Commenting on a post at "Far and Wide" about the Iacobucci diversion, I asked about the moral significance of all of this for Canada.
Are we really so morally and democratically bankrupt that our government believes there's political capital to be had in demonstrating contempt for Parliament's demand for documentation relating to the torture of our prisoners in Afghanistan, and the opposition parties don't think the Canadian electorate cares enough to force an election on the issue?
Are we really that debased?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Zizek.html
Start reading here:
". . . there's a tendency of the American left that thinks that all you have to do is get the facts out there, and things will take care of themselves. How do fantasies figure in politics and how do you counter them?"
Todd,
I'll check it out later today, but before I do I'd just like to say that I find it shocking that people need something other than the fact that their government tortures people and then defies the legislature to hide it, in order to get active.
If you told somebody that their best friend was a rapist, and their friend went to enormous lengths to hide what they've been doing every weekend for the past year, you'd expect that person to want to at least know more.
But for Canadians to see their government trying like mad to obfuscate their behaviour on torture and to not care? What's wrong with those people?
"people need something other than the fact that their government tortures people and then defies the legislature to hide it"
I don't think it's a question of people need something _other_; it's just not enough, especially not personal enough (given also what Zizek and Henwood point out about the worries, real and otherwise, people have).
Your analogy might or might not work as your story would likely hit closer to home (although I think it's still possible someone wouldn't want to look too closely into it and might even just simply start "edging away from" their friend rather than confronting him) than something "far away".
Todd,
I read that piece and it didn't provide many answers. Zizek himself said the whole thing was mysterious.
I agree with how he expressed himself right before the part you told me to start reading at:
"My eternal trump card is torture. Can you even imagine the topic of torture as a legitimate topic two or three years ago? My biggest worry is this "soft revolution," these imperceptible changes in normativity, the unwritten rules about what is acceptable."
I can appreciate that some people might be so debased as to say: "All right. If strangers have to be tortured, and innocents have to be slaughtered, to preserve my material standard of living, then fine."
But for such people at the same time to go on pretending that their country or their culture embodies important "values" of some sort, or that there's cause to cheer when the imperialist country's athletes win a contest somewhere, ... as if they're all more than just a random collection of selfish assholes, .. that I find hard to stomach.
And the idea that the majority of Canadians might be that contemptible. Moral consistency isn't rocket-science really. At least on such broad issues like torture and resource theft.
It might also partially be a case of confusing correlation with causation. Canadians are taught in school and reminded by the media of (supposed) Canadian values all the time. Canada is also an extremely well-off country in quantitative measures. Some people may be mislead by correlating Canada's economic strength to some kind of karma... "good" countries get their "just" rewards.
Canada's economic imperialism (such as with mining in Latin America) is also in the shadow of the larger actions of the U.S. By letting the U.S. do the dirty work, Canada benefits by proxy of their close relationship with the U.S.
If it wasn't for the allegations of torture and the blatant obfuscation by the Conservative government, I suspect that many people would have continued to believe that Canada keeps its hands pretty clean with regards to its foreign affairs.
"I read that piece and it didn't provide many answers."
It wasn't really supposed to, just a friendly reminder that there are probably no pat answers to the questions you're asking. Zizek's right: it's difficult (maybe even impossible at our current juncture) to figure out why this is going on, but that doesn't absolve a good Left from acting like liberal philosophers and dumping on the Great Unwashed for being so stupid.
"Moral consistency isn't rocket-science really."
What, you mean you Know Thyself? Bottle that; you'll make a fortune.
No blah,
"If it wasn't for the allegations of torture and the blatant obfuscation by the Conservative government, I suspect that many people would have continued to believe that Canada keeps its hands pretty clean with regards to its foreign affairs."
Just like we're somehow being different from the US Americans in Afghanistan, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Todd,
"but that doesn't absolve a good Left from acting like liberal philosophers and dumping on the Great Unwashed for being so stupid."
I'm not sure how to respond to that. "Liberal philosophers" means "Alliance for Progress" hucksters and Francis Fukuyama-style triumphalism and delusion. If "Great Unwashed" is to mean everybody who is poorer than I am, then I don't regard them as inferior.
At the end of the day, and whether it makes me unpopular or not, I simply can't bring myself to sympathize with people who condone torture on the one hand and praise themselves for being civilized on the other.
By "liberal philosophers" I mean thinkers who are largely if not entirely interested in talking to the elite because common people make them nervous. Such philosophers hold out no belief that anyone, not just their favourite elites, can learn and improve (especially not by mass political action).
"Great Unwashed" aren't just those with less money than you have; I also mean the Joe/Jane Blow down the street: everyone who's not a member of the ruling class.
"I simply can't bring myself to sympathize with people who condone torture on the one hand and praise themselves for being civilized on the other"
You don't have to (I certainly don't in that regard). Among other things, good lefties need to figure out why these people (and I don't mean elites who make or influence policy; we don't need to know why they believe what they do in order to make them stop) are doing what they're doing and take that into account with the critique they then give back.
Post a Comment