heavily in our avoidance of news about potential climate change consequences.

In its very definition, even, lies the stubbornness of confirmation bias; the tendency is to agree that it exists in human psychological makeup; the illusion that it affects primarily others, though, is a sinister example of confirmation bias all on its own.  

I know of a few ways in which I’ve been forced to step outside of my own biases and face up to truths that made me change my mind. Familiarity gained by living on a reserve and in Europe, extended visits to Panama and Mexico made it necessary to discard biases about cultures I’d held on to up to then. Education, of course, has the power to overwhelm old biases with knowledge and training in reasoning and debating of issues: logically and amicably. And then there’s aging, reaching a plateau in life where being right—and being rewarded for being right—are no longer urgent.

Rapid change can be an incentive to lean on our biases and to seek their confirmation. I’m reminded of that old joke in which Ole and his friend are launching a boat, and Ole ends up with one foot on the dock and the other on a gunwale of a moving boat. “Yump, Ole, Yump!” yells the friend, and Ole replies, “How can I Yump? I got no place to stood!”

For creationists, the literal interpretation of Genesis is the ground on which they stand. For some, the Yump from this safe ground would mean certain drowning. There’s plenty to read that confirms this bias.

To have a place to stand—even if it’s a wrong place—is reassuring. The evil growing around the world that sees more and more people giving rein to a “me and mine first” bias has provided many with “a place to stand.” It’s a reasonable bias given that it feels like a survival tactic. That people seek out examples of individual achievement, of domination over underlings, of the rich, the “stars,” the powerful—and vicariously live the lives of those—doesn’t surprise. And dictators and oligarchs ensure that what they say and do—and what surviving news outlets reinforce—confirm this bias. It’s what we’re looking at in our southern neighbour.

Community life was the salvation of cultures prehistorically. How we shake our individualistic biases and embrace the implications of one, whole-world community is a conundrum we’ll never unravel unless we learn to abandon our biases in favour of better ones.

But as the character said to Granny who was certain she could swim the English Channel, “Good luck with that, Grandma.” 

Now's not the time ...

 

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) grew out of the Progressive Conservative Party. Without making too much of this, the fact remains interesting. What we call left wing or liberal (and perhaps, socialist) politics are also called progressive political ideologies. Voters should have learned in school what’s meant by left or liberal politics as well as the difference between it and conservative ideology.

Conservative impulses exist in all of us; we find comfort in conserving what is; change is unsettling. A good example is the CPUs campaign to “Axe the Tax,” a progressive carbon emission tax imposed to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels and their contribution to climate change. Progressive ideology recognizes that a changing climate demands new ways of doing things; conservative ideology looks to what worked yesterday and campaigns for the status quo. Progressive policies look forward; conservative thinking focuses on the present as informed by the past.

Tree-hugging environmentalists may be progressives—even socialists—on Employment Insurance, but adamantly conservative on preserving forests as they are. Being “right-wing” is not like being right-handed; we’re all politically ambidextrous depending on the issue. It’s the divisive party systems that label us either “candy-assed liberals” or “red-necked hillbillies,” making every election an us-and-them, win-and-lose proposition.

There’s a time and a place for conservative thinking, and it’s tempting to join the current rush to defying change while the “let’s all hate Trudeau” theme is threatening to displace our national anthem. It’s easy to get swept up in the notion that the time and place is now. It most certainly is not; this is the worst possible time.

The implications in a time of rapidly escalating global warming are clear: to reject progressive measures and deny the need for decisive change is to borrow life from future generations. It’s the refusal to make a small sacrifice now, even if it results in a lifetime of huge sacrifice for our grandchildren.

In times of frustration—inflation, forest fires, dependence on foodbanks, intolerance, medical care crises, “wars and rumours of wars,” etc.—the temptation to kick over the furniture in rage is strong, the blaming of leaders and the dividing into for-and-against camps is predictable. But like wars, depressions, pandemics, famines, hurricanes and such, climate change and economic cycles cannot be gone around, they must be soldiered through. Neither are they the fault of the government in office: the cycles of human social and economic fortune have always been. And because each trial is unique, it’s progressive thinking—innovation—not adamant conservatism and finger-crossing that will help us through.

Feel Free to reply to gg.epp41@gmail.com

A playlet for people mourning the imagined demise of freedom in Canada

A playlet for people mourning the imagined demise of Freedom in Canada.

Pierre: When I’m your Prime Minister, I’m going to make Canada the freest country in the world. I …

Skepticus: But Canada already ranks in the top 5 in the world in terms of personal freedoms, along with Denmark, Switzerland, New Zealand, Estonia, and Ireland. (I guess that makes 6, sorry.)

Pierre: Yah, but you put on a demonstration in Ottawa and the tanks roll in, people are crushed and …

Skepticus: You’re thinking of China, Pierre.

Pierre: … and we have an election and only one candidate is allowed onto the ball….

Skepticus: China again. Sorry.

Pierre: And the liberals don’t allow any real opposition, and people who try get jailed, or poison….

Skepticus: Russia, Pierre. Russia, not Canada.

Pierre: And the Liberals own that propaganda machine, the CBC….

Skepticus: Ditto, Pierre. You’re thinking of the Russian News Agency, TASS.

Pierre: Well, anyway. We can’t cross the Canada/US border so we’re not free!

Skepticus: Thousands of Canadian and American citizens, trucks, airplanes cross that border every day. You’re reading only the sentence in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that says, “Canadian citizens have the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada,” and not the part that says, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (emphasis mine). You cannot cross the border without the recommended vaccinations for the same reason that you aren’t allowed to drive at whatever speed you want through a school zone; the restriction on border crossing without proof of vaccination (rightly or wrongly) is justified as a measure for saving lives in the time of a pandemic. The ability to set conditions on mobility rights in dangerous times is an essential feature of “free and democratic societies.” Just like “Free Speech” doesn’t extend to hate speech, slander or libel.

Pierre: I don’t get that. A bunch of liberal bullshit, is all.

Skepticus: Why am I not surprised, Pierre? Maybe just talk to some people who have fled countries where they weren’t able to enjoy reasonable rights and freedoms. When they imagined freedom, they imagined Canada, or Ireland, or Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland, or Estonia, the United Kingdom or the USA. Not Syria, not North Korea, not Russia, not Cuba, not Venezuela, not Communist China, not Iran, not Hungary or Bulgaria … well, you get the point … I hope. Good luck in your campaign, Pierre, but please don’t encourage Canadians thinking that we’re turning into North Korea; compared to countries with oligarchies, single party dictatorships, oppressive theocracies, Canada is personal freedom heaven. There’s nothing here for you to fix in that regard.

 

  

HOW IS JUSTICE EARNED?

 

Earning Justice©

George G. Epp

The broad, North American culture seems to have settled down to accepting the normality of oppressor/oppressed, victim/victimizer consciousness, seems to me. In feminism, it has the character of a glass ceiling; in colonizing history, it’s about indigenous/settler conflicting interests; in race relations, it’s about majority vs. minority rights and responsibilities; in religion, Christian/Jew/Muslim/Sikh etc. consciousness. Even sexuality and gender have provided occasion for majority/minority, oppressor/oppressed scenarios.

                To me, this observation points toward the need for a new way of viewing victimization in North America. A new way that doesn’t begin and end with an apology and momentary feelings of empathy that pretty much go away when the next work-week begins. Are there possibilities for new approaches, or is being either conquered or conqueror, victimized or victimizer built inescapably into human nature?

                People talk a lot about “playing the victim card,” of the phenomenon of shifting blame for one’s own unsatisfactory life on persons and groups that appear to be living more-than-satisfactory lives. Not to say that there aren’t persons and groups that deliberately victimize others for their own gain, or that there aren’t persons or groups that are targeted for victimization. Far from it. What seems more relevant to this discussion is the remedy for victimization and exploitation, and the clear historical evidence that screaming “I/we, is/are victims of _________ (fill in the blank) appears to have limited utility.

We need just to look at the experience of coal miners in Great Britain after the industrial revolution, men who were basically held in slavery to hard, dangerous work by the threat of starvation. Until they banded together and withdrew their labour, little progress toward de-victimization occurred.  Or we could look to the peasant revolts happening across Europe in the 15^th and 16^th Centuries for an opposite outcome; pitchforks and shovels were no match against the palace guards and armies of the ruling classes. So what do our histories teach us that would be useful in the Americas today?

The loud clamour about being a victim along with finger pointing at the supposed victimizer—often seems, in the end, to be little more than frustratingly futile noise. By Old Testament standards, justice is the foundation on which progress must be based. Justice has very practical and very discrete components; it’s not an abstract concept. What’s required is the insistence on discrete policies and practices that are just.

Do Pride Parades, Black Lives Matter marches, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women inquiries fall into the category of raising awareness without fostering a direction toward remedies? Oft repeated slogans and declarations of victimizations seem to make little difference in fact, and predictably turn into white noise in the ears of the intended audience. Is the reason for this the fact that actions too often demand the whole enchilada rather than setting goals on discrete components of justice: equality in law, equal pay for equal work, equal access to education, equal access to health care.

There are exceptions, of course. “Defund the Police” was a more specific, more creative effort than most and resulted in a still-ongoing reassessment of police practice. To me, that suggests that demonstration that is too general leaves neither the victim nor the victimizer with a handle to grasp, even when awareness and empathy are awakened. The Truth and Reconciliation Report, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples appear to be monumental steps forward in remedying the victimization of Canada’s indigenous peoples, but are they more than documents that are easily given lip-service while the legislating of actual, detailed change is easily postponed … time and again?

So what are some characteristics of actions that actually precipitate change? Recognizing that members of a preferred and privileged demographic have little interest in change, do victim-cultures, individuals and groups need to abandon the accusing strategy and reach for something else? As I’ve already mentioned, most successful campaigns for change historically were guided by victims, not by the victimizing entity. The formation of unions, for instance, has always been anathema to the corporate machine. To this day, large corporations fight tooth and nail to prevent workers organizing; their interest is in the status quo where some glaring similarities exist between the current labour situation and the British coal miners way back when. The right to exploit labour on the wage side continues in the campaigns of the corporate, business sectors to keep the minimum wage as low as possible. Labour exploitation has long been an engine driving the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. In North America, the attack on unionization has been persistent and largely successful; only 30% of workers in Canada belong to a union that bargains for their wages and working conditions.

Many white, settler-class Canadians have expressed deep disgust with prevalent forms of victimization: indigenous poverty, police discriminatory behaviour, low-wage McJobs, Quebec’s “secular society” laws, etc. But does my sympathy for children growing up in the bad water, bad housing, second-rate education opportunities of many northern reserves do these children any good? If I empathize with Syrian refugees attempting to adjust to Canada and hear that a woman has been fired from a school staff for wearing a hijab, does my empathy get her her job back? How frustrated do I need to get with my inability to effect positive changes before I look for a new way? 

∞

In order to win a game, a soccer team needs to assemble on the playing field and carry out a strategy whereby each player fulfills a distinct role. No games will ever be won if the defense has slept in, the goalie has decided to stay home and watch TV and the centre and right/left wingers are fighting on the bench over who gets to do what.

                Similarly, change is most often driven by movements of same-goal-oriented people … in large numbers, people who may individually have felt helpless, like a person trying to win a soccer game by him/her/themselves. Movements form around leadership, they thrive by organization and goal-directed activity. They give each member a role in their efforts. They don’t take no for an answer. Imagine how things would be different if there existed an All-Black Union, with striking as the way to assert their need for equality rights and practices.

                Although you’d hardly know it now, Saskatchewan used to be a model of social democracy, a province where you could get medical treatment even if your means were limited. The active leaders who turned the tide included J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, and the movement they centered was called the Canadian Commonwealth Federation, or CCF. Against fierce opposition, they fought their way into political power and made first Hospitalization Insurance and later broader Medical Insurance happen. This model eventually led to Medicare as we know it across Canada.

Starting a new political party is probably too lofty an aspiration for most of us. At the same time, protest parties’ record of forcing change is not good and they generally don’t last long. What makes more sense is what’s called, “Rational-instrumental social action, actions that are carried out in order to achieve a specific result.” The action Max Weber speaks of centers on one specific objective, like clean water for one reserve, maybe, or a new school for one town. It may, of course, include political action, like running pro-objective candidates for town council or tribal council, but everything it does politically is tailored to further one objective at a time.

You’d be right in wondering how, for instance, rational-instrumental social action could formulate a movement against discrimination and prejudice. Can you remember a time when argument changed anyone’s mind about, for instance, racial supremacy? And if tackling the big human, attitudinal issues that underly both victimizer’s and victim’s worldviews doesn’t work, can we hope that rational-instrumental social action will bring us closer? And what would be an example, say, of such an action that would answer our horror over the residential schools issue in a way that would relieve their victims?

I repeat: the impetus for meaningful change seems historically to be driven by the victims. First Nations are demanding the Pope’s apology for the Catholic Church’s role in Residential Schools on the one hand, and the locating of burial sites and the identifying of the children buried around Residential Schools on the other. These two demands can represent the initiation of two rational-instrumental social action projects that need to be sustained with persistent and vigorous effort, such that the body of victims and the culpability of the victimizers are made clear and graphic until these two discrete goals are met.

The danger is, as always, that the two rational-instrumental social actions will degenerate into a fuzzy, general diatribe against white and/or Christian racism, and as I said before, projects to simply change people’s attitudes—even when accompanied by much loud protest—seem always to be futile. That’s why an action needs to be rational—which racism is not—and it must be instrumental, describable and with a measurable outcome. The road to equality and fairness for minorities will likely only be achieved in the accumulation of rational-instrumental social actions. To make these actions persevere and succeed, the victim/minority must find a way to act in unity of purpose; they must, in effect, adopt the union model.

This is one example. The progress of civilization toward what the prophet Isaiah saw as a peaceable kingdom (where the lion and lamb lie down together) and which Jesus pointed toward in the Sermon on the Mount and which Hindus find in the Bhagavad Gita will be earned and won in steps of rational-instrumental social action, seems to me. In a world that more and more reveres independence, social action is an uphill battle. Furthermore, even though the victims are driving an action for change, they find themselves—almost by definition—as the weaker one in the victim/victimizer struggle. The only way to balance this equation is in numbers, in unity and in clarity of purpose.

For those who lament residential schools victimization of indigenous Canadians but are most easily associated with the oppressor culture, getting out of the way is sometimes the best strategy. Facilitating the movement (providing food and drink to protestors, for instance) might be another way. To show solidarity with a cause is best demonstrated with action that proves our words are sincere.

This leaves one question for me: how can I—who am often numbered with the privileged oppressor but who recognizes the injustices others bear—engage in the bringing about of the necessary changes so that a certain case of victimization is mitigated? Ought we churches and social progressives form a league and ourselves begin to emulate the rational-instrumental social actions that would move us closer to justice and fairness? If, for instance, the plight of the people of Gaza were the issue, would our united, clear goals for justice for them sway government to take helpful action? And if we were to agree in this league to strike until such action was taken, would that succeed?

Or should we continue—as now—to send out our thoughts and prayers for them to chew on?

Politics as a word means the social/fiscal arrangements we devise in order to live peaceful, fulfilled lives as citizens. We place our confidence in elected politicians to enact laws and policies that will have this effect. Unfortunately, lawmaking, policy making are tainted by calculations of electability—why consider the basic needs of a minority who represent only 10% of the voters, for instance? This phenomenon dashes any hope of a political party ever forming a cohesive “league for change.” At election time, parties come out with lists of policies geared to resonate with their base and after the election, promises made become negotiable because one eye must remain fixed on the next election.

However we choose to be catalysts for justice, this weakness of democracies should be kept in mind. We can easily be wooed into membership in a party and be caught up in the propaganda, the zero-sum game of winning/losing as if it were all like a football game. Such loyalties to even badly-flawed political forces means that we’re better off setting goals and organizing around particular, specific issues and working hard enough to influence political parties, even if their objective, originally, was simply to get our votes.

Here’s a final thought. What if large numbers of Canadians would join in a voting strike until a reasonable form of proportional representation in parliament was written into law? Promised by Justin Trudeau in the 2015 election, we now know that that promise was never intended to be kept. An election artificially skewed in the Liberals favour by first-past-the-post election rules kept them in power in 2019.

 

 

 

 

 

Before I vote

I'm writing this from Ottawa, the seat of our fragile democracy.

We don’t talk politics a lot, but we did—albeit briefly—at supper last night. It’s discouraging. Our party leaders are rolling out the promises by the ream, again: more money for your children’s future, more affordable housing, more for healthcare, more, more, more. And in our heart of hearts, we know that if these promises are ever kept, it will be like parents buying their kids every neat thing their heart desires . . . on Visa or Mastercard! Because the overriding promise, of course, is that taxes will be reduced, not increased to pay for the pledged goodies.

How did we get here? In this rapidly changing age, how is it we still do our politics like cavemen? We all know that government is not like parents in one way, not charged with “social engineering” the population to fit some preconceived ideal. 

Our federal government’s central responsibility is to do the budget for providing those things we have in common: infrastructure, safety, energy, food security, healthcare, global involvement, etc. 

Good parents know how to say “no” when necessary. They recognize the difference between the fundamental and the frivolous. Good parents know the comparative value of things, have the knowledge and the fortitude to choose. They don’t buy their children’s affection with money they don’t have. Good parents are open and honest; they explain their choices.

Only good people become good parents; only good people make good politicians. That’s possibly why many of us have lost faith in the party system of democratic politics; the majority approached in a recent straw poll indicated that they vote for the party, not the person nominated by the party. There are practical considerations for doing so, of course, but the downside is that the group of 350 or so we end up choosing to set priorities for us and enact our national budget on our behalf might well contain far more incompetence than necessary. We ought to choose our representatives far more critically than we do, don’t you think?

Some would say—justifiably—that our flawed political system has still resulted in our living in the best country in the world. That’s a judgment easily made, of course, but the general consensus—I think—would be that we have found a workable balance between individual autonomy and the public good. 

But, saying we live in the best country in the world might be a fine sentiment for Mount Royal residents, while it would undoubtedly sound hollow in Attawapiskat or Vancouver’s Hastings Street. Were our federal politicians truly the carefully-considered choice of their constituents without the load of party baggage they carry, the attention to the potholes in our democracy might get their due attention.

I live in Carlton Trail-Eagle Creek constituency. My current MP is Kelly Block, former mayor of Waldheim and a Conservative Party of Canada candidate. The others are: NDP-Jasmine Calix; Liberal-Rebecca Malo; Green Party-Dean Gibson; People’s Party-Cody Payant and Glenn Wright is running as an Independent. 

How on earth are voters going to get a fair picture of the qualifications and personalities of this crew without effort? Rebecca Malo has a Facebook page as do Jasmine Calix and Cody Payant. Glenn Wright is mostly known to us as one who has previously run for the NDP and was hoping to secure the nomination this time around, but didn’t make it. He too can be found on Facebook.

I’ve already called this one: Kelly Block will get as many, or more, votes as the others combined, but who knows if that won’t miss out on a representative with super intelligence, experience and qualifications.

And then come the photos of Trudeau in blackface, Harper with paint and feathers and the primary-school playground fight is on. “He hit me first.” Sheesh. What do we do with that?

If you were hoping for guidance in choosing where to place your X, only one suggestion comes to mind from this quarter: know as much about the candidates as you can, discard those who are primarily reactionary and from among the rest, pick the most grounded, the most well-spoken, the best educated, the one who talks most about issues and least about the opposition. 

Because, in the end, no matter to which party you feel an affinity, which party you feel you owe loyalty, any party will do well if their elected members are genuine, are “good folk.”

I think. 

I could be wrong. But I've never done blackface, although my brother did once. 

It all depends on where you Sit

tradition

progress (photo: hydropackulicity.sarahjohns..)

You probably know how the adjectives “left/right” were first applied to the spectrum of political thought. No? You’ve heard but forgotten? OK, here’s a very brief account:

“The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, ‘We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.’” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics)

Sounds simple: rightests value stability and tradition; leftists are eager and open for the risks of change. Viewed from the left, the rightests are unthinking idiots; viewed from the right, leftists are agnostic morons.

               Through his first term in office and proceeding into the second, Barack Obama has become increasingly aware that the divide is not a thin line, but a treacherous chasm. Attempting to negotiate a bipartisan agreement on the shape of the stimulus package for the American economy in 2008-9, he was rebuffed by the Republicans and had to force the package through with a “hard vote” of the then-Democratic-ruled Congress.

               There were those in the French parliament who opposed the seating arrangement becoming permanent; they feared the development of a calcified party system. Their foresight, however, did not prevent what we see today: representatives in parliaments being shoehorned into positions that their constituents don’t necessarily support; the politics of zero-sum, win or lose debate that crucifies the very meaning of democracy: rule by the people.      

              The New Democrats and Liberals in our current parliament are seated to the left of the speaker in blocks, the ruling Conservatives to the right. Although some may detect a believer/agnostic distinction that still fits, it’s obvious that the king vs. revolution divide has evolved over time into something quite different in focus, if not in temperament. It appears in Canada today that the “right wing” is occupied by those who consider king/religion to be economic growth and the agnostic left to be looking for social and environmental “revolution.”

               Simplified, true, but there is still a substantial helping of insight in the observation that a portion of the population tends to favour traditional values and another portion has come to look to progress as the answer. The party system makes it very difficult for us to admit that traditional answers should rule in case one and liberal thinking should govern case two. 

              Once a liberal, always a liberal.

      Calcification.

               Makes me wonder what the outcome would be if each politician would select his/her seat in our parliament through a draw among all the seats in the house. Alas, I think the current arrangement may be necessary to prevent representatives from resorting to physical violence; in Canada today, the aisle between left and right is wide, with furniture blocking access of one to the other.

               An arrangement we wouldn’t tolerate in a Kindergarten classroom!

               One big change, though, since Baron de Gauville, is that “the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that [enjoy] free rein” are no longer confined to the left side of the house. 

                Is that progress--destined to become tradition?

Thank you Me Me, wherever you are

three-quarters empty

A commentary on Yahoo News by a person calling himself or herself “Me Me” was entitled, “Why the Conservative Base Will Always Vote Conservative.” It equates Conservatism with Authoritarianism and lists the following points (with references to Altemeyer; Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993: Robert Altemeyer is a retired professor of Psychology at the University of Manitoba and has written widely on Right-wing Authoritarianism. Haddock, Zanna & Esses references are to a 1993 paper on “Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals.)

Does any of this ring bells for you?

*Authoritarianism…happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal.” (Altemeyer, 2006, p. 2)

*An Authoritarian is “someone who, because of his personality, submits by leaps and bows to his authorities.” (p. 8)

*Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honoured, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians.” (p. 9)

*Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:

1. a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;

2. high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and

3. a high level of conventionalism (believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed ).


*High authoritarians are extremely self-righteous individuals who maintain a strong acceptance of traditional (i.e. Religious) values and norms, possess a general willingness to submit to legitimate authority, and display a general tendency to aggress against others (especially those who threaten their conventional values and norms). They see their own aggressive behaviour as righteous rather than hurtful. (Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993)

Authoritarians believe in traditional gender roles, racial prejudice, negative attitudes toward homosexuals, conservative (fundamental or orthodox) religious values, and are low on openness to experience. They are also extra-punitive toward law breakers. They assign longer jail times for any law breaker (no matter how small the crime), they think the crimes are more serious than most people do, and they find “common criminals” to be highly disgusting and repulsive – it makes them feel glad to be able to punish a perpetrator,

. . . But they go easy on authorities who commit crimes.


Thank you Me Me, whoever you are, for condensing some interesting research on the authoritarian mindset.

A modest political proposal

This historic landmark (the former German-English Academy, Rosthern Junior College) is now a venerable 100 years of age. It's currently the Mennonite Heritage Museum.

Sunday morning. Brown toast with apricot jam and a hot cup of Kick Ass coffee (that’s right, it’s a trade name; organic and fair trade and very good; ground and packaged in BC).

A few days ago, Dwain Lingenfelter, leader of the NDP opposition in the Saskatchewan legislature, called our honourable premier, Brad Wall, “the little thief from Swift Current.” It’s been all over the StarPhoenix since. Seems the people of Saskatchewan are clucking their tongues in unison and the clucking is deafening. How dare Lingenfelter accuse anyone of being from Swift Current!?!

I don’t have to tell you what infantile behaviour is generated by the question periods and debates in those bastions of democracy—our parliaments. (Parliament: Middle English from Old French: speaking.) The reason for it seems obvious to me; democratic structures—in particular the adversarial party systems—have remained stuck in the “Old English” period and as time eroded the stiff-upper-lip politeness in our cultures, the gloves came off and parliamentary debate degenerated into a spectator sport.

I regularly get appeals for donations from a political party. Their come-on is not “let’s work together to make Canada a better place by . . .,” rather, it’s, “it’s time and it’s important to throw the current party out of office.” Something is wrong here. We’re wasting everyone’s time, money and energies on childish competitions for power.

Here’s a modest proposal: political parties are abolished. Independent candidates are put forward in each riding by one hundred (give or take) voters and their election hinges on their perceived quality as legislators. Following the election, an orderly process occurs among the elected candidates to appoint a government, committees, ministries, and they’re off. Not having party antagonisms to feed the rancour of debate anymore, legislators would be confined to dealing with the merits of the issues and the proposals put forward by the government or their fellow legislators. The senate, of course, is abolished.

Elections occur every four years and each duly-nominated candidate is limited to a campaign budget of, say, $5.000. Numerous physical and virtual town hall meetings are the primary means for the public to “parliament” before deciding which candidate deserves their support. Granted, election night would be a big bore with no “team” to cheer for, or against, and getting people to vote might take some concerted public education.

Sounds a lot like municipal government, you say? Or like Nunavut governance? Bingo. That’s where we need to go.

I think I’m done with party politics. If no strong independent candidate is proposed in my riding in the future, I may hand in a ballot with “none of the above” scrawled across it.

And Mr. Lingenfelter, there is no good reason to use the word “thief” and the name “Swift Current” in the same sentence. You’re tempting your rivals in the Saskatchewan Party to find out where you and each of your colleagues are from, and then a whole new round of undeserved epithets will take up another week’s debate in the ledge.

Who needs it?

Obama and the Culture Wars

Insane Palette

The first chapter in Barack Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, is titled “Values.” In it, Obama convincingly draws the argument that Americans have come to accept by slow degrees a politic surrounding their differences as opposed to their common values. We’ve come to know this divide as the “culture wars,” although that name may be more misleading than enlightening.

Finding values on which North Americans agree is not difficult. Values surrounding individual freedom of speech, movement and religion and the democratic rights we enjoy are generally hold in common by the inductive and the deductive thinkers among us, by the conservatives, liberals and socialists as well as by the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists. It’s these (and others, of course) that unite us; it’s the hot-button issues like same-sex marriage, abortion laws, stem cell research that divide us so dramatically that it seems like we are a people “at war,” culturally.

And so politics takes on the qualities of a hockey game. It turns itself into a match in which one team on a hot-button issue is pitted against the other. Hockey itself is based on a disagreement between two teams on a trivial matter: the Rockets believe that the little rubber disk should go into the net at the north end of the rink, the Trojans maintain adamantly that it should go into the net at the south end. A competition in which the sides agree would be no fun at all. American politics has turned itself into a hockey game and although the very idea of a party system gives a nod to some division of values, our value differences used to be debated amicably on the sidelines whereas now, they have taken over the core of the game called democracy. So argues Obama.

There are those, of course, who will argue that some hot-button issues of the day are by no means trivial, and I agree. The way we treat embryos as we research the efficacy of stem cells in disease treatment could very well influence how we view the life of the unborn in the future. That’s not trivial. But surely the core value here surrounds the right-to-life principle—a commonly held value—and the way we use embryonic stem cells in research and finally in medical practice is beyond the capability of government, who can render it legal or illegal, but cannot determine in every individual case whether the goals of science and life-preserving medicine in that case are ethical and right.

Same-sex marriage definitely should not have become an election issue. The US constitution declares that every individual has the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There are two significant aspects to marriage in Christian circles: 1) the community blesses a union, usually of husband and wife, and 2) the state acknowledges that from that day forward, all legal matters pertaining to spousal relationships will apply to this couple (if the documentation is in place and the minister is licensed properly.) Whether or not the Fenderbender Holier-Than-Thou Christian Church members decide to marry gay couples or not is up to them; the attempt to impose a universal legal restriction on the pursuit of happiness of people with a minority sexual orientation is a case of unnecessarily feeding a culture war.

The wish to have government settle our culture wars in Canada is becoming irksome, even if we haven’t sunk to the level of the USA in that regard . . . yet. The Conservative Party is running attack ads on television as I write this, even though there’s no election campaign in progress. Basing their argument on opposition leader Michael Ignatieff's having lived and worked outside the country for many years, they are attempting to exploit a trivial issue to inflame the gullible against the Liberal Party. Meanwhile, our core values—including courtesy, decency and fairness—are being thrown to the dogs in favour of petty partisanship.

We shouldn’t put up with that.

Welcome to the next recession

Autumn that was

Who made this mess? (copyright reserved)


By George Epp

Are you puzzled by the current economic misery gripping people-with-money these days? Are you confused by the fact that—although the economic landscape in your neck of the woods appears much as it did yesterday—all the news on the international front is insisting that we’re in for difficult times?

In the most recent issue of The Christian Century (October 21, 2008) Economics teacher at Wheaton College, James Halteman, explains what has happened nationally in the US to cause this international economic influenza. In summary, US financial institutions have been selling bond issues backed by mortgages with sub-prime interest rates, which mortgage brokers have been peddling like magic hula hoops. Inevitably, buyers of homes with far-too-generous conditions have had to walk away from their purchases, flooding the market with unsaleable homes, driving down the values of real estate, subsequently driving down the value of the bond issues, decimating the cash flow through the various lending institutions, consequently making it nearly impossible for many developers, manufacturers and exporters/importers to do business. The resultant state of panic has decimated the value of stocks and bonds, and has resulted in widespread selling-out behaviour, the curtailing of consumer confidence and the long skid down the recession slope.

Halteman’s conclusion: “Regulation of the financial markets needs to be updated—something that has been hindered by an anti-regulatory political climate.” That may be the understatement of the week.

I was told yesterday about a well-to-do Christian who is in a blue funk these days because the economic collapse has cost him massively. One presumes that his investments have tanked and the loss is on paper and might be regained if he holds on for the long term. But I have to wonder: What is an active Christian doing in the stock market anyway? The poorly-regulated way in which those institutions function these days means that they are less about acquiring an interest in the economic engines of the country in order to further common goals, and more about getting rich through non-productive, speculative behaviour. Take derivatives, for instance, buying and selling of futures, etc. This behaviour wouldn’t be so reprehensible if it weren’t for the fact that it “bets” with the common currency that you and I depend on to feed our families and further worthwhile goals, like schools, hospitals, art galleries.

I read on my currency that it is the property of the people of Canada through the Bank of Canada. How is it that we allow the misuse of our common currency by shysters who demand the right to unregulated speculation with it?

It’s time for big changes. Halteman is right. Trouble is, we’ve just re-elected a government that is congenitally gun-shy when it comes to market regulation. Let’s see what this whole mess leads to; with any luck we’ll come out smarter on the other side.

Election blues and some autumn-garden wonders

Election BluesÓ

by George Epp

As a kid, I and a couple or three of my siblings walked to school in the spring and fall: half a mile east, one mile south. Some years, the telephone post at the junction where we turned south was plastered with election posters. Walter Tucker was the Liberal Candidate in our constituency, and I would probably have drawn a mustache on him if he hadn’t already had one.

At the time, the only credible rivals for government in Saskatchewan were the Canadian Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the Liberals. I clearly remember how most of our neighbours supported the Liberals, but that my father was a staunch follower of Tommy Douglas and his democratic socialism. That meant that perversions of the CCF name—as in “Crazy Cat Farmers” for instance—were taken as personal insults when hurled out as playground taunts.

Elections were serious business and volatile emotional experiences.

I think I still take elections too personally, probably in part as a result of those childhood experiences. The New Democrats have always been my team, like the Saskatchewan Roughriders or the Montreal Canadians; a Grey Cup or Stanley Cup loss for the home team still stings, although less with the passage of time.

Seeing Conservatives in office is like having a sharp stone in my shoe.

Mind you, it’s not just about loyalty to my father and his political allegiances. I’ve become convinced through my courses in university and my years of teaching in the humanities that the cooperative (socialist) model is superior to the competitive (capitalist) model as a way of doing government. The debate on this subject is certainly being reopened by the “Wall Street Crisis” going on in the US at the moment. Capitalism has made such a gigantic blunder that it can’t think of any other way to save itself except to appeal to taxpayers to rescue it. Had the US been governed after the Social Democratic model, government might long since have reined in the excesses of corporate greed and the country would have been spared the spectacle we’re currently watching.

The astounding thing is that many people still believe—apparently—that the “invisible hand” that guides the workings of an unfettered marketplace will also lead us all to the best possible world. Greed should never be allowed to drive the bus; to ride in it maybe, but under a watchful eye. It’s a government’s role to act as guardian of the public interest and to ensure that resources are distributed equitably enough to provide the basics of a reasonable life to everyone. For this, there must be controls on those who would make their living by speculating with and manipulating the economic system in order to become wealthy without actually providing any goods or services for the public.

I may vote strategically this election. My MP is a Conservative who believes that crime can be fought with harsher punishment and that day care centres cause women to go out to work when they should be raising their children. Whichever Candidate comes closest—in my opinion—to being able to deliver a challenge to this kind of thinking may well get my vote, although I may stand in the voting booth for a long time with pencil poised, struggling to look beyond old allegiances and at the big picture.

Kennedy on US political scene.

Robert F Kennedy said in a speech you can see on the truthout website: “80% of Republicans are uninformed Democrats.” He goes on to show how Republicans and Democrats showed no difference in their opinions when they were given accurate information on the question—for instance—of the morality of the war in Iraq. There’s a great deal more to his speech that will energize liberals (small l), something that’s badly needed in North America with two very important elections coming up.

It may not be appropriate to compare Canada’s Conservative Party to the Republican in the USA; it is nevertheless as important for us to be informed about the issues of corporate control of government and the consequences, and to ascertain which party is most likely to keep a check on government-by-lobby. “Where the government controls the corporate world, you have communism. Where the corporate world controls government, you have fascism.” Another quote from Kennedy’s speech. “Democracies have to walk the fine line between the two extremes.”

Kennedy also points out that the USA no longer has an investigative press, and so the population is getting very slanted news reports from Fox and it’s equivalents.

Check out Kennedy’s speech at http://www.truthout.org/.

Thank you to reader Gordon F. for alerting me to the website.

I urge you to click on the link and here Kennedy’s speech; he’s a fabulous orator.