Why EWTN reminds me of PEPCO
Where I live, PEPCO is the power company. It is the only power company, and it is synonymous with poor and indifferent service. But there is no real choice. And so it was with my desire to watch the John Paul beatification this weekend – it was EWTN or nothing. And what an appalling experience it was. For a start, there was the “amateur hour” feel it to, with poor quality of broadcasts and annoying hosts that simply do not understand when they should simply shut up and let the liturgy flow.
Far worse were the jarring political tones of Raymond Arroyo, the man who always seems to front these things. He noted in passing the absence of American official representation beyond the ambassador, and wondered why Hillary Clinton was not there. With his famous sense of smugness, he made a passing comment about how this reflects the quality of relations between different American administrations and the Vatican. As we now know, the administration was focused on hunting down Osama Bin Laden at that time. Whether than explains Clinton’s absence or not, I don’t know and I don’t care. It’s ridiculous to even raise this issue. But it has an Arroyo connection. Arroyo, if you recall, is guilty of grave public scandal for defending torture (at least when done by Americans) on what purports to be a Catholic channel. If EWTN is bound to maintain its monopoly over these events, is it too much to ask for a host that doesn’t publicly defy core Catholic teaching on a crucial life issue, in a manner that might lead Cardinal Burke and people who think like Cardinal Burke to deny them communion?
Comments are closed.
If you are referring to the Arroyo interview with Marc Theissen it is false to claim that he, or Theissen, defended torture. In his book Theissen went to some lengths to detail exactly why the Enhanced Interrogations methods in use were not torture under the law. You can disagree with the factual issue of whether such methods were or were not torture, but they did not defend torture per se and to say that they did is false.
This is an incredibly bad argument. It’s very like the Cartesian trap that Anscombe warned about when she talked about consequentialism. Thiessen basicallu says “I declare these things not be torture, and hence they are not”. But this ignores the fact that all of these techniques have long been considered torture under the law, and the US had no issue declaring them torture until they became the instigator. There is an objective moral reality beyond Thiessen’s subjective musings. He ignores the high ranking of torture in the Church’s hierarchy of instrinsic moral evils. And he twists just war teachings in an abominable direction to reach his conclusion.
When you break it down, Thiessen is a run of the mill consequentialist – torture saves lives, therefore it is good (the mental contortions about definitions are just a smokescreen, something that probably helps him sleep better at night).
For Arroyo to give this man a platform, and even worse, to agree with him, is a matter of grave public scandal. It would be exactly like somebody saying abortion is not murder, because the fetus is not really a life. Same issue, same self-delusion, same purpose.
My only point bad argument or not, is that since it is their argument, in fairness, even if only to point out how weak it is, it should have been stated. People can read Theissen’s book and judge themselves if it is persuasive, but there is a distinction between saying “he defends torture” and saying “he defends enhanced interrogation, while denying that it is torture, and that is wrong because……” I think it would have been better to have stated the latter position since when refuting an opponent it makes ones argument stronger if as Aquinas did, we state their position in the strongest possible terms in their favor, before we refute it.
IT’s not a bad argument at all – it deals directly with what you are claiming – that they are guilty of the grave public sin of scandal. In morality, intention matters. They did not intend to defend torture per se. This is different than a Catholic publicly claiming that torture is OK. This is very simple.
If I recall correctly, Thiessen also butchered the principle of double-effect by confusing the unintended second effect with the means used to get to the intended primary effect. Arroyo seemed to agree with this line of thinking, even though this logic opens the flood gates to moral relativism.
Well, even Mark Shea, who spares little in his disregard for Morning’s Minion, agrees in substance about Thiessen and Arroyo. Shall we replay?
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/02/marc-thiessen-professional-torture.html
I was appalled by his swift dismissal of the Mugabe issue, as if it wasn’t important. Perhaps if Mugabe were an abortionist it would have been.
I’ll admit, my free market heart goes pitter pat to hear you say that power company monopolies lead to poor service. ;-)
But I’m a little confused by:
If EWTN is bound to maintain its monopoly over these events, is it too much to ask for a host that doesn’t publicly defy core Catholic teaching on a crucial life issue…?”
Is EWTN doing anything to maintain it’s monopoly on these sort of events, or is it simply that other news venues choose not to carry them? It would seem that part of the cause of your problem is that major networks such as CNN didn’t choose to cover the event (one presumes because they thought not enough people were interested?) in full, and either there isn’t a large enough group of left-leaning Catholics to support a cable channel or no one has shown up to fill that demand despite a sufficient constituency.
Assuming that EWTN isn’t engaged in any particular skull duggery to keep an enforced monopoly on covering papal events, I would imagine that their type of coverage is mostly just a function of what most of the people interested in watching the kind of event are like. I can’t imagine there’s anything keeping us from having Commonweal TV covering the event as well (perhaps with commentary from E. J. Dionne) other than that there’s not enough interest for such an entity to exist.
There is an excellent Catholic channel from Canada – Salt and Light. I wish we could get this in the US.
I’m hopeful for RealCath0lic TV myself.
Yes, Salt & Light does an excellent job. We’re lucky up here.
EWTN also has a history of making sure any competition is dismissed by their viewers, even before the channel is up (as for example, how they treated the Bishops when the Bishops wanted to do a channel). They really need some authority to deal with them properly.
I didn’t know that, Henry. As for authority, they dodged that issue a while back. When Mother Angelica heard about a pending apostolic visitation, she immediately turned the channel over to lay control, and thus beyond episcopal oversight. They knew exactly what they were doing.
This is a EWTN-glorification representation of that history:
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/motherangelica.htm
“It was never easy. Every time Mother Angelica thought she was in the clear, another bishop would raise objections to her venture. Indeed, the bishops tried to outdo her by launching their own effort, the Catholic Telecommunications Network of America (CTNA). It was clear from the beginning that Mother Angelica was seen as a threat: EWTN had a traditional orientation and CTNA took a modernist stance. EWTN won. CTNA collapsed. ”
Of course, as is usual with Bill, the whole “modernist” nonsense is just that — nonsense. Just like so many other claims in the post. But it points out how they (EWTN) saw the Bishops and the Bishops’ attempt to do television: a threat to destroy. And like usual, it points out how EWTN, not the Bishops, has the authority to determine orthodoxy.. funny that.
I guess I’m a little unclear how this threat elimination works. I would assume that if Salt and Light, or CTNA, or what have you came along, Henry and MM and others who want to see it would watch it.
Others who prefer EWTN’s approach to things would watch that.
Odd hold-outs like me would continue not to subscribe to cable at all.
How exactly is it that EWTN keeps other venues from launching?
I’m not saying that other Catholic channels shouldn’t exist — though I’d probably not watch them just like I don’t watch EWTN — I’m just confused as to what exactly EWTN is supposedly doing to quash other channels.
Is the argument that EWTN should be saying, “Hey, there’s this other Catholic network launching, so we strongly encourage you to go watch them and by their tacky commemorative plates instead of ours!”
Maybe I’m off, but I would assume that if EWTN is mostly not to MM’s taste, it’s probably because most Catholics who are interested in watching and supporting a Catholic TV channel in the US are people who think differently from MM and whom MM wouldn’t like. (Kind of like how I might prefer a less left-leaning version of NPR, but NPR’s actual programming is a reflection of the fact that most other people of the sort who listen to and donate to public radio are more left leaning than I am.)
Of course, the good news is that if there is a huge market out there of Catholics who would love to support a Catholic network entirely unlike EWTN, then it should be very easy to launch one. Go for it!
Darwin
I remember watching Mother Angelica ridicule the Bishops for trying to have their own tv station…
That’s arguably kind of rude, but I don’t see how it keep the bishops from having a TV station.
I mean, you might think it’s a waste of time for me to blog, but that doesn’t keep me from doing so. (And by the same token, it would be rather odd of me to complain that you have a monopoly on blogging and therefore you should blog about what I want.)
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to make some sort of defense of EWTN here, even though I do have an over-developed tendency to be contrarian around here. There there are people I like who like EWTN, I have probably watched only a few hours of it in the last 20 years, and all of those were during the coverage of John Paul II’s funeral and the papal conclave (and then just because other channels didn’t have enough coverage.)
So I honestly have no idea if EWTN is any good or not — my beef is just with the claim that they have some sort of monopoly. My belief would tend to be, instead, that either:
- Their programming is reflective of the interests of the majority of Catholics willing to watch and support a cable channel or
- It would be easy to start an alternative because there is a big untapped market for Catholic programming.
I personally suspect the former, but it’s not on a whole lot of evidence, so I could be wrong.
…and either there isn’t a large enough group of left-leaning Catholics to support a cable channel …
There isn’t a large group of right-leaning Catholics supporting EWTN either. Its not the size, its the wealth of the right wing Catholic network that funds these things (excuse me, “successful, productive” Catholics, as opposed to the unsuccessful, unproductive Catholics who work as hotel domestics, school teachers, machinists, janitors, electricans, and public employees).
Raymond Arroyo has always given me the creeps. That’s all I have to say about that.
+1.
Agreed.
So true.
Kinda fey, (or do we say “metrosexual” now?) but not creepy.
Yeah. How come there’s not a liberal Catholic network? I think that’s outrageous. Where’s the liberal Mother Angelica??? Won’t somebody step up to the plate??? ; )
Oh, EWTN (especially Arroyo) does a very good job in trying to align the Church with contemporary American liberalism (and I mean that in the true sense of the word!).
Smart politicians are eager to be seen with rising or at least stable stars. World-wide Catholicism is bleeding membership, moral and political credibility and is rapidly becoming much less influential than it would like the world to believe.
The US will continue to give token attention to Catholicism, but don’t expect fawning, bowing and scraping anymore.
The opera is about over because no one is listening to the proverbial zaftig lady with the crozier – oops, spear.
The great thing about Salt & Light is that the only people who label it left or right, progressive or traditional etc., are those on the very fringes – both fringes. That’s a sign of health to me. The only trouble is that it is the fringe-dwellers who watch the most Catholic TV.
The only trouble is that it is the fringe-dwellers who watch the most Catholic TV.
Bingo.
I think it’s dangerous to compare Catholics with legitimate different opinions on the non-dogmatic question of torture to dissenting on abortion.
To me, it’s pretty clear that if the State as a Body can carry out execution of one of its guilty Members for the good of the whole, or engage in killing for self-defense from another State-Body…it can by the same rights “torture.”
Private individuals can’t, but if the State can induce Death, it can certainly induce pain.
The opposition to torture is not “non-dogmatic”. Just like the teaching on abortion, it is deemed intrinsically ever, and never justified based on circumstance. In the hierarchy of evils, see Gaudium Et Spes, it is listed right up there after murder, genocide, abortion. It is never right, and no Catholic can ever support it.
Semantic: just as all killing is not “murder,” then not all infliction-of-pain is “torture.” Specifically, the State-Body acting on its members in these cases…is a very different situation than the question of private individuals engaging in the choice of harming or inflicting pain as a moral object.
A sinner: this is pettifogging and goes against the intent of the Church. From the USCCB study guide on torture, we see that the Church accepts the UN definition of torture:
“For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
And Pope John Paul II categorically declared torture and intrinsic moral evil that can never be justified. So semantic games like these only serve to blur this truth and rationalize the unacceptable.
Though the fly in that oitment is what constitutes “severe.”
This is not to get into the torture discussion again (that would be severe mental pain.) Rather, there is clearly a line where some pain can be inflicted without it being torture. You can’t on the other hand, kill a little bit.
No, the elimination of a distinction you’re trying to make is one that would also require all infliction-of-death “murder.” And yet, the State has a right to capital punishment theoretically admitted by the Church. If the State can inflict capital punishment and have it not be “murder”…it can certainly inflict corporal punishment and have it not “torture.”
The point you bring up about severity and difference in degree is another showing the inconsistency of a theology against State infliction-of-pain, Phillip.
“Torture” as a moral object would involve choosing ANY sort of harm or pain, of ANY intensity, as a moral object by a private individual. This even includes minor discomfort or whatever. The severity might differentiate between venial and mortal forms of the sin, but it’s all the same basic moral defect.
Whereas, on the other hand, I don’t think the liberal opponents of “torture” on the part of the State would oppose more minor pains and discomfort imposed by the State (and even mental/emotional anguish is; theology does not privilege physical pain for any particular reason). In fact, I’m sure they’d admit in certain circumstances it is the duty of the State to do so.
But if the State can inflict minor pain or discomfort justly in a way that would be a venial sin for a private individual to do…it could also inflict an amount that would be a mortal sin of torture for a private individual. Just as it can inflict death, even though for a private individual this would be murder.
There’s no doubt that there was tension, even animosity, between Mother Angelica with EWTN and the bishops with CTNA. But I don’t believe there is any evidence that Mother Angelica tried to sabotage CTNA or tried to get a monopoly.
I wish we had more Catholic TV.
“…perhaps with commentary from E. J. Dionne”
Of course Dionne, and others, had the ability to comment on the Beatification. Some in this media outlet that is perhaps more to MM’s liking:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/ej-dionne-asks-why-not-john-xxiii
As a Methodist who will be converting to Catholicism soon, I have used this blog as something of an introduction to Catholic social and intellectual culture. To Darwin’s comment on “left-leaning Catholics” supporting their own station, isn’t the point that as Catholics, we are to transcend ideological divides and focus on the truth as taught by the Church? Please educate me on this, but isn’t the idea of right or left wing Catholic blocks antithetical to the idea of a unified spiritual community? I mean this without any snark, I really am trying to learn as much as possible on the various aspects of living as a Catholic in America before I am one.
Charlie
Sadly, there are many Catholics who are more political than Catholic, and they follow the GOP wherever it shall lead them. Thus, anything which doesn’t follow the GOP is suspect and “left” to them. Of course, as you said, this is not as it should be.
Charlie,
Obviously, Catholicism itself is not a thing of the left or the right, and so the Church itself transcends any political divisions.
Further, our American political labels of “left” and “right” fit imperfectly with a lot of religious disputes, and also get applied to cultural attitudes which may or may not adhere to Catholic left/right divisions.
At the strictly political level (which is what I was thinking of in this case when I said “left-leaning”) Catholics can, I think, honestly differ on the best ways to live out political principles in the public sphere, and on which principles (given a highly imperfect set of political options) are better to compromise on.
So for instance, Mornings Minion and I are both strongly against abortion — we both agree with the Church’s teaching about the inherent dignity of human life from the moment of conception. However, MM tends to hold that in the specific conditions present in the modern US, it is unlikely that much progress will be made in banning abortion which it is possible to achieve many other good ends through our politics, and so he tends to be willing to support pro-choice candidates which he otherwise considers good candidates (such as President Obama). I, on the other hand, pretty universally refuse to support pro-choice candidates even when I agree with them on other issues. In the US political environment, this means that I generally support Republicans while MM generally supports Democrats, and given the tensions and animosities of the political arena, we’ll end up having different reactions to political events and personalities. (Example: MM’s annoyance at the EWTN anchor’s digs at the Obama administration in the coverage of who attended the beatification ceremony described in this post.)
Beyond that, there are also issues which cleave fairly right/left in relation to how different Catholics think it best to live out Catholic social teaching in the context of the modern US. These differences are often tied up in differing political and economic views about how the world works and how people respond to incentives. So, for instance, MM tends (I hope I am putting this fairly, and encourage him to correct me if I get it wrong) to believe that the concern for the poor and the powerless in Catholic Social Teaching is best lived out by having a strong regulatory and redistributive power in the state. I, on the other hand, tend to think that when you have a strong centralized power like that, it is invariably captured by those with the most power and moneyed interest, and is used to serve their needs more than the needs of the poor and the weak. So while motivated by the very same CST, I tend to support a much smaller state, than MM would. These different conclusions that the two of us reach while motivated by similar basic principles of CST roughly align to what might be seen as left/right political alignments in the US, and we tend to identify with different parties as a result.
Now, to complicate all this even further, you have further out political affiliations which MM and I would probably both agree are not in keeping with CST, but which some Catholics on the left or on the right identify with. So, for instance, some Catholics on the political right support the use of torture in some situations, and some Catholics on the right support draconian limits on immigration. I think those are both wrong from a Catholic point of view, but because of the natural political affinities of a two party system, you find some people in right leaning Catholic venues supporting those views.
On the other hand, you have some left leaning Catholics (say, among the columnists at National Catholic Reporter or Commonweal) who support causes which are associated with the cultural Left in our country (say, wanting the Church to ordain women as priests, or wanting the Church to recognize same sex marriages as moral) which MM would strongly disagree with.
Now, I don’t think all this means that it’s impossible to have a Catholic media outlet which cuts across political divisions, but except for very general (and often slightly fluffy) venues, that doesn’t seem to happen. So on the right you have publications like This Rock, Crisis, First Things, and National Catholic Register; and on the left you have publications like National Catholic Reporter and Commonweal.
I’m not a TV watcher, but I gather that EWTN (like most of the Catholic radio stations) is in the Rightist camp, and it sounds like there isn’t really a left-leaning TV or radio presence. (My theory would be this is mostly for lack of sufficient demand among those who would actually watch a religious TV station, but perhaps I’m wrong.)
It would be nice to see a venue such as a TV station stake out a broad Catholic stance in which views truly unfaithful to Catholic teaching on either the left or the right would be considered out of bound, but faithful Catholic expressions on either the left or right (and spirituality of the modern or traditional variety) would be welcome, but I suspect that such a venture would quickly founder over people on both sides wanting to kick each other out as not being within the bounds of Catholic thought.
I hope that helps, and doesn’t seem too discouraging as you prepare to join the Church. Like all families, we have our quarrels.
Charlie writes, “isn’t the idea of right or left wing Catholic blocks antithetical to the idea of a unified spiritual community?”
Certainly the ideal is that we all be of one heart and mind. But at the same time, we are allowed to disagree on things. The labels that people apply to groups of people, are really describing the opinions and outlook of those people. And again, we are allowed to have varying opinions and outlooks. The Church is not a monolith.
Where I would agree with you, is that Catholics should always disagree charitably, and should always attribute the best possible motives to those they disagree with. What I consider un-Catholic is when people assume the worst motives in those they disagree with, rather than the best; for example saying that those on “the right” don’t care about the poor, or those on “the left” don’t care about the unborn; or that those on whichever side of the aisle care more about their politics than the Faith.
The last one is usually arrived at by the following chain of reasoning:
A. These people belong to a certain Party.
B. The Party’s position on issue X is opposed to Church teaching.
C. Therefore these people care more about the Party than the Church.
But there may be other reasons why the person belongs to the Party other than the Party’s position on issue X.
In short, it’s not the differing factions in the Church that are the problem. It’s uncharitable attitudes towards those with whom we disagree that fosters disunity.
As I said earlier, Mother Angelica handed over EWTN to lay control to forestall an impending apostolic visitation that almost certainly would have insisted on big changes. It was a cynical ploy to maintain an overtly political stance at odds with a huge chunk of Catholic social teaching.
You may know more about this than I, but wasn’t the source of her dust-up with the bishops (which led to her handing the network over to lay control in order to avoid being told how to run the station) over her criticisms of specific bishops mostly in relation to liturgical and theological issues? For instance, I recall she and Cardinal Mahony had an extended sand kicking match over her criticisms of his pastoral letter on the Eucharist, which she said distorted a Catholic understanding of the Real Presence.
Darwin
That happened LONG after the collapse of the Bishop’s network. She saw them as a rival, and worked hard to make sure her following would do what it takes to have the network go down. As can be seen through the triumphalistic vision offered by Bill, it was portrayed as traditional orthodoxy vs modernist heretics. And her attack on the bishop’s letter showed how wrong she was theologically on so many levels.
Fair enough, though I guess I remain unclear what exactly it is that she did, other than attract more of an audience. (I tried to google around a bit on the CTNA, but it’s old enough news I was having trouble finding much on it other than Donohue’s rant.) I assume if the bishops wanted to have their own station, they could do so with no problem. The USCCB is, after all, a pretty large and well funded organization compared to EWTN.
On the other hand, I would assume that EWTN’s work isn’t considered entirely out of the acceptable range by the Church since Pope Benedict XVI apparently conferred a “Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice” award on Mother Angelica and the chairman of the EWTN board in 2009.
Perhaps the variant reactions here are also related to differences in governing philosophy, to the extent that I’m saying, “If there’s a desire for other types of Catholic channel, let’s have several so all needs are met,” while it seems like the other approach is more, “We don’t like EWTN, let’s make it behave differently.”
“she worked hard to make sure her following would do what it takes to have the network go down.”
How, exactly?
The USCCB is, after all, a pretty large and well funded organization compared to EWTN.
My understanding is that USCCB’s funding is paltry and has few or no direct donors others than dues paid for by the dioceses.
On the other hand, I would assume that EWTN’s work isn’t considered entirely out of the acceptable range by the Church since Pope Benedict XVI apparently conferred a “Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice” award on Mother Angelica and the chairman of the EWTN board in 2009.
And contrary to anti-Catholic tracts, the Holy See is not that well funded either. But certainly among those awarded the “Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice” are those who are helpful to the Holy Father in making sure he has the resources to carry out the Petrine Ministry.
MM writes, “As I said earlier, Mother Angelica handed over EWTN to lay control to forestall an impending apostolic visitation that almost certainly would have insisted on big changes. It was a cynical ploy to maintain an overtly political stance at odds with a huge chunk of Catholic social teaching.”
I watch EWTN not daily, but several times a month, usually for 15 minutes or so while eating breakfast, or when something interesting comes on while channel-flipping. I think the vast majority of their programming is apolitical. Granted, Arroyo is a conservative and makes no bones about it. But his is a commentary show, and besides he’s not their whole lineup.
As far as the “cynical ploy”, first of all I think that’s the kind of uncharitable construction of the actions of people with whom you disagree, that fosters disunity in the Church. And second, I wonder, if the majority of bishops were what is commonly referred to as traditional/conservative rather than progressive/liberal, and there were a progressive/liberal-leaning Catholic network, and it transferred itself to lay control to avoid “correction” by the traditional/conservative bishops, if you would view that as equally cynical. And not, rather, excuse it as being necessary to avoid the forceful imposition of “rigid conservatism” on the network.
Personally, I send my kids to a Catholic school which was founded by parents due to dissatisfaction with the level of devotion and orthodoxy of most dicocesan schools. It’s a wonderful place and my kids have thrived there, in contrast with the way they languished in the atmosphere of their former diocesan school. So, I believe that due to the human imperfections of bishops and diocesan structures, it’s often both necessary and beneficial to be independent of the them, to be free to pursue your intended vision.
Besides, if the bishops themselves have not accused EWTN of having wrongdoing (have they?), I’m not sure why we should.
HK writes, “She saw them as a rival, and worked hard to make sure her following would do what it takes to have the network go down.”
But… but… was it their specific actions that cause the network to “go down”? If so what, exactly, did her “following” actually DO?
VNTV?
Like!
A lot of good news recently. Pope’s beatification, the Canadian elections and Osama’s burial all within about 24 hours. Amazing stuff.
I’ll give you the beatification, and even the burial (as opposed to the execution), but I’d like to know more about what’s so good about the Canadian elections. We had historically low voter turnout (3rd lowest ever) and a radical polarization in the house (not that our centre party was a centre party in reality anyways).
Brett writes, “… a radical polarization in the house (not that our centre party was a centre party in reality anyways).”
I have noticed that when conservatives win it always causes “division”. ; )
Now that I think of it, they said the same thing when the Pope was elected. My boss, who is Jewish (but not observant), literally said that to me: “Wouldn’t it have been better to elect someone who could bring people together?”
What he really meant, of course, was “Wouldn’t it have been better to elect someone who would not insist on strict orthodoxy?” As if strict orthodoxy is not something Catholics can “come together” on.
Brett,
I’m intrigued. So if not the Conservative majority, what outcome would you have preferred or think is best? A Liberal majority, or an NDP majority, or perhaps another minority government with either Conservative, Liberal, or NDP at the head?
(I realize this is off-topic, so feel free to disregard, if you like.)
Well, it wasn’t simply a conservative majority. It was a conservative majority with 40% of the vote while the far left finally surpassed the moderate left and became official opposition. That looks like division to me. Add to that the fact that the moderate left and the far left combined outnumber the conservatives in popular vote if not in seats and you’ve got a relatively unsatisfied populace. I think it is only going to lead to more and more division as Canadian politics becomes more and more American in style.
As to my preference, I wish they’d all lose. But since that’s not possible I would have at least liked to see folks like Szabo and McTeague keep their seats. Those kind (thoughtful, pro-life centrists) are always the first to go when things polarize.
Brett,
There’s always been division in Canadian politics. It’s practically the definition of Canadian politics. You don’t think Western Canada was unsatisfied for years when the Liberals retained the majority of seats with only 40% of the popular vote? Or what about when every english-Canadian was unsatisfied when the Bloc could obtain Her Majesty’s Official Opposition with a miniscule amount of the popular vote? Canadian politics is so quirky, there is always division.
But in this election, it you consider the numbers just for English-speaking Canada, the conservatives almost have a majority of the popular vote. It’s Quebec that skews the numbers towards the left. So considering only English Canada, this may be a more “unified” populace than there has been for quite some time. Now add Quebec, and I admit, you’ve got a division. But Quebec has always been an anomaly. In this election, Quebecers voted for the NDP instead of the Bloc and the Liberals, I guess because Layton was an exciting change. If Layton doesn’t live up to his promised goodies for Quebec, I’d guess Quebecers would change back to the Bloc or to the Liberals. So I don’t think the NDP’s win is an indication that the far left is growing — it’s just that Quebecers, who are always far left regardless of who they vote for, consolidated their votes on the NDP, but could change their mind next election.
Anyways, it doesn’t look to me as a growing “right vs. left” division, as much as a division of “English Canada that at the moment tends conservative at least economically vs. Quebec that tends very left both socially and economically”. (I think pro-life issues and other social conservative issues are dead in Canada. I’ve got no hope for the conservatives actually doing something, so I’m surprised to hear that you have faith in pro-life Liberal MPs.)
Well, they did manage to get Bob Rae’s insistence that our foreign aid include abortion killed. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall at the Liberals next caucus meeting after that one. If you’re right, however, that social issues are to be written off in Canada, there seems hardly any reason for a Catholic to celebrate a Conservative victory. I’m glad they’ll be less forceful about indoctrinating my children, but there’s not much to like beyond that.
As for the rest of it, I think you have a plausible explanation on your hands. The thing is that we’re really gonna have to wait 4 years and see if this NDP in Quebec thing has staying power or not. It may be too soon to judge whether this is part of a long-term pattern or just a blip.
I don’t know of Raymond Arroyo’s torture comments however I do find his tone to be a mix of smug and strident. He annoys me greatly — to the point that he distracts me from the core of whatever he is reporting.