It has been a while since my last post and for that I apologize. I have become one of those infrequent posters that irritate me. That being said, I have not felt the pressing need to comment on anything in particular, so consider the previous dry spell a well-deserved brake for my readers.
Today's topic was triggered by a Facebook post that I saw yesterday. The actual link leads to a post from a CBC advocacy group who is critical of Stephen Harper's policies as they relate to the public broadcaster. I believe their point seems to be reasonable and well thought-out. My issue is they presumably thought that the topic did not have enough of a wow-factor and therefore promoted it using the headline, "CBC Sold to a U.S. Wrestling promoter!"
Now, having a family member in journalism, I am well aware that writers frequently have no input in the headlines on top of their stories, but I don't think that detracts from the overall issue: demonizing political opponents through fictional accusations cheapens debate and detracts from actual policy-based arguments, ultimately ending in a he-said-she-said conversation that only further entrenches people in their own beliefs.
I have personally noticed this in particular against the Conservative government (Stephen Harper wants to privatize EVERYTHING...and probably eats babies) no doubt in part because they are the incumbents and due to my own political biases. I am sure this occurs on all parts of the political spectrum. Rick Mercer had a wonderful bit of satire back in 2006 regarding the ridiculousness of some of the liberal attack ads of the time (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168834 click the listen link at top of the page, the mock ad is in the first minute, "Stephen Harper has a dragon...").
The particular problem with this tactic on either side of the political spectrum is that it means that the actual issues get lost in the fray. For instance, the current conservative crime bill has been widely critiqued by a number of sources and appears to be regressive, ineffective and cruel. However many of the sources that are critiquing it now have consistently criticized every Conservative initiative and therefore are suffering the same fate as the boy who cried wolf: people have tuned them out.
People are often passionate about politics and rightly so: I would rather people cared enough to engage in the democratic process than stood by in idle apathy. However, this intense passion often leads to personalizing political fights and the need to deify one's own party leader while demonizing the opposing side. We have seen evidence of the approach of this tactic in the American Presidential nomination process: those candidates who do not tow the party line in rampant partisanship are ostracised by their parties, leaving the fight between the most polarized of opponents and leaving independents with no centrist choice.
While I have no expectation of any of this changing overnight, I do wish that there was room for a rational middle ground, a truly non-partisan critique of policy both left and right. Until then, remember that few things are black and white and few people are purely good or evil. Most politicians enter politics genuinely hoping to change things for the better, it is the job of the electorate to determine when they are truly doing so and when they are falling short.
