Although I read and write a fair amount, I clearly am not an expert in the affairs of the world. I can merely observe, report and comment on the things that interest, hearten or outrage me. An armchair (or is it keyboard?) pundit am I.
Nonetheless, there are certain realities that seem to me irrefutable, global heating being the most pressing, in my view. And that's why I find Pierre Poilievre's political pontifications about making Canada the freest nation on earth both absurd and disturbing.
At the heart of Poilievre's corrupted vision is that personal freedom (the truck convoy being an egregious example) trumps all else, that the mythical and ogre-like 'gatekeepers' are the only impediments to becoming truly actualized individuals.
Therein lies the sweet lie.
Anyone who believes such an idealized state is possible is clearly deluded; anyone who advocates for it is being disingenuous, manipulative and mendacious.
The reason is fairly straightforward and, I think, obvious. Freedom without responsibility is a recipe for chaos, made worse by the fact that if we to have any chance (admittedly slim) of avoiding the worst effects of climate change, co-operation, not the rhetoric of absolute freedom, will carry the day.
Co-operation, the working with others toward common goals, is of course the complete opposite of the reckless rhetoric espoused by Mr. Poilievre, and clearly anathema to his political posturing. His divide-and-conquer strategy is a clear abdication of political leadership, one doubtlessly appealing to those given more to reaction than reflection.
Pierre reminds me of a student I taught many years ago named Jason. A most disruptive and mean-spirited lad, he was a definite taint on the atmosphere of the Grade 10 general level class I was teaching. It was the same year that asbestos was discovered in the west wing of the school where I taught, a discovery that required moving all staff and students to classrooms in the east wing. Imagine my surprise while watching the evening news to see Jason, who professed concern for his fellow students, leading a march on school grounds protesting the 'unsafe conditions' under which they were being instructed. Jason, a most indifferent student, to put it politely, felt that the conditions and asbestos threat were not conducive to learning, and something had to be done about it.
In many ways, Pierre reminds me of Jason. He exploits discontent for his own aggrandizement, the angry and disenchanted amongst us mere props to facilitate his political goals. Sincerity and genuine concern for the country are absent.
Will Poilievre succeed? I guess it depends upon how you define success. He will undoubtedly succeed in nurturing and expanding his constituency of the aggrieved, guaranteeing victory in his leadership quest. I very much doubt he will become Canada's next prime minister.
Of course, that will ultimately be determined by those who rouse themselves to vote in the next election, won't it?
UPDATE: Moudakis's latest is just too rich and spot-on not to add to this post:
