A few weeks back, Andrew Coyne wrote an excruciatingly epideictic column for The National Post on the virtues of free trade in general, stressing in the process how virtuous CETA (the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) is likely to be for Canada. It was such an egregiously neoliberal column just hanging out there in public discourse on the threshold of the CETA negotiations moving towards their end that I suggested to a well-placed progressive activist whose file was in fact free trade and the CETA agreement that he - because he has some stature and authority to speak on the issue - respond publicly in some fashion to the column. My take was not that the column would actually carry any weight in and of itself but that such a paean to neoliberalism at this particular moment was a useful opportunity to score some points on the problems with CETA with an audience that might not have even heard the term before. Alas, his answer was, to my surprise, a - albeit mild - trash-talking dismissal of both the column and the National Post as in effect not worthy of his attention, claiming “no one” reads such a right-wing publication and that few would pay attention to Coyne's remarks - a position, I might add, supported by some other progressives on Twitter.
So what’s wrong with this picture? Well, for one thing it’s a symptom of a larger attitudinal drift that might be undermining the possibility of effecting real transformative system change - presumably the goal of all progressives everywhere. Why not engage with those who do not share your perspective on their ground where you might actually have a shot at changing a few minds, be they influential or not? Why simply dismiss them as unworthy of your attention because they don’t share your values? Your goal, if you really want change, is to shift their values, not wallow comfortably in yours. What’s the point of spinning well-known progressive talking points in a vacuum to other progressives - the overwhelming tendency of progressives on Twitterverse, in the blogsphere, and in meetings of progressive organizations across the land? There’s no earth moving in such a progressive bubble. Take a shot at the Other.
We need the presence of progressive voices in mainstream media, then, whenever and in whatever ways possible. Since we have so few of those voices at the moment, that means developing strategies for finding ways to scale those walls instead of cynically standing outside muttering it’s hopeless over and over again, allowing ourselves to feel powerless and thus to be victims of neoliberalism’s moral Darwinism that, as Pierre Bourdieu has always reminded us, wishes to inculcate cynicism as the norm of all behaviour and action. "They've won. What's the point? They'll never listen. Why bother? Why waste my time?"
We also need to find ways to begin developing some serious sophisticated alternative media outlets both to complement and to reinforce any gains that may be made in mainstream media - something way beyond Rabble, Ipolitics, or Huffington Post, something beyond feedback yapping on the main media's websites. (Democracy Now, The Real News Network, RT, and Alternet come to mind immediately as potential models.) For in the Canada of 2012 it is only in the realm of public discourse that change can actually happen, not in party politics and their policies and not in Parliament - at least not yet. Developing strategies that might gain a bit of power in the realm of public discourse, in other words, is important because it isn’t just or even politicians whose minds need to be changed - that may never happen under the Harper Regime - but those of our fellow citizens. This is the place to grow a counter-power.
A corollary to understanding the need to pentrate the mainstream arena of public discourse is recognizing that the conventional rhetoric of protest and demonstration in 2012 has its limits. There are times when it's required, yes, and times when it's very effective - bringing many different progressives groups together for a greater show of strength in numbers, for example - but there are also times when it simply doesn't work. Progressives nevertheless go ahead and do it anyway because, well, we've always done it. "Get the placards out of the closet, Fibber, we've got another rally to go to." What's the goal of such demonstrations? Awarness? A particular message? If so, what do you hope to accomplish through this particular method of generating awareness? Does the sheer existence of, say, a large crowd in and of itself really convey a meaningful message when it's a strategy that's been used so often? The method matters every bit as much and maybe more so than the message. Not to sound too McLuhanesque, maybe it is the method that is the message. Some rethinking about demonstrations and their purpose would seem in order. Otherwise, “it’s just another one of those demonstration thingies, Molly, nothing new. Go back to sleep.”
Showing posts with label Big Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Media. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Beginning of Something: First we had the little page that would. Now we have the journalist who could
Last time I checked Kai's Nagata's blog, Why I Quit My Job, there were well over 100,000 views and 1000 responses to his coming out essay. Most of these were supportive, arguing in effect that Kai is an inspiration offering those of us living outside the walls of Harperland considerable hope for change. But there were detractors on this blog and elsewhere, most of whom, as always in the blogsphere, said silly things, trying hard to be witty of course, and several who, quite frankly, just didn't know what they were talking about - another common characteristic of the blogsphere.
These terms came up frequently in the detractors' discourse: "fiscally prudent," "efficiencies," "fiscally conservative," this last concept used accurately by Kai himself in conjunction with the concept of taxing capacity. As always, in Harperite language - the language of Harperland - these terms are euphemisms for 1) the cutting of jobs and/or further exploitation of employees with fewer if any benefits and less wages in the corporate sector in the interests of profits and 2) budget cuts to our federal insititutions and government departments - which, more often than not, also involves job cuts.
The detractors also use the terms "leftist" and"rightist," but I'm pretty sure they've never read either Hegel or Marx, though I might be willing to get up from my chair on this last point if evidence were to be discovered otherwise. These terms are seldom used with precision or historical context in a Canadian context, for they appear to be in the beholder's eye in politicians, most political commentary by journalists, many of whom should know better, and amateur political pundits who frequent the byways and dark alleys of blogland and the twitterverse. Can we, for example, really call the NDP a leftist party when they have embraced capitalist ways with such fervour in order to maintain whatever power they might have? Of course not, but many continue to do so. Supporting the odd social policy here and there does not constitute the definition of a leftist party.
It seems to me Kai's point about government spending is quite simple: if, as a government, you have accumulated a considerable amount of money that you've received by taxing your citizens, you then have a moral responsibility to use that money wisely in the interest of all Canadians, who gave you, let's not forget, the money in the first place - either through established institutions respected by Canadians in general or social or economic initiated projects that Canadians can embrace with a consensus - not just the ones you like.
This is one of the fundamental problems so many Canadians see as a issue with the Harperites. They take money away from projects they don't like and only spend money on projects they like - Kai cites airplanes and jails - not on projects, except incidentally, that might benefit all Canadians. It takes a fair bit of absurd logical twisting to argue that we need more jails and tougher sentencing given the statistics on crime and soon to be obsolete planes (unless we're planning a few more wars that I haven't heard about), but we do know why the argument is made. It serves the Harperites' base. In fact, we've known for quite some time - since the pattern is so obvious - all policy decisions made by the Harper regime are grounded in politics first and only, on occasion - perhaps by happenstance - for Canadians in general. We seldom if at all see goodwill towards all Canadians from the Harperites. When they speak of "what Canadians asked us to do," for example, that's Harperite speak for "what our base asked us to do." This is not an insignificant distinction - one that has alienated the majority of Canadians who actually care about the direction in which their country now seems to be heading under such an authoritarian regime.
Kai is not remotely alone in his perspective on this issue or on the soul-sucking power and profit motives driving Big Media news organization (I can think of only two journalists in Canada who speak truth to power, though several come to mind who think they do so because they've been critical here and there of the Harperites) and the ineffectual actions of political parties, who by nature consistently seek self-preservation as an entity first and abuse their grass roots membership all too often.
What Kai says in this essay merely expresses - but with eloquent detail, meaningful passion, and sophisticated rhetoric - what countless Canadians have been thinking all along. This is why Kai joins the little page in the slow but eventual march towards the walls of Harperland.
First we'll take Manhattan.
These terms came up frequently in the detractors' discourse: "fiscally prudent," "efficiencies," "fiscally conservative," this last concept used accurately by Kai himself in conjunction with the concept of taxing capacity. As always, in Harperite language - the language of Harperland - these terms are euphemisms for 1) the cutting of jobs and/or further exploitation of employees with fewer if any benefits and less wages in the corporate sector in the interests of profits and 2) budget cuts to our federal insititutions and government departments - which, more often than not, also involves job cuts.
The detractors also use the terms "leftist" and"rightist," but I'm pretty sure they've never read either Hegel or Marx, though I might be willing to get up from my chair on this last point if evidence were to be discovered otherwise. These terms are seldom used with precision or historical context in a Canadian context, for they appear to be in the beholder's eye in politicians, most political commentary by journalists, many of whom should know better, and amateur political pundits who frequent the byways and dark alleys of blogland and the twitterverse. Can we, for example, really call the NDP a leftist party when they have embraced capitalist ways with such fervour in order to maintain whatever power they might have? Of course not, but many continue to do so. Supporting the odd social policy here and there does not constitute the definition of a leftist party.
It seems to me Kai's point about government spending is quite simple: if, as a government, you have accumulated a considerable amount of money that you've received by taxing your citizens, you then have a moral responsibility to use that money wisely in the interest of all Canadians, who gave you, let's not forget, the money in the first place - either through established institutions respected by Canadians in general or social or economic initiated projects that Canadians can embrace with a consensus - not just the ones you like.
This is one of the fundamental problems so many Canadians see as a issue with the Harperites. They take money away from projects they don't like and only spend money on projects they like - Kai cites airplanes and jails - not on projects, except incidentally, that might benefit all Canadians. It takes a fair bit of absurd logical twisting to argue that we need more jails and tougher sentencing given the statistics on crime and soon to be obsolete planes (unless we're planning a few more wars that I haven't heard about), but we do know why the argument is made. It serves the Harperites' base. In fact, we've known for quite some time - since the pattern is so obvious - all policy decisions made by the Harper regime are grounded in politics first and only, on occasion - perhaps by happenstance - for Canadians in general. We seldom if at all see goodwill towards all Canadians from the Harperites. When they speak of "what Canadians asked us to do," for example, that's Harperite speak for "what our base asked us to do." This is not an insignificant distinction - one that has alienated the majority of Canadians who actually care about the direction in which their country now seems to be heading under such an authoritarian regime.
Kai is not remotely alone in his perspective on this issue or on the soul-sucking power and profit motives driving Big Media news organization (I can think of only two journalists in Canada who speak truth to power, though several come to mind who think they do so because they've been critical here and there of the Harperites) and the ineffectual actions of political parties, who by nature consistently seek self-preservation as an entity first and abuse their grass roots membership all too often.
What Kai says in this essay merely expresses - but with eloquent detail, meaningful passion, and sophisticated rhetoric - what countless Canadians have been thinking all along. This is why Kai joins the little page in the slow but eventual march towards the walls of Harperland.
First we'll take Manhattan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)