Ideology and Weltenschauung. . . .

I have been thinking about my last post and how political analysts like Rex Murphy are shying from ideological discourse. This tendency has been growing for some time now in Western nations, particularly since the end of so-called soviet socialism. This has been a fairly conscious and concerted effort to undermine opposition to capitalism and western power by creating the image that the system we live in is somehow 'natural,' inevitable, unavoidable, and somehow rationally based. (The analysis of this phenomenon goes back, of course, to Marx) Capitalists, and the advocates of the prevailing paradigm want to instill in people that our system is not driven by ideology but only by necessary and technically based decisions. This effort manifests in people the delusion that we live in a pure technocracy where our leaders are not driven by their ideologies but by unavoidable decisions informed by technical experts. This has not only been driven by extreme right wingers, it has been driven by many people including some on the centre-left. But in recent years we have had a federal government that is working of the highest principles of this model as once practiced by leaders such as Margaret Thatcher. And if Rex Murphy's column quoted in my last blog is any indication, this move is working well here in Canada. The import of Murphy's analysis is that - since all the decisions of the government are, in the broad sense, necessary and driven by forces which are not in our control, then Harper's failure to get a majority must necessarily be a result purely of technical-strategic mistakes on his part and if he could just create a better public image, he would easily win his coveted majority. 

But I agree with the great French philosopher Louis Althusser, everything is, to a large degree, ideologically driven.  There are of course certain 'life-world' (Weltenschauung) assumptions that we share that stand somewhat above the fray of common ideological debates. But the rest is ideology. And it would be in the interest of any prevailing power structure to convince the population at large that we exist beyond ideological structure and our Prime Minister and his cronies are desperate to do just this. But the poverty of such analysis should be obvious to anyone who genuinely pays attention to the broad picture of how our society is developing. 

Rex Murphy the simpleton. . . .

Like most semi-rational people who watch politics and have some sense of non-partisan analysis, I find Rex Murphy a nauseating simpleton. This article  http://tiny.cc/rxmurphy   is a further extension of his simplistic analysis which so many people find frustrating. 

Mr. Murphy's analysis assumes, like so many partisan Conservatives, that the only thing that stands between Harper and a majority government is his occasional strategic error which trouble many voters because they think that it speaks of some hidden agenda. Murphy, like many Conservatives, think that Harper has learned a lot during his tenure as PM and that he has modified his view significantly and that if he just refrained from making these occasional silly errors in judgment he would be cruising to a majority. 

The problems with such an analysis are multi-fold. The primary problem with such an analysis is that it over-looks the painfully numerous attacks that Harper and his government have perpetrated against the principles of democracy. Now, whether these attacks demonstrate an inherent 'nasty' side to Harper's personality is a debatable point, but I think it is clear that a very large majority of Canadians object strongly to the ideological import of these attacks. Wearing sweater vests will not make up for this because it is not really a question of 'image' it is a question of ideology. 

In other words, Murphy and his ilk, imagine that people are frightened of Harper's "hidden" agenda when in fact it is the more obvious agenda that he has been openly pursuing that is the problem for many people. The so-called tactical mistakes that Harper has made like the recent prorogation of parliament do indeed turn off a number of people who might otherwise vote for the Conservatives because they make people feel as though Harper is mean and power-hungry and, in this case, involved in a real coverup. But for many people it has helped to remind them of Harper's basic ideological offensiveness. Rex Murphy writes almost as though no one really objects to what is a troublingly Americanization of politics in Canada and an ideological agenda that seems to be undermining the parliamentary tradition at the most basic level. There is no doubt that Harper's nasty ultra-partisan streak makes selling this ideology that much more difficult.. But at the heart of this matter is a basic ideological struggle between Harper's Machiavellian, centralizing, pro-big business, anti-democratic, in-humane capitalist agenda on the one hand, and those who oppose that agenda from various points of view on the other. Mr. Murphy, and many others, are unable to acknowledge this because, for one - you can never be totally straightforward with such an agenda but you have to sugar coat it with ideological double-speak, and for another - many of them don't even understand the ideological import of their own beliefs. They are fooled by their own propaganda and believe, for example, that Harper is really concerned about crime when the crime rate is slowly going down and the so-called 'tough on crime' agenda is just a blatant calculation to win votes of a population that is obsessed with crime because of a sensationalizing media. 

All I can say is the fact that someone with Rex Murphy's simplistic and shallow analysis can be a major media spokesperson suggests that we are not that far away from the Sarah Palin world of politics. 

Coalition Government

I am amazed that people have been belly-aching for years about the need for our representatives in the House of Commons to cooperate and now suggest that it is undemocratic and undignified when they actually do it. Rex Murphy, who proves time and time again that he has absolutely no serious abilities for political analysis, said yesterday on CBC that these events prove that Canadian politics are nothing more that partisan politics. What a beautifully Orwellian moment! Three major parties making an agreement to work together proves that they are overly partisan!? Double-speak in spades. Sorry Rex, as always, you are completely wrong. This is an attempt to step beyond partisanship. Granted the three parties are cooperating against another party. But only because the Conservatives presently are the most overtly partisan, ideological, and anti-democratic party in living memory. Finally some sanity returns to parliament and Rex Murphy, the Conservatives and many others, are trying to portray it as undemocratic, shame on all of them! This is why I am a cynical and jaded man.

Of course, I believe that Harper would do almost anything to avoid losing power. He is Machiavellian in his lust for control. The Conservatives are arrogant, boastful, fascistic, and completely and utterly partisan. They are so afraid of losing power that it has shaken them to the very core, you can see it on their faces. Harper will, if the GG lets him pirogue parliament. And if not I wouldn’t even be surprised if he declared marshal law. More than anything Harper wants to have and keep power. And the Conservative’s claim that a coalition would constitute a coup is the real attack on the constitution. Desperate men do desperate things. Let’s hope that nothing untoward occurs, but have no doubt, Harper is a dangerous man and the Economic Update just displayed his meanness and lack of judgement. Let’s hope it doesn’t continue.

And my advise to the Governor-General; remember that your primary duty is to the general will of parliament, clear and simple. In the English parliamentary system, elections don’t elect governments, the House of Commons does. You have a letter in you hands Ms. Jean, which demonstrates the will of the majority of the House. Your constitutional duty is to listen to that majority.