My Political Philosophy

When I was teaching, I used to tell my students that one of the first things they should try to determine when evaluating a piece of non-fiction, whether a biography, autobiography, or essay, was the bias of the writer. Sometimes that bias can be inferred from the content of the piece, but other times it can be helpful to know something about the writer or the organization upon whose behalf he or she is writing.

For example, when reading an advocacy piece from the C.D. Howe Institute or The Fraser Institute, or an editorial from the National Post, it is fairly safe to conclude that the material reflects a very conservative, right-wing bias. Similarly, if reading something by Jim Stanford, an economist employed by the Canadian Auto Works, one Canada's preeminent unions, it is reasonable to infer a liberal, left-of-centre bias. Why are these distinctions important? They simply provide another tool with which we can evaluate material.

So to help anyone who may read this blog, I would like to articulate my own bias. As accurately as I can express it, I would have to say that in my political outlook is essentially middle of the road, or at the centre of the political spectrum, a position that at one time was very respectable, but now, unfortunately, owing to the polarization of politics that has accelerated under the Harper Conservative Government, has become the equivalent of being either 'wishy-washy' or leftist, perhaps too-polite terms if you read some of the labels that are regularly used on The globe and Mail website's Readers' Comments' section. I was initially going to say 'fair and balanced,' but unfortunately Fox News has given that phrase a very specific and odious connotation.

So what does being at the centre of the spectrum mean? For me, it means having a respect for each side's views, as long as neither is extreme. It means respecting the labour side of the equation, as well as the owners' side, i.e., the capitalist model. I draw the line, however, with unbalanced and extremist applications of either perspective. It is as anathema to me to say that all owners are simply fat capitalist exploiters of the workers as it is to tell me that the union model is dead, having outlived its usefulness. Both positions bespeak a kind of faith-based belief that permits no reasoned discourse in opposition to to their arguments/rants. In other words, I really don't have time for the kind of simplistic thinking that so often attaches to those platforms.

The question that has dogged me for so long, related to the above discussion, is: Why can there never seem to be moderation in contemporary politics and discourse? Why does one side so often seem to want to “win it all”? For example, if we study the history of the labour movement, the major impetus toward unionization was the frequently inhumane and dangerous conditions and hours of work under which people laboured. But why, other than thinking they could get away with it, did the owners seek to extract the maximum profit out of each employee at the expense of his health and life outside of work? Why could they not have been satisfied with reasonable profits from their investments? The obvious answer is that capitalism is all about the maximization of profit in order to promote even more entrepreneurship and investment; however, those making the decision to send five-year-olds into the coal mines were not principles, they were human beings. What is it then, that makes humans enslaved to a principle or belief, no matter the cost?

Or, on a related matter, why is reasoned discussion in our society so often trumped by cheap emotion, where demagoguery, if engineered sufficiently skillfully, can carry the day?

Are we really such flawed human beings?