Questions on establishing one's personal political framework

[Edward Campbell]

You might want to take a look at John McKay's comments in this article, which is about Justin Trudeau's statement that all Liberal MPs will be expected to be pro-choice.

Mr McKay, a resolutely pro-life MP, will be "grandfathered" M. Trudeau said. Mr Mckay, a committed Liberal, said, "“I think a pluralism of views is better than a mono-view, but the party made that decision ...” he likened the issue to the party’s position on marijuana legalization. Asked if he was disappointed, he replied: “Disappointment is not the right word. [Mr. Trudeau] does reflect what the views of the party are. If you take the marijuana issue, those are the views of the party. You know, it’s a shocking thing, but it is a democracy, and democracy throws up some strange things at time ...” Mr. McKay nonetheless said the Liberal Party continues to best line up with his views on other matters. “If you’re a pro-life MP in the Conservative party, you’re a pretty unhappy camper these days,” he said."

I doubt that there are any Conservative MPs, including Stephen Harper himself, who agree, line by line, with the Conservative Party's platform. The Liberals are infamous for their internal dissent, civil wars might be a better term. The NDP is, equally, riven with differences, especially on economic policy and Quebec nationalism. But each MP and party member stays committed because, as Mr Mckay said,  their party "continues to best line up with his views on other matters."

I, for example, self-describe as a classical, 19th century, English liberal and as a utilitarian (also in the 19th century English model) and I seek the greatest good for the greatest number - but I do so in a liberal manner, which is to say, one which respects the positon of the sovereign individual and holds that all the really important, fundamental rights belong to the individual and the state has a duty defend those individual rights against the actions of all collectives, including the state itself.

I am a member and financial supprter of the Conservative party of Canada, even though I disagree with, even despise, some of its polices and some of its members. The fact is that, despite my distaste for the Conservative Party's social conservative positions and members, it "continues to best line up with his views on other matters." On social issues I am much more aligned with the Liberals and NDP, but social issues are just one aspect of public policy and I think the Liberals are wrong and the NDP downright dangerously wrong on all the other, equally important, issues. (I trust the Supreme Court of Canada to knock the stupid edges (and there are a lot of 'em) off Conservative policies.)

Although I am a pretty firmly committed Conservative I always, and publicly, wish the Liberal Party of Canada well because I know, with absolute certainty that no political party, including the CPC can be trusted to govern for too long. The CPC will get fat, lazy, corrupt and stupid (some people, including some Conservatives, think it has already) and we will need a smart, ready Liberal Party to be the government in waiting. I have scant regard for M Trudeau, I think he's a lightweight, nothing much except fluff and charisma, but I am confident that there are some first rate people on his team, and when, not if, the Conservatives need replacing I want the Liberals to be ready.

And here, in an item which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the CBC, a political professional, an insider, explains how to "tow the line" even when one disagrees:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/politics-is-a-team-sport-so-you-toe-the-party-line-andrew-macdougall-1.2718138

POINT OF VIEW
Politics is a team sport, so you toe the party line: Andrew MacDougall
'You’ll have to go out there and fire crooked arrows, sometimes at targets you don't believe in'

By Andrew MacDougall, for CBC News

Posted: Jul 27, 2014

The question I’m most often asked about my time in politics is what part of it I hated the most, which, I suppose, tells you something about the current perception of my former profession.

And what do I answer? I could go with the usual complaints: the constant work, the travel and the dark cloud of knowing that your next mistake could end up being your last. But that’s the gig. Wear a cup.

There was also the unremitting questioning of your motives by people who don’t know you at all. Get over it.

And then, of course, there were the journalists.

Toe the line

But the worst part of my job was having to promote and defend policies I didn’t agree with personally. When that happened, you had to do your job and toe the party line.

Don’t shed a tear, because it didn’t happen much, at least not on issues that were core to the agenda, but consider yourself fortunate if you never have to look at a camera and argue with all of your heart for something you don’t believe in. Especially when, as happens in politics, you are standing on some thin intellectual ice.

Oh, how journalists loved it when they had you in that position. “Andrew,” they’d say, “surely you don’t believe that.”

Maybe not, but it didn’t matter what I believed. I wasn’t elected. The government had an agenda and it was my job to talk about it.

Members of parliament are rightly in a better position to question government policy, though if the reason they got into politics was to champion a cause they knew their party didn’t agree with, they probably shouldn’t have made the decision to run for the party in question.

Politics is a team sport, but no matter how closely your world view lines up with that of your political party, there will always be areas where you disagree. Governments have to make decisions on too many files to achieve a perfect union between thought and action.

Imperfect parties, imperfect leaders

Just as voters weigh the pros and cons of a particular party or leader before casting a ballot, and as candidates do the same before running for office, so do political staff before signing up for work. If you are able to find one party that speaks to you on every subject, I’d suggest you haven’t done enough of your own thinking.

Parties — and leaders — are imperfect. And so that means as a spokesperson you’ll have to go out there and occasionally fire crooked arrows, sometimes at targets you don’t believe in or care about.

To pick a particular pet peeve, no one can really mount a compelling intellectual or ideological defence of supply management for dairy, eggs and poultry. I certainly can’t. The few who happen to care about it — and benefit massively from it — just happen to be better organized than the majority of us who haven’t really thought about it, but might be outraged if we did. Never pick a fight with someone who produces their milk by the barrel, I suppose.

Theory vs. practice

So there I would be, defending supply managed industries every time we had a trade negotiation on the go, which was a lot. At the same moment we were fighting to scrap the wheat board. Yeah, the journalists loved pointing that one out.

But this is where the critics in the ivory towers or op-ed pages often forget that politicians have to get elected. Yes, politics is theory, which is important to read and write about, but it’s also practice. It takes the vote of people and the support of stakeholders. And sometimes you have to promise them certain things. Even if it rubs across an ideological grain. Or common sense.

I’m a cynic by nature, but politics truly does have a noble purpose. It is about leading people to change, about making arguments and showing courage.

It’s also about picking your spots. Raising the age for retirement benefits was long thought to be a third rail in government, but the Harper government made that change to Old Age Security without future seniors storming the barricades.

Opening debate

Let's hope we’re cruising to the point where we can start a conversation about retooling our creaking health-care system. And maybe one day we will free the cheese.

But until that glorious day comes, and the time is right for change, political staff will inevitably find themselves agreeing with the proposition that the revered “ordinary” Canadian needs to pay too much for milk and cheese because 20,000 dairy farmers are afraid of duking it out with producers around the world.

As a private citizen, I now get to say supply management is rubbish. I get to wonder why the Canadian Armed Forces can’t just buy kit off the shelf. I get to wonder why regional development agencies exist and why hundreds of government-funded interest groups never seem to conquer the problem they were “temporarily” set up to address.

If you think defending the personally indefensible is a problem unique to politics, think again. Think about whether or not you could defend every action of your employer. Chances are you can’t. If you can, lucky you.

I doubt many reporters could defend the decisions of their outlets 100 per cent either, especially those with corporate overlords.

And what do I think about the CBC? I think that it receives significant taxpayer funds, and I believe it can operate within its existing budget.

Beyond that, I couldn’t possibly comment.

Andrew MacDougall is a former director of communications to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He is now the senior executive consultant at MSLGROUP London.

I think the key is here: "If you think defending the personally indefensible is a problem unique to politics, think again. Think about whether or not you could defend every action of your employer. Chances are you can’t. If you can, lucky you."

I know that I had to support, make my own, decisions and orders with which I, personally disagreed; and I am equally sure that my subordinate commanders loyally made my orders - the ones against which they had argued in private - their own when I gave them.

 

[Transporter]

Great thread - thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

My approach aligns closely with several of the posts above. Your position doesn't always have to be - nor should it be - black or white.  Approach things on an issue-by-issue basis and decide for yourself how you feel about each one, based on whatever guiding principals you espouse, and not what you are told you should believe.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

...

Thank you, ERC. Those were very interesting articles. It's particularly insightful to read quotes and thoughts from people so closely enveloped in the world of politics and their experiences.

Relating to employment, on a much lesser scale of course, I can certainly understand your final paragraph about supporting policies or directives given regardless of whether I agree(d) or not. I have held leadership positions/roles and have had to put personal stances aside in order to follow through. In turn, if passing down those same policies or directives, I can guarantee that subordinates have grumbled privately about them (and sometimes not so privately), as I have done also when in a position of authority or not. Some instances have been more difficult than others, of course, but as long as it hasn't come down to a serious question of ethics, it's something that I understand can be unavoidable at times.