I’ve been listening for weeks now as Liberals defend their party as though theft was simply a policy issue to debate on its merits – a small part of a larger, more important national picture, sometimes marketed as the Greater Good[tm].
These Liberals seem to genuinely believe that systematic dishonesty is just a point of disagreement for which a sensible compromise could be found, if only both sides would be civil.
“Compromise” is defined by Websters in this way:
“An amicable agreement between parties in controversy, to settle their differences by mutual concessions. “
Well, therein lies the rub. Conservatives aren’t wired the same way as you Liberals. As we are so often reminded, we tend to view the world in terms of “black and white”.
This Ayn Rand quote is illustrative of this uniquely conservative character flaw, the unreasonably rigid fixation on notions of right and wrong as though they are, you know – meaningful.
“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.”
Stupid woman. Rand should have known that so-called “poison” can be ingested safely if dosage remains within limits of toxicity. Lives are saved through chemotherapy every day by the very pharmaceuticals that would kill you instantly if administered in overdose. The grey area between safety and toxicity is scientific fact – a property of every chemical substance on earth, with the exception of agricultural pesticides, growth hormones and fertilizers.
Still, hard wired as the conservative that I am, I can’t help myself. I can’t quite resolve a middle ground between good and evil. While on some intellectual level I’m sure I know better – I cannot shake the belief that beaurocratic corruption is an institutional character fault so grave that it should disqualify those afflicted from any position of power. In the case of the Liberal Party of Canada, I believe the party should be deregistered. I know this is harsh, but that’s how I think. Black. White. Crime. Punishment.
It’s not as though the question of corruption remains in dispute. An announced $750,000 trust fund indicates that Mr. Martin’s Liberals have moved past denial and presumption of innocence, and have entered the plea bargain phase.
While I acknowledge this is progress of a sort, in the greater scope of events, it’s pretty clear that my outdated “conservative” definition of justice, a justice that includes punishment, will not be realized. Having admitted guilt, there will be no penalty outside of “community service”.
The Liberal Party will not only continue to exist, they shall continue to govern and enjoy the privilage of stealing from me for the greater good.
So, to my fellow moderate, mainstream, compromising Liberal Canadian citizens so tolerant of the mischievious ways of our political masters – today I concede.
You win. I lose. You are right. I was wrong. You were always right, and I was always wrong.
Having broken the shackles of black and white, I’m ready to venture into this brave new ethical world of “Grey” and work with you. I can’t say I understand it, but nonetheless – it’s time to adapt.
As my first step, as a show of good faith, I’ve arranged a compromise with you. We will find a middle ground between “honesty” and “dishonesty”, a happy litlle grey parking spot between “respect for property” and “systematic theft”.
In my previous life in the world of black and white, “fairness” would demand participation of two consenting negotiators to arrive at “mutual concession’. I’m glad we can dispense with that outdated notion.
I’m going to play by your rules. Just as I had no place at the table when you were conceding the fundamental honour and integrity of the political system I must live under, you’ll surely understand this compromise that I have chosen for you.
You get to keep your Liberal Party and then some – you may also keep your Liberal government in perpetuity.
Easy? Easy.
In exchange I am going to impose a similar system of institutionalized theft on you, but in a more streamlined version. (Some conservative habits die hard) .
While your political party is stealing my money to fund their own election campaigns and in turn, reward their supporters (which would be you and the others who vote for them), in my parallel system, we’ve cut out the middleman.
I’ve made a deal with your bank. They have agreed to allow me, at the time of my choosing, to dip into your personal account and take a few dollars when I need them. Or alternately, when I want them. It’s nothing to get worried about, because the amounts I take will be such a tiny percentage of the bank’s overall holdings.
I won’t be telling you when I’ll be accessing your account, how much I’m going to take or how I will spend it. (I negotiated that, too.)
Because this is a democracy, you will have the right to complain just as much as you wish – so long as you remain civil. No anger allowed, because I really am uncomfortable – distrustful really – of angry people. They scare me.
If the tone of your complaint meets with my approval, I will go back to the bank and we shall sit down and discuss your grievance. The process will be completely democratic. You may watch and you can comment, and you will even cast a vote. You, me and the banker all cast votes.
Majority rules.
Then, after the majority has ruled, I’ll admit that maybe I took some of your money, look you straight in the eye and tell you I’m very, very sorry about the mess and give you my solemn pledge – let me be very, very clear about this – not to steal from your personal account until next time.
Then, I’ll instruct your banker to increase your account fees. We shall then distribute the extra revenues to the bank accounts of your like-minded mainstream Liberal Canadian friends.
They, in turn, will remind you that we do not live in a world of black and white.