I couldn't disagree much more thoroughly with Aaron Wherry's attack on the use of "fairer" and "fairness" as viable political themes. And the difference goes to both semantics and substance: I'd think most people would acknowledge that fairness can be evaluated on a spectrum rather than an all-or-nothing concept as suggested by Wherry, and there's plenty of room for Canada's public policy to reflect a far higher standard of fairness.
But in using the Libs' recent framing as an excuse to try to push "fairness" language outside the political sphere, Wherry does hint at one of the biggest problems with the Libs' current strategy. By trying to use the language of fairness so regularly to refer to both their own personal slights and to larger social issues (with a heavy emphasis on the former), the Libs are only draining the message of meaning and encouraging Canadians to ask just why it should matter what Dion labels as "unfair".
Unfortunately, if Dion and company can't get their message on track in a hurry by sorting out just what they mean by fairness and how it actually matters to Canadians in general, the resulting harms may extend far beyond the Libs' own prospects. What's at stake may be the likelihood of making real fairness (as in genuine equality of opportunity) a goal seen as worth pursuing in Canada's political discussion over the short to medium term, rather than a butt of jokes for the likes of Wherry. And it can only be unfair to Canadians who would benefit from nothing more than fair treatment if the Libs' confused message helps to push such a goal beyond their grasp.
No comments:
Post a Comment