In rummaging through my heaps of newspaper clippings, I recently came across an opinion piece by Doug Saunders on the state of Western Democracies published in the Globe and Mail on Dec. 18 last year. In reading such articles, of course, one realizes one is getting the personal views of the author in question rather than anything purporting to be “just the facts.” But does this absolve their authors of the need to be rational, fair and objective? Are value judgments utterly devoid of any of these qualities actually worthy of being published in a national newspaper? I shall focus on just three successive sentences in Saunders’ article to make my point.
Midway through the piece we are told: “The United States is no longer really a stable democracy ….. not just because of the Trump interregnum but because of its Republican states’ attack on voting rights.”
“Interregnum,” of course, is intended as a pejorative, referring to a period when the “normal” status quo is interrupted, in this case America’s Democracy, by some abnormal force, i.e., Donald Trump.
While Trump and his supporters are habitually characterized as dire threats to Democracy, I have never, not once, seen that charge validated by any substantial amount of objective evidence. Biden invoked executive orders designed to bypass open debate more on his first day in office than Trump did during his entire presidency. Yes, Trump brashly inveighed against the “fake news” of the mainstream media but was that the tactic of a crypto-fascist or were his accusations in fact true? While his aggressive demeanor obviously feeds those eager to attack him, that alone is evidence of nothing. Yes, he has at times been less than faithful to the truth but, sadly, this vice is “systemically” prevalent amongst those who loathe him. Moreover the charge that Republican efforts to tighten up voter registration mandates are somehow an attack on voters’ rights is frankly stupid, slack regulations being an open invitation to electoral fraud. Citizens, Black or White, rich or poor, who can’t be bothered to register properly in their constituencies have no one but themselves to blame should they be denied the right to vote. But none of the complexities of this issue are ever discussed by Leftist simpletons such as Saunders who, in typical fashion, implies the effort to enshrine rational voter registration protocols in the U.S. to be just a White, racist plot.
The sentence after the one already cited reads as follows: “Meanwhile, Mr. Trudeau has governed in a way that’s top-down, non-transparent and prone to scandals of a very non-democratic nature; he’s far from an exemplar.” This would seem to be a fairly honest appraisal coming from one I have accused of being a Leftist simpleton.
But what follows is baffling: “This in itself is not necessarily a flaw………,” as a Democracy continues to work well just so “long as its institutions remain intact” and its “leaders continue to face the test of the electorate.”
So Saunders, it would seem, has convinced himself that Trudeau’s “top-down, non-transparent,” “non-democratic” governing style is Not a cause for concern while “Trumpism” somehow is. Gee, most of the American “conservatives” I revere strongly support their country’s institutions, including the Rule of Law, while the woke Left has done nothing but incite disdain for that Rule, tacitly supporting the destructive antics of B.L.M., environmental radicals, illegal immigrants, etc.. And wasn’t it the Democrats who made a concerted effort to have the Supreme Court expanded from nine to to thirteen in their effort to regain control there? Did Trump attempt to change any fundamental U.S. institutions to his own advantage?
Trudeau is a politician in the worst sense of the word, camouflaging his authoritarian impulses in sanctimonious platitudes, hypocritically suggesting, for example, that his attempts to censor public discourse here in Canada are rooted in a noble concern for the Truth rather than loathing for all who disagree with him. Ironically, as Trump is hardly given to hiding his motives, he is perhaps a lesser threat to Democracy than Trudeau. But Saunders’ article partakes of the same arrogant assumption that motivates all “progressives,” the assumption that if you do not believe in “inclusiveness,” if you do not believe that all cultures, all ideas, are equally worthy of respect, you are little better than a Nazi. Hence his bizarre conclusion that what he readily admits to be Trudeau’s non-democratic impulses are no real threat to Democracy, while “populist” support for Trump is a danger to be feared.
The absurdity behind such “logic,” of course, is that whereas Democracy used to mean majority rule, when the majority in any Western nation does not side with the Left, it is simplistically denounced as evil [i.e., populist]. This in essence means that the Left is inherently anti-democratic! Hence the daily onslaught of editorials such as Saunders’ which refuse to probe the facts with any degree of honesty while crassly assuming the moral high ground on every issue. Hence the ironic though predictable fact that it was Trudeau who actually came out as a dictator in Feb. of this year, invoking an Emergencies act intended to ward off serious threats to the state in order to subdue a host of peaceful protestors who did not share his politics.