"Argument" is the lifeblood
of democracy and science. However, the adjective "arguable" and the pleasing-to-the-ear
adverb "arguably" can poison both.
Each qualifier flashes green and
simultaneously flashes red: What I’m about to say may be plausible (or
implausible), reasoned (or arbitrary).
English-speaking politicians already
prone to indirection have taken up both with glee. They can utter crude,
paranoid, and wild ideas without sounding like populists or American
Republicans. In a speech, the words imply deliberation and perspective and can invite
you to put down your guard and go along.
For brevity, for truth — and
more productive argument — let’s cough every time an office-seeker or an incumbent
slides one in front of a seemingly bold declarative sentence.
We already have "Let’s be
clear" and "Frankly" in our BS detector kits — their aim is to skirt messy
facts and give pretested platitudes an air of audacity and spontaneity.
Even Canada’s Green Party leader
Elizabeth May can make mischief, showing us how the word "arguable" permits a
speaker to be utterly extravagant, reportable, and worthy of scholarly
attention at the same time. Here’s the way the McGillREPORTER publication headlined her lecture to an audience of truth-seekers
last week at that distinguished Montreal university:
“’It’s arguable that we now live in a dictatorship, punctuated by
manipulated elections,’ says Elizabeth May.”
If the weather hadn’t turned
bad again, I’d let it pass. Certainly, taking objection to portentous
utterances by Elizabeth May isn’t something even-tempered Canadians normally
risk. Nevertheless, May offers a timely reminder: Idealism and imprecision can
be dangerous helpmates.
In an interview after her
lecture, she doubled-down, enumerating the “symptoms” of our dictatorial
habitat: low voter turnout, a “less than vital” Fourth Estate, media
concentration, public apathy and cynicism, excessive power in the PMO, the
underutilization of Members of Parliament, and too much power in the hands of unelected
partisan officials.
Historically, constitutionally,
culturally, and terminologically, her characterization of our national
governance is farfetched and, more importantly, unreasonable — whether we like
or loathe Stephen Harper. Indeed, she’d have been more credible if she’d got
personal about the behavior of Stephen Harper, rather than deprecated our representative democracy.
May would like to convince
Canadians to support proportional representation; others favor preferential
ballots, formal recall procedures, or the status quo. I’d like an elected
Senate. All of us want to reform our political system. However, we’re not —
even in our dreams — freedom fighters opposing a “dictatorship.”
The worrisome bits about the
PMO and her complaints about journalism and young people are old hat and
circumstantial. They are the things recent losers say about recent winners, the
unpersuasive about the more persuasive.
Her modish concerns go back
to the '60s and '70s. (I used to ghost indignant speeches for
Progressive Conservative backbenchers about closure rules, charisma, shallow television
news, and Pierre Trudeau’s “airtight helm”.) Harper’s majority “dictatorship” of
2011 was elected by a higher turnout of voters than was Chretien’s third
majority “dictatorship” of 2000. And today’s charismatic politician is still
considerable distant from the reins of power.
Today’s “dictatorship” has as
many excellent reasons to worry about losing the next election as any other incumbent
in Canada’s past and in any democracy on the globe today that, conceivably,
meets May’s standards. Further, on a weekly basis, Harper’s PMO must be prepared to justify its actions and public standing to a majority of Members of Parliament, if not Elizabeth May, and it
must attempt to govern according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — to
the satisfaction of an independent Supreme Court.
Arguably a dictatorship?
Please.
No comments:
Post a Comment