Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The next great leader

by Aaron Wherry on Saturday, March 27, 2010 1:23pm - 96 Comments

The Mark convenes a number of political actors and observers to discuss the best leaders of Canadian history and, amid the expected salutes to Macdonald, Pearson, Douglas and the like, pollster Frank Graves speculates on what will define the next great prime minister.

Gen X and Gen Y see little of relevance to them in the federal government. They are less interested in ethics, crime, security, and health care, and more interested in climate change and a post-carbon economy, knowledge and skills, human rights and internationalism. In order to build a federal state that is focused on both the future and the present (and less the past), our next leader should be drawn from the half of Canadians under the median age of 41…

It might also be appropriate to find someone who reflects the growing diversity of Canada, and perhaps it isn’t too much to expect that as over half of Canadians are women we might eventually get around to electing a woman PM.

Ladies and gentlemen, Canada’s next great prime minister.

Tags: democracy, Frank Graves, John A. Macdonald, Lester B. Pearson, Rona Ambrose, The Mark, Tommy Douglas

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

We bemoan the "excesses" of capitalism, not necessarily capitalism itself. As I said at the onset, our current version of capitalism betrays its own virtues in its excesses, and brings the system into considerable disrepute. Similarly, with respect to "western" medicine, we're suitably and appropriately skeptical of its claims, especially when it seems that the cures are worse than the disease (think of all those American commercials for prescription drugs that qualify themselves with myriad "possible side effects" that seem worse than the ailment they're addressing!). We question the value of extending life as a quantity while ignoring its quality. We question the priorities of modern medicine when we see money and research put into technologies and processes that addresse relatively minor ailments or the simple effects of aging (tummy tucks and facelifts? Botox? ) while millions have no or little access to basic medical needs. We question modern medicine because its priorities seem to be askew, especially in "for profit" regimes like multinational pharmaceutical companies that won't license generic and affordable options that will benefit many, many, more people.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

"As I said at the onset, our current version of capitalism betrays its own virtues in its excesses, and brings the system into considerable disrepute"

Our CURRENT version of capitalism? That is confusing. Perhaps you mean that capitalism as term, as such, pure and all, does have its inherent problems regardless of era.

Capitalism betrays its own virtues in its excesses, and brings the system into considerable disrepute, but not because of specific "times" attached to it. Capitalism betrays its own virtues in its excesses because at some point within capitalism, the meaning of money takes on another form. Where such turning point takes place is difficult to indicate, yet the turning point itself changes the meaning and workings of the term 'capitalism".

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

I always interpret "our current version of capitalism" to mean capitalism watered-down to the point where it has lost all of its flavour.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

It has lost something along the way, that's for sure!

I followed your conversation with party of one, and I think I understood what you were trying to say, that indeed so many people are two-faced about the meaning of capitalism. But then so many people are two-faced about so many things these days. Somehow, as if the human mind is capable of keeping things separated from the self, within! I don't believe people do this on purpose, but are in fact not aware of doing this separated disconnect within. That is truly amazing: evolution happening before our eyes!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

In both the cases of capitalism and modern medicine, there's an element of "The Emperor has no clothes". We've been oversold on the virtues of both, but, thanks to modern communication and education, we know better than the extravagant claims made by proponents of both. And similarly, we know that while both have their virtues, it's reasonable to limit their excesses, and ensure that the benefits of those systems are appropriately distributed.

So there's some of the causes of "your" generation's (and mine, and everybody's, I think!) ambiguity with respect to modern life. I really appreciated your post, as it was provocative (of this response, at least!), and provided me with the incentive to explore some of the claims you made. Sorry about the length, but lots of issues demand more than the flip response often prevalent on blogs. I even signed up for IntenseDebate so I could write at length about this! Damn, that didn’t work! Maybe I should start my own blog…Thanks for posting!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

On the surface of it, that's a pretty interesting post. But dig a little deeper, look at the underlying causes of "your" generation's ambiguity towards the status quo, and one might understand it better. I mean, since you think "your" generation has taken a hacksaw to the connection between cause and effect, it may be useful to examine that connection, no?____I don't know anyone who seriously (or whom I can take seriously!) thinks the most vile words in the English language are "business", "profits", or "capitalism". However, I know many who thinks that there are other important values that can and should be considered BESIDES the virtues of capitalism, and that the worst excesses of capitalist development should be tempered by those values. ____
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

And there are many other "values" (moral, economic, or otherwise) that are held in varying degrees of importance in other societies. I think it is a mistake to try to apply moral and economic values from one society to others, even if it is blindingly obvious (to those from the society wishing to do that) that those values would materially or spiritually benefit the other society; the varying historical patterns of economic and societal development means that sometimes you CAN'T get "there" from "here", at least without a wholesale upheaval of the society, to the point that the "cure" for that societies problems may be worse than the "disease". I think the current situation in Afghanistan demonstrates that clearly.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Are you telling me that faith is legitimate because God says it is?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

No. I may be dim but even I can see obvious circularities.

Taking something on faith just means believing because the source is taken to be reliable even though we haven't verified the statement ourselves. We all do this every day – we could not function if we had to empirically verify everything we believe.

If the source of information is thought to be a being that can neither deceive nor be deceived (and yes, that assessment would have to come from external empirical evidence and the deductions derived thereof) then it is reasonable to believe whatever statements come from that source. In fact it would be irrational not to.

The challenge is to establish (a) whether such a source exists, and (b) whether any statements have been imparted to us from that source. These are the two premises above. They have to be established from empirical evidence, but once established it is only reasonable to put faith in the conclusion.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

To summarise, faith is rational once you have proved that God "exists"?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Just proving that God exists isn't good enough. God could exist but not interact with humans, in which case no faith (at least, with respect to God) is necessary. In order for faith to make sense, one also has to have reason to think (either with certainty or at the very least "likelihood") that God has revealed something. Then it makes sense to believe that "something" by faith.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

So, faith is legitimate once you have proved that God exists* and proved that he(?) interferes in the affairs of men. It seems to me that one would have no need for faith if all of that has been proved.

*Can God exist? Surely, existence means to be real, ie. within reality. If existence can be claimed of "things" that are not real, can anything not exist?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"It seems to me that one would have no need for faith if all of that has been proved. "

Note: it just has to be "likely" or even "reasonable", not "proved" for faith to be "reasonable".

Anyway, faith would still be necessary just as it is in any other case where one accepts knowledge without individual verification. I know that there are people who claim to have been to Hawaii, and I put faith in their claims that Hawaii exists even though I've never seen it because I don't think they'd all lie or be deceived about this. So my faith in Hawaii is reasonable. Likewise for statements which one attributes to a divine entity – if that attribution is correct then it's perfectly reasonable to put faith in said statements no matter how unverifiable they are.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Anyway, faith would still be necessary just as it is in any other case where one accepts knowledge without individual verification.

There is an immense difference between what is verifiable and what is not. Accepting claims from another individual about reality is very different than accepting claims abut unreality, if they are both faith, they are not nearly to the same degree. To say that faith in Hawaii is equivalent to faith in Heaven (for example) is absurd.

If I claim that your twin brother exists, how will you prove me wrong? If your definition of existence applies to things that are not part of reality, like "God", then there is no criteria by which any "thing" cannot exist.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"Faith", as I understand it, it just the decision to believe something one hasn't personally verified. I'm not saying faith in Hawaii is equivalent to faith in heaven, but they are certainly both examples of "faith" for someone who has seen neither.

" If your definition of existence applies to things that are not part of reality, like "God"…

My definition of existence doesn't apply to "things that are not part of reality". If something isn't part of reality then it doesn't exist outside of our imagination. I'm not sure why you keep insisting that God falls into this category, unless you know of some inherent contradiction in the notion "God" that makes such a notion a physical impossibility.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

So, to be clear, "God" is something that I could find, see, and touch, if I knew where to look?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Quite possibly yes, but I'm not seeing how that's relevant unless you think that something has to be visible and touchable in order to be physically real… is that your position?
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Yes. Something, to be real, must be matter.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

For one thing, not all matter can be touched or seen. Some is just inferred from its effects: quarks, for example. Dark matter, for another example. Any material thing outside our light cone. The sensations of touch and sight themselves, etc. You'd say these examples aren't real?

Also there are many non-material things that I'd call real: truth, for example. Distance, for another. Time. Irrational numbers. Probability. The laws of physics. Language. Forces. Kindness.

Seriously?

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Seriously.

Truth does not exist (is not real), it is just a logical construct that applies to our statements about reality. Distance, time, probability, physics, etc. — these are descriptions of reality, they are not real things.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

The senses of sight and tough can't be seen or touched. Are they not real? If not, why would things you perceive with them be considered any more real?

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

I feel I do not have a good enough background in the science to give you a good answer. I don't really know what an electron is. I have looked it up on Wikipedia and it says that the "electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton", does this not mean that it is a physical thing?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

So far as I know it is indeed a physical thing, but you can't touch or see it. All you can do is infer it from its effects (i.e. measure its effects, and then infer its existence). Does that mean it isn't real?

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

If it has a mass and takes up space (however tiny), it is real.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

This is a different criterion: instead of "something I can find, see, and touch" it's anything that has mass and occupies space.

Also, it sounds like we agree that something's existence can be inferred even if we can't observe it directly.

As an aside, I commend you on your patience and intellectual honesty in these discussions – this is very rare in my experience.

Ok, one more example for you: light. It occupies no space and has no mass. Is it real?
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

I can't say much on the light as waves / particles topic, but light has speed, and can be interfered with (ex. shuttering the windows will keep light out) — so, what exactly it is, I'm not sure, but I think it is something (ie. real).

Also, I'm not sure that I'm changing the criteria. You are saying that I am swapping "something that I can find" for "something that has mass". Mass is a property (among others) by which a thing is to be found.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Mass is not something we can see or touch – that was my point.

Light has no mass, nor does it occupy space as evidenced by the fact that it goes through other things and even through other light without being disturbed. So now we have something with neither mass, nor occupancy of space which is nonetheless real.

Reality involves more than things with mass and things which we can directly sense.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

It will obviously be impossible to prove the non-existence of God if "his" existence is defined as such that proof is inapplicable to. Your twin brother might exist similarly.

I do not mean to say that only things we can see and touch are real. Seeing and touching are two ways we can gather physical evidence — evidence of existence — but not the only ways.

Admittedly, I do not know enough about the science to argue about things like radiation. I would love to know more about physics, and would equally love to devote time to learning it, but it is unlikely I will have the time to do so in the near future (I still haven't got to the Nicomachean Ethics).

However, I do feel it is illogical to posit that anything can exist without physical evidence (although, this is not to say that things cannot exist in such a way that a human is unable to gather the evidence, but, it seems to me, in this case, "things" should be considered non-existent until proven otherwise).

I am not sure if you are telling me that God's existence has physical evidence (I keep using "physical evidence", though it seems to me to be redundant), or if God's existence does not require physical evidence to be known.
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Fitting debate during Easter time.

Could the sentence: "Noli me tangere" reveal something of significance?
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

It could, if I knew what it meant.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

It would be possible to prove God's non-existence if God is the sort of thing that can't possibly exist, as mentioned above. But not if God is something that could exist but doesn't: true. I thought you were arguing the former.

In that case one has to admit the possibility that God could exist and leave it, as you say, to the physical evidence.

I'd point out, though, that "physical evidence" doesn't have to mean "I can touch or see God" (although that may well be true too). It is sufficient if we can infer the existence of God from His effects, just as we do with electrons.

From this I think it follows that faith is not necessarily unreasonable – our original point of contention. If God can exist then it is not unreasonable for someone to think that He does exist….and if they think this (based on evidence) then it's also not unreasonable to trust the things they think He has said.

In my opinion there is plenty of such evidence; in fact I would say it is either certain or at least highly likely that God exists – that however is a different debate.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Could you explain to me the inferring of existence from effects. I'm having difficulty conceptualising it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

You have a balloon. Over time it gets smaller. You infer the existence of a hole in the balloon.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Sorry, I had forgotten about this debate.

My point about God's (non-)existence is this: if God created the world — ie, created existence — then he must have not existed prior to the creation, or else he created himself.

(I know the concept of before existence is rife with contradictions, but this is an inevitability when using reality-bound language to describe the reality of unreal things.)

http://www.variousmarks.com Various Marks

This article has a nice content, it gives interesting ideas for the reader.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

Our society's questioning of the values of the "mundane pursuit(s) as to how to maximise production and accumulation of wealth" is not due to that pursuit in and of itself, but rather to how that wealth is distributed, which, I think you'll agree, is the basis of politics itself. I have NO problem with some people gaining more from their own industry and application of available resources (some of which is available only due to an accident of fortuitous birth), the question for me is the responsible use of wealth. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few people and organizations, as it is in today's economic system, it is too often used in a frivolous and self-indulgent manner that not only does not benefit society generally, but actually undermines the values underpinning the society. When people at the "bottom" of our economic structure are working very hard yet not acheiving any kind of economic stability because their relative "powerlessness" makes them exploitable by those at the "top", one can understand why their adherence to the status quo is somewhat tenuous, to say the least.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

The same goes for the "teachings" of "The Secret" and "The Alchemist". They're not new ideas, they're old ideas packaged for today's consumer, just as "The Power of Positive Thinking", or "How to win Friends and Influence People", or any number of "self-help" books were packaged for the contempransous consumer. If one focuses on a particular goal, or envisions a particular outcome, there IS sufficent evidence(gained through…wait for it…reason!) that there will be a greater likelihood that one will acheive that goal or enjoy that outcome. I agree that "wishing" it isn't enough, but "focusing" on it to the point that all one's decisions are informed by that focus, MAY be more effective than NOT focusing…with the qualifier that there are a whole lot of other factors, some beyond our immediate control, that also have an effect on acheiving our goals, etc. In any case, it doesn't hurt; it may not HELP as much as its proponents suggest, but it's not entirely useless, either.