2 Reasons Why It's not Worth Getting Too Worked Up Over Politics:

I haven't blogged in a while, but I just wanted to poke my head out of my hole in the ground and give a brief editorial. Before I begin, I recognize the grave importance of elections and in choosing a government. It is the duty of every citizen to make a responsible choice to the best of their rational ability. That's why I do follow politics quite closely. However, I just wish to address the negative passions that seem to fly at this time -- heated exchanges, emotional arguments and, in less developed democracies, outright violence. I can't help but feel that all this negative energy is wasted on a fruitless cause, and can better be put elsewhere.



1) Politics is a Means to an End, not an End in Itself.

The reason we refer to those in public office as civil SERVANTS is because such people serve the public good. A lot has been said about political apathy. Yet it's not political apathy to say that your day-to-day concerns about your family and friends take precedence over the political situation. It's not political apathy to say that you're more interested in religion or literature than politics. Imagine how busy our lives would be if each of us had to worry about creating a national tax plan, healthcare reform and balancing the budget. While some people are turned on by that sort of thing (ewww), not all of us are. If politics is your passion then be a politician and serve the public! Although I'm thankful that such people exist, in the end, good government is supposed to relieve us of these lowly, superficial concerns so that we can pursue loftier goals -- whether they be in the form of religion, art, literature, music or yahoo fantasy sports.

It IS political apathy to NOT vote, to totally ignore national issues and to say they don't matter. But let's keep things in perspective -- there's a lot more to life than politics. In fact, the cynical but not too far-fetched argument can be made that the ideal government breeds a certain degree of apathy. It means that things on the national stage are going so smoothly that people start to lose interest and pay more attention to their own lives. We see this in periods of great stability and prosperity such as the pre-cold war Eisenhower 50's, or the Chretien era in the 90's. Only in periods of turmoil and unrest do the charismatic leaders such as JFK, Reagan or Trudeau emerge. While political apathy is not defensible, can anyone say society is worse off if voters are less passionate but they become better husbands, fathers, teachers, doctors and lawyers? In my opinion, these duties should be one's first priority.

2) I have faith in my fellow Canadians

This point is meant to stress the following:

You are responsible for one vote -- your's

I can't seem to stress this point enough, because it is so often is lost in all the heated political rhetoric that flies around today. While I may feel a certain way about the future of my country and am entitled to those views -- Who am I to speak for the views of others? Who am I to say that my ideal Canada is really THE ideal Canada?

To truly believe in democracy, one has to accept the viewpoints of others as the product of fellow rational beings. While my views may make perfect sense to myself, I have to accept the views of other Canadians -- whether they are from a Quebec separatist, an Alberta oilman, a Toronto homosexual, or a small-town Christian conservative. Whether we think the same or differently, their votes and their opinions have as much merit as my own. If a government gets elected that I don't agree with, I have to accept the outcome as one chosen by my fellow citizens -- competent and rational people with reasons for acting as they do.

In a world of division what we need to work towards is unity. This does not mean attacking conservative views if we are liberal-minded, or attacking today's liberalism if we hold to conservative views. That's why I have little respect for filmmakers such as Michael Moore because intellectually, he is no better than his most strident Conservative counterpart. While I have generally liberal views, I see no value in making the liberal argument in the form of disparaging ad-hominem (against the man) attacks that merely alienate the other side. It does the world no good to paint right-wing American neoconservatives as a bunch of crazy, irrational lunatics running around with guns. Rather than reaching out to the other side, accepting their existence as fellow, rational creatures and making an attempt at consensus and reconciliation, such diatribes merely strengthen the divisions in our world and serve to further alienate the opponent. This is the last thing we need in the world today. We need to listen to each other, not scream at the top of our lungs.

It is for this reason that I am sometimes hesitant to give my opinion on certain matters. It is a belief that I trace back to the Taoist belief of wu-wei or non-action -- probably the first thing one learns in a Chinese philosophy class. True wisdom in the form of the Tao is found by separating oneself from one's wants, desires and opinions; it is found by taking the divisive elements that seem to exist in the world -- the Yin with the Yang, and unifying them in one seemless whole.

I'm proud of a Canada that's yielded both the Martin's and the Harpers, the neoconservatives and the separatists. I may not agree with all they have to say, but I recognize that their story has the right to be told and that their interests have a right to be defended. My Canada includes all these elements, but we'll never get anywhere if we don't start listening to each other and working together.