Crises of Democracy are not Unprecedented

American Fascism, Authoritarianism, Fascism, Liberalism, Populism, Tyranny and Fascism

 

People should not be surprised when there is a crisis in democracy. People should be surprised when there is none. As the American political philosopher Robert Kagan said:

 

“The American Revolution did not just produce a new system of government dedicated to the protection of the rights of all individuals against government and community, the first of its kind in history. It also produced a reaction against those very liberal principles by slaveholders and their white supporters, by religious movements, by those many Americans who have sought to preserve ancient, traditional hierarchies of peoples and beliefs against the leveling force of liberalism.”

 

Many Canadians and Americans want to deny that this is part of their history. They do so at the peril of democracy, which cannot survive without constant support. As Robert Kagan showed, this tension between liberalism and illiberalism has dominated America, and it has likewise dominated Canada, and looking away from that reality is dangerously foolish. Democratic crises are part of our lifeblood. They are in our DNA.

 

Kagan called the notion that all Americans share a commitment to the founding principles of the country “a pleasant myth, or perhaps a noble lie.”

 

As he could have said equally about Canadians, he pointed out that,

 

“We prefer to believe we all share the same fundamental goals and only disagree on the means of achieving them. But, in fact, large numbers of Americans have always rejected the founders’ claim that all men are created equal, with ‘unalienable’ rights to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they have persistently struggled against the imposition of those liberal values on their lives. Great numbers of Americans, from the time of the Revolution onward, have wished to see America in ethnoreligious terms, as fundamentally a white, Protestant nation whose character is an outgrowth of white, Christian, European civilization. Their goal has been to preserve a white, Christian supremacy, contrary to the founders’ vision, and they have tolerated founders’ liberalism and the workings of the democratic system, only when it has not undermined that cause. When it has, they have repeatedly rebelled against it.”

 

That is why he called his book Rebellion. The rebellion he described and saw repeatedly, was an illiberal rebellion. It was a rebellion repeated over and over again by men—usually men—who wanted to preserve their privileges over those perceived as being “beneath” them. They never believed in equality. They believed in hierarchies with themselves and their kin and their fellow travelers at the top, in natural positions of dominance and privilege. This rebellion has repeatedly expressed itself as backlash. Over and over again every liberal step forward was followed by backlash, even when there was no over reach in the first place. These backlashes were not always corrections. That was always just a myth of the favoured minorities. And these myths must always be guarded against for they can hide the truth. And the truth must always be faced, no matter how uncomfortable.

 

The truth is that a lot of Americans, and Canadians, like their hierarchies, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

Liberal Myths

Authoritarianism, Death of Democracy, Fascism, Liberalism, Populism, Tyranny and Fascism

 

 

There are some American and Canadian political leaders who fail to understand that illiberalism is part of the American and Canadian traditions every bit as much the liberal tradition. We are not all sweetness and light to use the illuminating terms of Matthew Arnold.  If we don’t recognize this fact we will cease to be on the lookout for slippage into the darker sides of our nature.

 

That great American political thinker Robert Kagan got it right. We are both liberal and illiberal. He made the case clearly in his wonderful book, Rebellion: Donald Trump and the Anti-liberal Tradition in America. In fact, he opened that book with a quote from Patrick Henry who understand this fact back in June of 1778 when Virginia had its Convention ratifying the magnificent new American Constitution. That Constitution was magnificent, and Americans were right to be proud of it, but too many of them  have forgotten it was not perfect nor are they.  Canadians, also proud of their much later Constitution and Charter are subject to the same hubris and must always guard against it.  This is what Patrick Henry so wisely said: “Virtue will slumber. The wicked will be continually watching. Consequently you will be undone.” If we want to preserve the liberal institutions that protect our liberty we must be constantly on guard. Even if we constitutions. People can get around them if we let them.

 

Robert Kagan understood that “The institutions America’s founders created to safeguard liberal democratic government cannot survive when half the country does not believe in the core principles that undergird the American system of government.” And we know what happened in the presidential election of 2024.  More than half the Americans who voted, marked their ballots for a man, Donald Trump, who had clear autocratic tendencies, because they thought that was what America needed to avoid oppression by the liberals, and rejoiced at his efforts to curtail the liberal movement. In effect, they made clear at that time that they did not want the liberal democracy that was born out of the Revolution to continue. They voted no to liberal democracy and those Americans are every bit as real Americans as those who support liberal democracy. All who cherish liberal democracy, like me, whether Canadian or American, must realize that many of our fellow countryman do not share that love.

 

In fact, when you look at obviously undemocratic measures such as gerrymandering, where people decide it is acceptable for the political leaders to choose their electors rather than have the people choose their leaders, it also obvious that many Americans don’t really love democracy at all. That includes people who support both Republicans and liberals for both parties do it all the time.

 

Illiberalism is real and it is dangerous. If we don’t understand that, we don’t understand much. Before that 2024 presidential election Kagan said this: If he [Trump] wins, they will support whatever he does, including violating the Constitution to go after his enemies and political opponents, which he has promised to do.” And of course, he was right. That is exactly what Trump did after that election. And many Americans loved it. And still do.

 

Kagan predicted that democracy would fracture as a result. It did. It did not collapse, but it surely weakened, and as Kagan ominously added, “perhaps irrecoverably.” Joe Biden was seriously wrong when he said, “this is not who we are.” That is exactly who we are. And I refer to both Americans and Canadians when I say that.

 

We must always remember that the rule of autocracies is common. In fact, they are much more common than democracies. We must never assume democracy will prevail. Usually, it does not. If we love democracy, we always have to treasure it and protect it from harm. Or we will lose it.

 

The Spy

Movies

 

 

 

The Spy is a powerful , exciting, and thought-provoking Netflix limited series in which Sacha Baron Cohen appears in a serious role rather than his more common comic roles.  He plays the male lead in the series which purports to tell the true and tragic story of Eli Cohen, an astounding Israeli Mossad agent  under  deep cover in Syria in the 1960s. For example, it shows Osama bin Laden as a young boy helping his father.

 

Hadar Ratzon Rotem plays his intense wife, Nadia, and Noah Emmerich  his morally conflicted handler Dan Peleg.

 

This film asks some interesting and important questions about how far can a state go in asking one of its citizens to go, in making sacrifices for his or her country? How big must an ask be, before it is too big? Are there limits on what a country can ask, if the work of that individual is astonishing valuable to the country?

 

As well there is a corollary question, when is an individual wrong in sacrificing himself and his family for the benefit of their country? When is it legitimate for the citizen and family to say the limit of sacrifice has been reached. When must the country say, this is the limit and refrain from using him or her anymore because anything beyond this is intolerable?

 

Or are there no such limits? What can possibly be right and just?

 

Finally, what would it mean if there were no limits?

 

These are interesting and important questions handled with maturity rather than juvenile bravado unlike so many other films. Especially spy films and other thrillers. I think that is enough to make it worth your while to watch. Let me know if you disagree.

 

 

Always More Room for Hate

Extremism, Hate, Polarization

 

According to CBC News a group of white nationalists showed up to intimidate and frighten people on a first Nation territory in BC. They were dressed ominously in black pants, black long-sleeved sweaters, black hats and white pull up masks in a straight regimental style row. Strict ideological conformity was enforced. It also seemed cowardly. Why did they need masks?  The police said they were there “to intimidate, provoke fear, and sow division.” Apparently, they were members of the Second Sons Group as they moved through Kamloops and nearby by Tkʼemlúps te Secwépem Reserve.

 

They carried a banner which asked, “GOT BONES?” That was probably a disparaging reference to what happened at the nearby Residential Schools. The Canadian Anti-hate movement says White Nationalism is more present in Canada than it has ever been. In other words, hate is growing in Canada. It also says Second Sons is a part of that. They have shown up in many Canadian communities recently. Perhaps Steinbach is next. They advocate white men training to be able to protect the White Nationalist movement. They consider themselves white patriots who “remember when Quebec was white.”

 

It does seem to me that there is always more room for hate in Canada.  Where is all that hate coming from?

 

That’s what I have been trying to figure out, without much success.

Guns, Violence, and Crazy Laws

guns

 

The world of guns and laws in America is out of whack. Malcolm Blackwell has written an interesting book on the subject called The American Way of Killing: The Invention of an Epidemic. I saw him interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN. Gladwell says both sides in the dispute are being dishonest.

 

This is what he said in his book:

 

“When either side pretends that something is consequential when is not. When either side avoids the right conclusion because it is difficult, or when either side blinds itself to the truth through laziness or indifference the American conversation about guns is rife with these kinds of dishonesties.”

 

In other words, he said both sides of the gun debate traffic in dishonesties.  This goes down to a fundamental problem. We can never solve any social problems unless we are prepared to be honest with others and ourselves.

 

For example, he asked the question ‘is America over policed?’ What do you think. I thought the answer was yes. According to Gladwell, I am wrong about that. He says most Americans believe, like I did, that they are over policed. But, he says the facts belie this myth. He says, “the opposite is true. Los Angles and Berlin are the same size. LA has 8,500 police officers, Berlin has 18,000.”  That is more than double. As Gladwell said, “when you are over manned you have to project force in a way that you have to be aggressive.”

 

Gladwell thinks this contributes to violence in America.  American police get more violent because, he says, they are out manned. He says this is typical. European cities typically have twice the police per capita as American cities.  This shocked me. Learn something every day. As a result, American police are more violent than their European counterparts. America has a violence problem is what Gladwell concludes. This I knew.

 

Gladwell concluded that America is under policed.  But it is also overly violent.  That is not really a good combination. That is a recipe for trouble.

 

Highest 2 Lowest

Hate

 

 

+

 

This is a film that explores the limits of honour, respect, community, and empathy.  It is a challenging film. What would I do in the same circumstances as the protagonist David King?

 

David King’s son says this about his father, a musical genius in apparent control of a music business empire: “My father was with the man with the best ears in the business but the coldest heart.” What a challenge if your son says that about you while you face financial ruin for yourself and your entire family.

 

King asks James Brown, Stevie wonder and Aretha Franklin what they would do.

Would you spend all that you have to save your employee’s son?  Would you spend it all? Or none? What would I do? This film asks some tough questions. No doubt.

But there is also some strange moral calculus here. What would you spend if your son asked you spend it all—all you have—to save a friend, and his reputation?  What would you spend if you knew the “wrong” answer would mean that you would lose your son? What if the payment might protect your reputation too? What would all that be worth?

Yes this film asks some very hard questions. That’s what I liked about it.

 

 Ecosystems of Hate

Extremism, Hate, Polarization

 

It is a sad fact that hate has been sharply on the rise in Canada. We are becoming more like the United States in other words. Canada is an ecosystem of hate.  And the Canadian military plays a big role in it. As if that was not bad enough it followed closely on the heels of another hate filled incident near the Sons of Jacob Synagogue in Belleville, Ontario which police have indicated was a deliberate hate-motivated attack against the Jewish community there. Both the Islam communities in Canada and Jewish communities have been deliberately and viciously attacked Canadian that can surely be called domestic terrorists in both cases.

 

I also heard recently, that Utah Valley University was severely criticized for not doing a more thorough security assessment before Charlie Kirk was invited to speak outdoors there.  That is what is has come down to. We always think about security.  It is never true anymore to say that murder is unlikely. It is likely everywhere.

 

What is happening in Canada and the United State? Where is all this hate coming from? Canadians tend to think we are so much better than the Americans in this disregard because they live in such a violent gun-filled society. It seems we don’t have much reason to feel superior as we once thought. We also have a society being swamped by hate.

 

Death threats are now so common in Canada and the United States that it almost seems that if you, like me, have not received death threats, you are, like me, a nobody.

 

Where can you go and not find hate?  Nowhere.

 

Reducing Life

Beauty, Extremism, Polarization, Truth and Beauty, Truth Seeking

 

The Irish poet and former Catholic priest, John O’Donohue said, “I always think that contradiction is what makes a person interesting.” This was a bit like Nietzsche, another brilliant philosopher, who said that if you want to make a person interested in you at a party, you should blush or get embarrassed. Now that is interesting. Perfection is dull. As a person who has always been quick to get red, much to my dismay, I can appreciate the wisdom of these words, though in my case it is likely just wishful thinking. Perhaps it was the same with Nietzsche, but I really doubt that.

 

O’Donohue also said, “In the world of the soul, contradiction is the presence which makes the complexity of the person visible in some way.”

 

O’Donohue says “one of the problems with our western thought patterns and models is that we have been very unfair to contradiction. We constantly want to reduce the complexity of contradiction to one of its sides or dimensions.” This is what polarization is all about in modern society.  Polarization banishes complexity.

 

This is where O’Donohue drags us back to the problems of polarization, without mentioning that nasty word. He says complexity is a good. A fundamental good. Concentrating on only one side, like left or right, good or bad, life or death, is to suck the blood out of life. I have always thought it sucked the blood out of truth, but now I must consider does it also do that to life?

 

O’Donoghue pointed this out, “In a certain sense what western thought has dreamed of, and its rationalism has tried to create, is a kind of one-dimensional kind of painting.” That of course is a pretty thin life, or art. Picasso was the first person to really drive this idea home. It was the basis of his Cubism. He wanted life as a cube not a square.   He actively sought the complex and was repelled by the simple. That of course is a difficult thing to achieve on a canvas with paint, but he manfully worked at it.

 

O’Donohue went on:

 

“If we agree that in our personalities and in our presence, the shoreline of a great immensity, we are just the stencil line, the external visage of an incredible eternal interiority, then naturally there will be many dimensions of us coming awake at the same time. And if we decide that contradiction is undesirable and has to be either hammered out or rooted out or flattened then we will do immense damage to the mystery of our own inner landscape.”

 

I know this is a bit hard to grasp, but I think the effort it worth it.

Aristotle was not the only Greek philosopher who considered the idea of contradiction. Parmenides also has things to say about contradiction. He said that “something cannot be and not be.”  No doubt this comes from Aristotle too. In saying this he had an inner kind of criterion of truth, according to O’Donoghue. Something that has inner contradictions then cannot actually be. This of course is what Aristotle said. He said A is A and not A is not A. sounds simple. But is it?  Ayn Rand the American author and ultra-right-wing provocateur, long before the time of the neo-liberals made this the theoretical basis of her philosophy. But she like things to be simple. A is A.

 

In the world of A is A, complexity is banished. And with it goes a lot of truth. And beauty too.