Good News Stories Provide A Counterweight To Bad News Stories
My political action, or my theory (insomuch as I can be said to have one) can be expressed very simply: create counterweights.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Tens of thousands of airplanes successfully land and take off without incident at major Canadian airports every year. There were significantly fewer traffic accidents in North America during the past five years. The Prime Minister shoved a protester today. A celebrity actor was arrested at the airport for illicit drug possession.
Which news story is likely to be reported heavily in the newspapers and blogs? Which ones will attract the most attention from readers? It is a good time to be alive, but one unfortunate aspect of today’s times is that we live in an age of instant entertainment and political correctness, in which bad news is reported more frequently than good news and in which people are quick to judge and criticize others. We give our political leaders a hard time, demanding instant solutions to difficult and complex problems, criticizing them often and rarely praising them. If you were to examine snapshots taken of a senior career politician from his/her first election to the present, you would probably see an individual who has aged significantly more than most people in their demographic cohort, not unlike the photo timelines of petty criminals that the police sometimes show at anti-drug workshops.
Part of the problem is the good news story is often less exciting and more difficult to uncover. However, that does not mean it is impossible to uncover. Stephen Marche credits former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s decision to halt proposed bank mergers for preventing the ravages of the recent economic meltdown from doing serious harm to our economy. History has vindicated former Manitoba Premier Duff Roblin who was roundly criticized at the time for his Red River floodway. Nor do these quiet victory stories have to be about politicians. Lorraine Sommerfeld talks in her column about a plucky and resourceful teenager and concludes by telling young people that those good deeds are still valuable and worth performing even when they are not reported.
One of the purposes of my blog is to create a counterweight to the endless bad news stories by exploring some of the fascinating and exciting aspects of politics and the quiet victories enjoyed by those involved in government. That does not mean I will be a toady to politicians. I would not want to live in a society in which the authorities are never criticized, and it is part of my job as a political blogger to criticize. However, I will criticize when appropriate and without mindless cynicism. I would like to conclude by quoting a great journalist whose unflinching criticisms and relentless probing served as a counterweight to the fawning deference to authority in his era: good night and good luck!
Related posts:
- H1N1 + Government + News Media = Stupid Monkey Award of the Week Flu virus in this line only, inoculations line closed! Honestly,...
Tags: Media, news, politicians
Loading ...
October 19th, 2009 at 4:24 am
One thing begs to be asked: when politicians supposedly do good things is it by their initiative or is it by the actions of their subordinates, constituents, scientists, e.t.c. with politicians getting credit because they are spokespersons and our media is too incompetent to look deeper? As for balancing scales – that, as Mr. Trudeau knew being a lawyer himself, is the job of lawyers and judges. Good legislation (of which Trudeau’s constitution is not) does not try to meet the interests of all parties. Instead, good legislation does, what Mr. Martin’s did, and actively opposes the interests of one group in favor of a majority benefit. Martin’s actions, in respects to bank mergers, were not, however, his own personal suggestion but were the product of several sub-committees charged with evaluating long-term economic crisis and their effects on the Canadian Economy in the event of natural disaster or war. Mr. Martin, who had little if anything to do with these committees, as I believe they were set up at the request of his deputy minister (I am fuzzy on the details), was the convenient spokesperson.
Your other example, Duff’s ditch, was the recommendation of, and later the personal project of Dr. Templeton the Engineer who brought that project into being. Duff’s ditch, was given that moniker for no other reason that to the public it looked as though Duff had initiated it. Dr. Templeton’s work, however, had started under the previous premier – Campbell. Duff did, I suppose, authorize the funds (in a populist way – exploiting a natural disaster and making it sound like he was the only one who would have or could have built it – even though earlier projects had been launched by a different provincial government on the Fraser River in BC). Really do you credit your mortgage broker every time you buy a house? I see nothing wrong in reporting the good politicians do, and I agree it is harder than you think to find the good they do, just that when you are reporting be sure that you indeed are reporting the good THAT THEY THEMSELVES DO and not the good that others do and that they then supplant and attach their own names to.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I would like to thank Mr. Martin for his comments. It is true that politicians sometimes get credit for the work of others. Trudeau admitted this, but pointed out that they are also blamed for things that are not their fault. However, you stretch this argument too far. Is it reasonable to expect Premier Roblin to be an expert in construction, engineering and weather patterns? Is it reasonable for Paul Martin not to get credit for making prudent decisions that were influenced by people he appointed and/or evaluated? We elect our politicians to make wise decisions. Yes, they do read reports, study issues and sometimes have specialized knowledge, but it is not reasonable to expect them to initiate everything because they can’t be experts in everything.
Travis Martin’s interpretation of the theory of counterweights was also a touch erroneous. Strictly speaking, it is not about balancing scales which by the way is not just performed by judges and lawyers. Balancing scales is performed by people from all walks of life. Canada has a long tradition of brokerage politics, which is a form of balancing scales, and has been embraced by all political parties due to the wide diversity in the country. And like others I believe brokerage politics has served the country reasonably well. Moreover, the theory of counterweights is more about mitigating, but not eliminating trends in society and government. If a trend grows too strong it threatens freedom and the public’s welfare. Sometimes government action curtails the trend; sometimes the public or individuals do this. For example, high taxes and high deficits allowed Mike Harris to become Premier. Many felt that the trend of excessive government spending had to be curtailed. However, his cutting of taxes and of spending became too brutal according to the interpretation of some, and his policies had to be mitigatd and as a result the tories were thrown out of office.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:24 am
The problem of course with “counterweights”, as you use there term for albeit difference reasons than I, is two fold. First it assumes a reactionary electorate – which is not always the case but further worse than that it is really a post hoc interpretation of loose trends and facts (precisely why political science is incapable of being a science). The Harris example, case in point: it is easy to say that overspending is why he was elected. It is easy to find and even create a poll to say so, but that doesn’t really mean anything. The color of his hair, religion, his age all could also have been factors. There are just too many factors to go running about proposing causal mechanisms. Yet such drab and uninteresting exercises are the exclusive domain of the political “sciences” and the verbose and those who wish to appear as if they are in control or understand who are comforted by such easy fictions. The other problem with counterweights, other than the fact that you can use any set of facts you want to support this infinitely regressive tautology, (a fact by the way that should exclude it from academic discourse) is the unproven assumption that a balanced scale, or one that gently rocks back and forth is a good thing. One could equally argue that such a state of affairs is a lack of direction or change – sad and mediocre if you will. This is also a view that comes with strings attached by merit of logic – strings that I don’t think most users of the term “counterweights” would except if they thought about what it meant to or try to balance scales. First, it would imply that radicalism is deviant.
Second that to every radicalism there will be an equal and opposite anti-radicalism. This is again a system of interpretation imposed upon history and this narrow type of scholarship is quite dangerous indeed. The status quo shines through here though and since buzz words like seeking balance are considered liberal and trendy on campuses then this is considered a good thesis to adopt. The problem with describing the polices of others as needing mitigating is that you end up with a strange result where there is so much compromise water-down that a truly good idea is squelched – radical as it is. Mitigation is not usually a good thing. The term itself was originally negative. I will concede that our politics have been dominated by this trend and believe in it (without evidence that this is a good thing). we certainly have a country to show for it, near American levels of low government service at high, near European levels of taxation. Sad, sick, and highly inefficient. no wonder Voter turn out is so low and Canadians are increasingly skeptical. Mitigation, you see, has eroded our political will to the point that it is hard to find Canadians who believe in their political parties, knowing full well that what they promise will be mitigated and watered down as part of a bid to stay in power and to gain it again later.
Cheers
October 21st, 2009 at 10:43 am
It is encouraging to see increased engagement with this most excellent site. It is encouraging to see fact checking and differing viewpoints.
Mr Martin, you don’t get to call anyone else “verbose”. What is your idea of a “good thing”? This would make your assertions easier to grasp, agree with and/or answer.
That said would not adhering to one dominant idea “eliminate” others, as Mr Tulloch already mentioned? Is that better than “mitigation”?
Mr Tulloch, I think (as long as you lay out your reasoning, which I trust you will continue to do) that a blog dedicated to political positives is an excellent idea. The discussion it generates will clearly be a step off of the beaten path.