Simone Weil on Political Parties

Andrew Nikiforuk writes in The Tyee about Simone Weil's conclusion that political parties are dedicated to “killing in all souls the sense of truth and justice.” This is not a call for the end of democracy, but a re-engagement in democratic expression and activity on behalf of the common people. It's not democracy's fault - it's politics.

Failed democracies are dangerous because of the implication that it's citizens have failed and need to be told what to do.

Nikiforuk writes that we are aware of broken promises no matter what party is in power. Hearing that Justin Trudeau won the election in 2015 with his promises of writing wrongs towards women, the indigenous people and making environmental concerns a priority - I was relieved because Trudeau's platform promise was based on compassion and social justice.

Then when Trump was "elected" I felt deflated. It was clear to me that the next few years would be built on hate, misogyny and scapegoating, and that any movement towards fairness and social health would be scrapped.

What hit home most was the thought our future would be governed by anger, spite and a lust for revenge. This is because I know there are many in Canada who long for the mythical sense of might makes right.

Suddenly our PM seemed to change direction. Buying an oil company to build pipelines for tankers on a fragile narrow coast with our pensions, screams of a totalitarian state's contempt for life.

In Europe, between the first and second world war, Weil "watched one party after another betray the best interests of working people, and saw "that political parties seem designed to destroy any vestige of democracy as well as any opportunity for free thought."

Might will do everything it can to convince the people they are powerless and worthless. We have come to an age where it is very difficult to believe otherwise.

I fear the long slow spiral down to the bottom will find new ways to return to barbaric rule. Public hangings, torture, hunger and fear will be on display. It will be painful and grievous. It will hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually. All while its leaders will preach of saving the most vulnerable, saving the economy, evening out the access to opportunity, and the long march toward progress.

In Orwell's "1984" there comes an end where the protagonist is praying to die, screaming for his life to end. The thinking sensitive being commits suicide allowing the hollow men to march on.

Voting for fascist parties is a kind of suicide. It's the temper exploding when the heart has been broken too many times.

I am thinking about how to create conversations on being human. Circles where artists, poets and musicians can gather with economists, engineers, and labourers to share their thoughts and the feelings they cannot share in public. Circles where those who did not have the opportunity to attend higher learning are heard and have the opportunity to hear others without feeling judged or put down.

Using terms like civic education or consciousness raising implies a need for "self improvement" - terms that are very threatening to those who have been rejected in so many ways, who can only feel powerful when they beat up someone who has less power than they.

Humanity with its many faults feels hope and despair, but politics is ruled by the notion of control, of rising above the fragile human ego. However a political party soon descends into strategies to win. Politicians focus on winning, and this requires a different game plan, losing sight of its original goal.

This is why we must pay attention and let them know what we think is best for our world. It's a matter of endless care and investment of energy.

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News

But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  

“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”

How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 

The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critical of this, but who needs a US soldier’s advice on a decision between Canada and Khadr. Why would we expect the widow of Sgt. Christopher Speer who was killed in that battle to agree either? 

The article claims 71% of respondents agreed the government had "done the wrong thing".  "Though Khadr has publicly renounced the radicalized worldview of his father, almost two-in-three Canadians (64%) don’t appear to believe him." says the ARI article. What information do they have to believe or disbelieve? What news sources do they get their information from? Who paid for the Angus Reid Poll? 

How would these respondents feel if their son or daughter was imprisoned and tortured at the age of 15? How would they feel if their government did nothing to help for ten years and left them there to be interrogated by a formidable power?

But here is the reason I suspect this CBC article was written. "This disapproval with the government's decision extended to Trudeau's own supporters: 61 per cent of Canadians who said they voted Liberal in 2015 felt that the wrong decision had been made. That increased to 64 per cent among NDP voters.”

This article is much more about a Conservative push to win public opinion with help from a single poll and media.   Andrew Sheer was quoted here almost as a wink that we can expect him to be the next prime minister.

The article claims the “poll suggests Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, in his fierce criticism of Trudeau's decision to settle with Khadr, is on the right side of public opinion.”

I don't believe a single poll represents public opinion in a deep and meaningful way. I believe we feel more comfortable when justice is done. We would probably be sickened to see or hear of the cruelty that happens in prisons and battlefields. We value kindness and helpful neighbours, but we haven't figured out how to create that politically and economically.