The Politics of Absolutism

Anyone who reads the News Response Forum is familiar with terms such as “lefty,” “neo-con,” “fascist” and “pinko,” usually describing posters who hold a contrary opinion to whomever is tossing these epithets into the discussion.

Less frequently seen – and most often directed at me – is “fence-sitter.” I find this incredibly funny, because it is intended to be an insult, of sorts.

The fact is, I wear it proudly as a badge of honour. It isn’t really that I am sitting on the fence, refusing to take sides; it’s more that I can often see both sides (and sometimes several points of view) of an issue.

What makes it funnier is that I often get labelled as both a “heartless righty” and a “bleeding-heart lefty” concerning my stand on a single issue, depending, again, on who is doing the labelling.

Unfortunately our society, in general, has evolved (or perhaps, devolved?) to a point where there is little or no middle ground on any issue.

I call it, “the politics of Absolutism.”

There is a very old saying: “If you’re not for us, you’re against us.”

That works really well if you’re about to take up arms against an invading army, or some other situation where there really is no middle ground. But in most cases, it is simply a false dilemma.

Historically, this saying has legs.

One of the earliest recorded instances was Jesus: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30).

Other notable historical figures, both distant and recent, have uttered a version of this phrase: Vladimir Lenin, George Orwell, Benito Mussolini, George W Bush.

It implies that there are only two choices: yes or no; for or against; black or white.

It suggests that there are no shades of gray, no continuum of opinion, no compromise possible.

The very sad part is that some people truly do believe this to be so.

If I say that I understand the need for a modest tax increase, I am bombarded with insults and invectives suggesting that I am prepared to see bottles stolen from the very hands of infants, and seniors thrown out onto the street or set adrift on ice floes.

Apparently there is never any need for a tax increase, because there are incredible amounts of savings to be gained by cutting politician’s salaries and benefits, along with those of civil servants and other public employees, as well as cancelling any expense not strictly related to providing for the immediate and desperate needs of the “average family.”

Or so I am told by those who object to even the slightest increase in taxes. whether federal, provincial, or municipal.

Likewise, if I claim to understand that there are those who are in genuine need of social assistance to help them through a particularly difficult situation, those who disagree paint me as some sort of tree-hugging, socialistic do-gooder with a sense of entitlement and no work ethic.

Must it really be one or the other? Is there never any middle ground?

What boggles the mind is that so many posters, indeed, so very many people in general, are disciples of radio and TV political gurus whose every utterances are more revered than the proclamations of Christ, Mohammed, and the Oracle at Delphi combined.

Political commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Mary Matalin, and many others certainly have their loyal – dare I say, “rabid” – followers. I’ve listened to a few of them, and have found myself agreeing with the occasional statements some have made.

But I find myself unable to really lay claim to any of them as some sort of a personal political Messiah.

For one thing, interesting though it may be, American politics is of scant relevance here in Canada.

Yes, the US is our largest trading partner, and the state of the American economy is a factor in our own economy, and that of many other countries around the world. That doesn’t change the fact that politics, and especially political discussion by these media types, has less effect on the actual economy than people would like to believe.

Politics is smoke and mirrors: it is the show put on for the benefit of the voting audience.

The real work gets done behind closed doors, with no photo ops or sound bites provided for public consumption.

Secondly, these political commentators have no real stake in the outcome.

I have no doubt that some, perhaps even all of them, truly believe in the position they espouse, and have the best interest of their country at heart.

That doesn’t change the fact that they are getting paid a tremendous, and in some cases obscene amount of money to make their views known; likewise the radio and TV networks that carry their shows make a great deal of money selling advertising to support these programs.

But my real objection isn’t to these highly-paid pundits, but to the positions of Absolutism which they adopt, and to which their followers cling.

And it doesn’t end there.

Even people who do not listen to these pundits have entrenched themselves into uncompromising, far end of the spectrum, take no prisoners positions.

Either you agree with them, or you don’t. Those who don’t agree belong (obviously) to the other camp.

There is no compromise.

There is no middle ground.

We see it with people still, more than two months after the federal election, calling for action to “stop Harper!”

Folks, the “action” was already taken: it’s called an election. The people have spoken. Harper won.

Never mind demonstrating the convoluted math that shows how many people voted against the Conservatives, or how the first-past-the-post system doesn’t allow each citizen’s voice to be heard, or how the voter turnout was abysmal so only a fraction of the eligible voters actually made a decision affecting everyone.

That’s how the system works, for better or for worse.

When your candidate wins, it’s a fine system; when your candidate loses, it’s a worse system than those used by some banana republics.

But it’s the only system we have, for now.

For anyone who believes in democracy, the majority rules. The votes were counted, and by the current established rules, a winner was declared.

We cannot spend every day between one election and the next plotting ways to topple the standing government and replace it with one of the other parties.

For that matter, this notion that the Conservatives are only slightly less right-leaning than Attila the Hun, or that the NDP are positioned just this side of Karl Marx in their ideology, or that the Liberals – who always claimed to be a “centrist party” – are just NDPers in better suits, has got to go.

Yes, each party has their position on a variety of issues.

Yes, in general terms, each can be described as right- or left-leaning.

But no party that wants to govern a country as diverse and expansive as Canada can afford to position itself at either end of the political spectrum.

For that matter, none of us can afford to adopt such a polarized view that we reject out of hand any proposal that is in less than total agreement with our own position.

Life is compromise. A little of this, and a bit of that. And one of those.

Remember, if you insist on things being “all or nothing,” you have to be prepared to accept “nothing.”


But… that’s just my opinion.