It appears that in today's culture, association with politics places oneself into the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of civility. Politicians today are comparable to lawyers when it comes to public appreciation. However at one time in society being a politician was a civil duty; an act to show one's faith in culture. It was a goal set for children who were believed to be the brightest and best in their classes. This, however, has disappeared from our culture of present day, but why such hard feelings? What has caused this rift between civil duty and civility?
Up until the end of the 20th century, boys were being pushed into law, medicine, or business; then eventually politics would follow suit. It was for the most part the goal of every businessman to be in control of the situation which surrounded them. Politics was a way to improve business while improving society. Let this not lead one to think that politicians across time have always gone into politics for the good of their fellow citizens, because this was far from the case. Sir John A. Macdonald only joined the political arena to better his own law career and to try and gain greater business across the province. It was not until tireless years being an MP that Macdonald came to decide what was best for the nation was a nation apart from Britain.
Others, however, have taken to a different stroke when entering politics. Trudeau, for example, had always had his goals set on the political arena and bettering this nation. It was always his goal to repatriate the constitution and improve the lives of his fellow Canadians. He was a politician with a philosophical mind, which resulted in his "Just Society." Aside from those who planned great things, politics at one point attracted the best the nation had to offer. Lester B. Pearson would be the prime case; a man for all to look up to and a true citizen of example. But today there is no such drive of our brightest and strongest to enter the political arena, instead they disappear to other prospects of our neighbour to the south.
Canada is left with, as a result, the choice of dumb over dumber and the weak over the weakest. We no longer have politicians that are willing to take a chance for the greater good. We are instead resolved to watch a "leader" who does what the public tells him to do; a politician run by public opinion. There is no real solution to this problem. Certainly there is no way for every Canadian to change their perspective, otherwise issues of the past would have been easily resolved. Instead the question must be pondered, what happened to the political animal?
- Z.R. Nissen
Posts
Hey Zo,
ReplyDeleteGreat post - I personally 100% agree as well that we've lost this so called political animal in Canadian politics.
When you think about leaders who achieve great things in our history, such as Pearson and Trudeau - it wasn't until after they were out of office that we looked back on them in a lighter sense. When Pearson and St. Laurent refused to back up Great Britain during the Suez Crisis the general population saw us as becoming American puppets. Similarly, I don't have to mention how controversial Trudeau was during his time period.
Alas, my point is that it seems Canadian politicians can get by the best in Canadian politics by being boring, mundane, yet still remaining active. The best example is Mackenzie King, our Prime Minister who took us through World War Two and remained in office for 22 years. King was broing, un-eventful for the most part - but he managed to stay in office the longest and it's because he understood the Canadian people. They needed someone who could work between the French and English and constantly compromise - not upset the delicate balance.
However, I agree with what you're saying - with the current situation that our country is in, we could use a political animal. Maybe and just maybe, Mr. Ignatieff will offer something a little more different.
Excellent post!
- Ty