On first principles

As I've noted earlier, Alex Himelfarb has launched an interesting discussion of how to define progressivism in Canada - and I still plan to take a closer look at that issue in future posts, albeit with what I'd describe as more of an expression of what progressivism ought to be rather than how it's actually perceived. But before getting into that conversation in detail, I'll offer an aside that puts some of the Harper Cons' actions in government in a more philosophical context.

One of the observations in relatively recent political philosophy that strikes me as particularly important to any discussion of the role of the state is the concept that any theory of government even worth discussing has to proceed from the pursuit of equality in some form.

Of course, there's plenty of room for debate as to how to weigh the sometimes-conflicting goals of equality of opportunity or equality of condition, and what historical considerations or community interests ought to be taken into account. But a philosophy that actively denies equal consideration to any group of people is seen as a tribalist relic which has no place in informed political discussion. (See generally Will Kymlicka's Contemporary Political Philosophy, which is one of my regular reads as a reminder of some of the foundational principles of political theory.)

So what does that have to do with the current state of the Canadian government? There's been ample discussion here and elsewhere about the Cons' treatment of Ronald Smith, Omar Khadr and Abousfian Abdelrazik, along with their complete lack of interest in considering the human rights of Afghan detainees. And at least a few commentators have paired that with outrage at the Cons' constant excuse that nobody cares about such undesirables, and therefore everybody should just shut up and let the government continue to neglect or abuse them.

But I'm not sure there's been much analysis of the philosophy behind that repeated statement. And with the G20 security fiasco serving as a prime example of how such a worldview can very quickly come to apply to absolutely anybody, now seems like the time to drive the point home.

In effect, the Harper Cons have declared that the only measure of their treatment of people under the scope of their authority is whether it costs them politically. Never mind any conception of equality, whether founded in liberty, justice, opportunity or otherwise. As far as the Cons are concerned, the only question that matters is whether a particular action might help to tighten Stephen Harper's grip on power - and any opposition based on mere principles of justice can be dismissed as irrelevant.

As we've seen, such an outlook inevitably means that some people - and indeed those whose rights most obviously need to be defended - will be declared to be less than equal for the government's purposes. And that represents a concerted effort not only to set back any conversation about human rights by at least 70 years, but also to deny the very possibility of government operating on principles other than the consolidation of power.

Which probably suits the Cons' purposes just fine: what better opening to excuse converting our public assets to the use of private actors for political gain, then create a culture of cynicism around any future attempt to rebuild? And it's even debatable whether making the point will be seen as doing the Cons any harm - at least, unless it becomes such widespread public knowledge as to affect Harper in the polls.

But for those of us who actually have some positive ideas as to what government can do to contribute to a more fair society, it's worth putting into context just how much damage the Cons are doing to the basic underpinnings of our political system with their efforts to declare particular individuals to be unworthy of any consideration. And when we recognize exactly how harmful Harper's governing philosophy really is, that should serve as incentive not just to work to replace Harper in power, but also to challenge at every opportunity his effort to focus political debate as far away as possible from the question of what principles we expect out of Canada's government.

(Edit: fixed wording.)