You know, it often boggles my mind how some people can profess to be intelligent and yet demonstrate an absolute and complete lack of logic the moment their emotions get involved.
Take the quote that inspired this post, for example. In a democracy, your vote belongs to you. You can vote Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, independent, spoil your ballot, or decide that none of the candidates deserve your support and just stay home. You may disagree with someone for not voting. You may think they're wasting an opportunity. That's fair. But calling someone a "traitor" because they refused to vote the way you think they should have voted? That's not democracy. That's entitlement.
What I find especially ridiculous are the people who, immediately after their preferred party loses an election, start blaming the non-voters. Really? Your arrogance is so thick that you've somehow convinced yourself that every person who stayed home was secretly going to vote for your party if they would have went to a voting booth? Maybe they hated your candidate too. Maybe that's why they stayed home.
Then there are the people who support an opposing political party and defend absolutely everything that party does simply because they hate whoever currently holds power. That makes about as much sense as running a red light, getting into an accident, and blaming the guy who had the green.
One of the greatest tragedies of our democratic system is that far too many people choose political parties the same way they choose hockey teams. They pick a jersey and that's apparently the end of their thought process. You can see it constantly whenever politics comes up. Say something negative about the Conservatives and suddenly you're a Liberal. Criticize the Liberal government and somebody assumes you're Conservative. Apparently the possibility that you simply looked at what someone did and decided it was stupid never enters the equation.
Personally, I think a lot of that comes from insecurity. If they can convince themselves that you're on the "other team," then they don't actually have to consider your argument. They can simply dismiss you as biased. But what happens when you're not actually on the other team?
That reveal has actually become one of my favorite little moments whenever I'm discussing whatever nonsense a political party happens to be doing. As a matter of fact, more recently I've been called a "Libtard" more times than I can count and there is always this wonderful little moment where the self-identified Conservative doing the insulting seems to suffer a temporary system failure when I tell them; "I'm not a Liberal."
[smoke rises from their ears]
"You ok over there?"
This is because the entire argument they've constructed in their head depends upon the assumption that anybody criticizing their team must belong to the opposing team. And that's precisely the problem with team-based politics.
You see, I understand how our political system is supposed to work. Canada has different levels of government with different responsibilities. At the broadest level, we have the Federal government, headed by the Prime Minister. Then we have the Provincial governments, with each province headed by a Premier. We even have Municipal governments handling more localized responsibilities, although their authority ultimately comes from the provinces.
Those various levels of government aren't necessarily controlled by the same political party. You can have a Liberal federal government while Conservative, NDP, or other governments run different provinces and municipalities. That's important because it ensures that the Prime Minister doesn't personally control every school, hospital, highway, city council, police service, utility, and government program in Canada.
That said, judging by political discussions online, you'd certainly think he did. The average citizen often has very little idea which level of government is actually responsible for what they're angry about. So they simply blame everything on whichever politician happens to be the biggest name in the country.
High gas prices?
"Prime Minister's fault!"
(It's actually influenced globally, during production, during shipping, by the seller, and by every level of government)
Long hospital wait times?
"Prime Minister's fault!"
(It's actually a municipal and provincial matter)
High property taxes?
"Prime Minister's fault!"
(Actually it's primarily a municipal matter)
What's even better is when the Prime Minister changes, people will frequently paint the new leader with exactly the same brush if they happen to belong to the same political party as the previous one. That isn't political analysis. That's tribalism.
This is where what I consider proper democracy comes in. I'm talking about democracy as it should function when citizens actually think about what they're doing. You don't pick a political party like you pick a hockey team. You don't blindly defend someone because they're wearing your favorite team colour. You don't automatically hate somebody because they represent a party you've, for whatever reason, decided is evil. And you certainly shouldn't reject an inconvenient fact simply because it involves someone you've already decided to vote for.
Proper democracy requires something surprisingly difficult: you have to be able to disconnect yourself from the tribe. You're not a Liberal. You're not a Conservative. You're not an NDP voter. At least, you shouldn't be in the sense that one of those labels becomes part of your identity and dictates every political opinion you hold. So what are you then?
You're a Canadian.
When election time comes around, your question shouldn't be, "Which party do I support?" It should be, "Who is the best person for the job Canada needs done right now?"
Sometimes that might mean voting Liberal. Sometimes Conservative. Sometimes NDP. Sometimes independent. And occasionally it might mean looking at the entire ballot and deciding that nobody on it has earned your vote. If nobody deserves your vote, why would you give it to somebody? That's beyond stupid.
Sometimes democracy might also mean voting for somebody your friends or family absolutely despise. So what? Your ballot isn't a group project. Their emotions don't get to vote in your voting booth.
When you're choosing the people who are supposed to run a country, competence should matter considerably more than whether somebody makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
If your biggest national problem is economic, you'd be a moron to ignore someone who spent their entire adult life as an economic professional.
If Canada desperately needs to expand its international trade, you'd be a moron to support somebody whose entire economic strategy is focused on making deals with only one trading partner.
If the country is facing serious diplomatic problems, you'd be a moron to pretend that experience and proven competence in diplomacy don't matter.
This shouldn't be controversial. It's how we hire people for virtually every other important job.
When I walk into a voting booth, I treat the candidates like applicants for a position. I look at the problems Canada is facing. I look at each applicant's experience, their record, their temperament, their policies, and whether what they're promising is even remotely realistic. Then I decide which of them, if any, is best qualified for the job that needs to be done.
Because when everything else is stripped away — the party colours, the campaign signs, the slogans, the attack ads and the partisan bullshit — these people are applying for a job. And we're the people they work for.
That's why there shouldn't be any room for political team loyalty when you enter a voting booth. You should bring;
- Your judgment.
- Your skepticism.
- Your knowledge.
- Your standards.
Leave the team jersey at home.
