The Human Condition: Liberty politics

By Daniel Schnee on September 14, 2022.

To people of a certain age this last week has been rather dramatic. To think we now live in an era where we will be witnessing the reign of King Charles III rather than Queen Elizabeth II is astounding… as it was a day that felt so far in the future to me as a child that it might never have arrived.

The Queen has always been on the back of my money, and it feels practically unnatural to think she will inevitably be replaced there.

But this has been a time of great change in my life for many other reasons as well. I am now very much middle aged, my young relatives are now adults, the list of my triumphs and tragedies grows ever longer, and a populist is the leader of my political party. Maybe it was to be, as we have always adopted certain cultural trends. But I had fervently hoped we would not arrive at the dawning of “Liberty Politics” in Canada, as formulated by Pierre Poilievre and/or certain influential American politicians before him.

Liberty politics (as I define them) are any system of single-issue governance sold to the electorate as a method of avoiding certain levels of substance, in this case simplified into a single word: freedom.

Freedom from what, who or where is mostly irrelevant, as it is ephemeral, changing from moment to moment. It is in fact so simple that actual policy is not even necessary, as long as some vague desire for liberation arises within the voter. Thus, when I see Poilievre challenge Justin Trudeau I see an effort to create an emotional resonance, rather than sound energy policy for example. It harkens to a feeling of revolution, not evolution. This is dangerous, because revolution is an act of faith: you sell faith restored (or faith renewed) in a system of politics, so you undermine faith in what came before. Thus, narratives of blind faith become our roadmaps, no matter what the actual truth is.

For example, we all know the story of American patriot Paul Revere and his famous effort to warn his fellow colonists. In fact, there was a series of riders spreading out on horseback to warn of the British advance (a significant number of them being women). A lone brave patriot seeking to resist the British sells the idea of liberty in a neat package, devoid of fact or nuance. Specific unfair taxation led to the colonists dumping tea in the Boston harbour. This type of story is then co-opted by politicians of Poilievre’s ilk as a metaphor for how all of Trudeau taxation is bad (i.e., “tyranny”). The American colonists fought against an objectively repressive monarchy. Liberty politics are highly subjective; they agitate the populace to benefit the agitator(s). As liberty politicking would have us believe, faith in our institutions is bad, but faith in those who destroy institutions is good.

So, at the start of this new era in Britain and Canada I think – apropos the situation – it is right-minded to say, ‘God save our new King’. But if Pierre Poilievre proceeds with his demagoguery as presented, then God might have to save the rest of us as well. Poilievre is stoking the flames of change. Let us hope he is not a pyromaniac.

Dr. Daniel Schnee is an anthropologist and jazz/rock drummer

9
-8