Existential Liberalism and the Republic of Canada: A Manifesto of Moderation

By Master R. Nelson Haas

When he left graduate school, R. Nelson Haas dreamed of changing political theory and Canadian politics for the better. However, this dream was cut short by his mysterious and untimely death. At the time, Haas was putting the finishing touches on his now-infamous manifesto of moderation, Existential Liberalism and the Republic of Canada. His death robbed the world of a true political hero and prevented the official release of his book, leaving only a few bootleg editions of Existential Liberalism to circulate through the literary black market.

Now, for the first time in recorded history, the complete, unaltered, unabridged, definitive edition of Haass magnum opus is available to fans and foes alike. Translated by Edward Coke, and featuring a fully researched introduction and afterword by the esteemed British editor Robert Von Stricker-Beresford, PhD, FRS, OBI, this new edition of Existential Liberalism and the Republic of Canada offers an in-depth critique and reappraisal of liberal theory along with a new model for the Canadian constitution. This edition also sheds new light on what really happened to Haas on that fateful night in Hamilton in 2010, including addressing the rumors of the involvement of the Existential Serial Killer.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Nov 15, 2011
• ISBN: 9781462056637

Master R. Nelson Haas

R. Nelson Haas, BA, MA, BM, BC, NLS, was one of the greatest and most profound thinkers to emerge from the Village of West Bloor, in the wilds of southern Ontario. Haas received a MA from McMaster University, where he was forced to scientifically assess politics, rather than study it. His burning youth was cut short by his mysterious death in late 2010, possibly at the hands of the ESK Killer.

Book preview

Copyright © 2011 Master R. Nelson Haas

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any Web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4620-5662-0 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4620-5664-4 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-4620-5663-7 (e)

Printed in the United States of America

iUniverse rev. date: 11/07/2011

Contents

Part the 1st

Chapter I

Chapter II

Chapter III

Chapter IV

Chapter V

Book 2

Chapter VI

Chapter VII

Chapter VIII

Chapter IX

Chapter X

Chapter XI

Chapter XII

Volume 3

Chapter XIII

Chapter XIV

Chapter XV

Chapter XVI

Chapter XVII

Chapter XVIII

Chapter XIX

Chapter XX

Chapter XXI

Opuscule Four

Chapter XXII

Conclusion

Afterword

References

Disclaimer

Some readers may not share my sense of humour.

Additional Disclaimer

To my friends and family, I’m not serious. Relax. To everyone else, I’m totally serious, and I am a gigantic asshole. Start your letter writing now …

To the Right Honourable Denis Bevington; Mayor Emeritus, Businessman;

To the Right Honourable Larry Bagnell, BA, BSc,

My Lords, I unpretendingly offer up this meagre outpouring of my pathetic soul, as it is the best I can do. If God has bestowed me with greater talent,

this work would be much more deserving of your attentions.

I am Your most Humble Servant,

R. Nel. Haas

To Lauren Lee Smith,

This is how much I love you. Your beauty is eternal. My love for you will never die, evidenced by this work of love and my dedication of it to you, with the utmost respect and correctitude.

Darling, I hope this is enough, for it’s all I can do.

I am Your most Humble Servant,

R. Nel. Haas

Dedication for the Canadian Edition:

To Jessica Pare,

This is how much I love you. Your beauty is eternal. My love for you will never die, evidenced by this work of love and my dedication of it to you, with the utmost respect and correctitude. Darling, I hope this is enough, for it’s all I can do.

I am Your most Humble Servant

R. Nel. Haas

Dedication for the British Edition:

To Rebecca Hall,

This is how much I love you. Your beauty is eternal. My love for you will never die, evidenced by this work of love, and my dedication of it to you, with the utmost respect and correctitude. Darling, I hope this is enough, for it’s all I can do.

I am Your most Humble Servant

R. Nel. Haas

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my family: my lovely wife, Brenda Newton Von Stricker-Beresford; my kids Robert, Glenda, and Owen; and my relatives. My assistant, Jenna, for her tireless devotion, especially all those late nights at the AGO. A special mention goes out to Constable Sugars McNutts of the RCMP, who procured the ESK killer’s diary for inclusion in this work. Constable McNutts deserves many accolades for his far-sighted view that the truth is more important than the concerns of an individual court or the feelings of individual victims. Obviously, I owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Edward Coke and his masterful translation. However, any mistakes are his and his alone.

—R. Von Stricker-Beresford

First, I would like to thank Mr. Von Stricker-Beresford for including me in this fascinating and rewarding project. I would also like to thank my lovely wife, Constance; the Grand Old Party for keeping the faith; and the Family Coalition Party for keeping the faith in this wreck of a country … and Jenna, of course. And thanks to you, dear reader, provided you paid for your copy. If you stole it or borrowed it from that embodiment of communism, the public library system, or downloaded it like some used trashy record, then I don’t thank you. Shame! Shame!

—E. Coke

[Hass was so presumptuous as to write his own acknowledgements before finishing.—Ed.]

Thanks, firstly, to my wonderful and supportive parents, David, Leslie, Margaret, and Steve, for all their emotional and financial support and encouragement. This would not have been possible without them. Thanks to my readers, Ellen Hrivnak and Derek Maisonville, who devoted their time and energy to the earliest—and by far the roughest—draft of this book. Thanks to all my friends I’ve ever bounced ideas off of, especially Michael Jamal and Ben Reason, who have had to listen to more crap than you can possibly imagine. And most of all, thanks to Mary Newberry, my editor, who provided not only editorial advice but unflinching enthusiasm and support and help navigating the wonderful world of publishing.

—R. Nelson Haas

Foreword

The Preface, As It Were

Existential Liberalism and the Republic of Canada by R. Nelson Hass is one of the more neglected embodiments of the political theory alternatively called liberal existentialism and existential liberalism (in common parlance sometimes labelled actualism, a name Hass himself detested), which seeks to free liberal theory from its traditional constraints. Though not yet as supremely influential, this theory, in time, and perhaps even Hass’s own contribution, will become widely known and discussed at the highest levels. To date, Hass’s work has only been severely misunderstood by a radical fringe from the political theory underground claiming to have a monopoly on the interpretation of his teachings. It is my object to bring this work into the mainstream, and eventually the masses, where it is desperately required. Through this tome, the reader may position himself ahead of the current intellectual fads. Besides, one is unlikely to discover another defence as sincere, if not as clear, of existential liberal position anywhere.

The thrust of Existential Liberalism is obscured, no doubt, because Hass never finished his work. This at least partially accounts for the numerous failed—and unofficial—interpretations we have seen in the past. The sheer number of these unauthorized bootleg editions has further confused matters. However, we have endeavoured to present the definitive version of this oft misunderstood treatise, and I believe we have succeeded. Hass spent years thinking and writing, and this final version has been pieced together from the numerous computer files, notebooks, napkins and post-it notes scattered throughout his apartment, his car, and on his corpse. Hass was a prolific and tangential writer, but through blood and sweat, we have assembled the truest representation of what he, no doubt, would view as the final definitive version of his thought.

Existential Liberalism is an amalgamation of a couple failed attempts at other books: the PhD thesis he never wrote, a critique of Robert Nozick’s own critique of Rawls’s A Theory of Justice from a psychological perspective, formed the original basis for the text. His failed politics-for-dummies attempt—unceremoniously rejected by John Wiley & Sons—in which he sought to translate academic jargon into lay language, also played a key role. The rejection was no doubt due to Hass’s arbitrary unwillingness to define some of his terms. In addition to these two works, an unpublished pamphlet on the Canadian political system was also cut and pasted into the body. For a brief biography of the author, please see <http://rileyhaas.wordpress.com/appendices/about-the-author/>.

The final text is illuminated and improved by my own notes, as well as Edward Coke’s and Hass’s own notes, left as footnotes wherever I couldn’t satisfactorily add them to the body of the text. I made this decision in order to repair the possibly deliberate misinformation of earlier editions. The work attempts to combine Hass’s take on liberal theory, as modified by Hass’s version of existentialism, with the numerous institutional and policy reforms he came up with or read about throughout his life. According to Hass, this combination made some kind of intuitive sense to him, which we can only guess at.

Despite the obvious drawbacks of critical theory¹, Hass believed this concept had something to add to his work, if only the beginning. Critical theory seeks to understand thought, action, and the like through examining the context (both social and personal) of the thinker, actor, etc. From critical theory, he took the lesson that his ideas were at least partially products of structures, processes, and the like. The problem is he couldn’t really claim he was right in any absolute terms. I assert he was indeed correct. I believe the proof is in my dedication to this project, as I would not have donated such a large amount of my life to resurrecting his work had I not been fully convinced by his ideas.

Hass’s conception of critical theory has actually diffused into the common population—there is always more than one side to every story being the most obvious example. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, with the opinion being no more right than anyone else’s. The implicit meaning is each of our opinions are relative. This is also an attitude of most postmodernists (derogatively referred to by Hass, in one of his numerous inconsistencies, as posties).² But what he took from this conception was that he, as an individual, had opinions like everyone else. These opinions of his, though they may be from his head, are products, at least to a certain degree, of the society around him, of his upbringing, and the like. Any claim of objectivity on his part,³ therefore, is hiding or glossing over this fact.

No matter at what moment we begin our reflection, we are already thrown into the world, we are molded by experience and compelled to express ourselves in a language we have not invented. However far we might go, or imagine we have gone, in hunting [for] the perfectly unprejudiced … beginning of knowledge, we will always be in the middle of the road. There is no absolutely transparent distances … between us and the world. (Kolakowski 1990, 134)

No matter what one claims, none of us can be sufficiently removed from the world to be truly objective. Therefore, he made no claims to objectivity, at least the kind of objectivity embodied in someone forming opinions from an Archimedean point. He did, however, claim his opinions as legitimate. But these ideas are more than legitimate. I might go so far as to say they are the culmination of hundreds of years of liberal thinking, but I will stay modest and let time bear out my convictions.

Hass’s self-doubt is the true reason why he begins the body of his work with an apology. He hoped it would add more weight and merit to his main arguments, as well as allowing for a greater empathy from his readers. It was his hope people wouldn’t reject him outright because of his age or his lack of qualifications or his decidedly unacademic style. This idea had its genesis in a book about genetically modified foods, of all things, which he read while living in exile in Australia. The author listed his biases and called it his apology. We have been unable to uncover the name of the book. This is why he sought to apologize.

Personally, I think hiding behind a wall called objectivity in the realm of political theory (or any of the humanities⁴) is pretentious, and dishonest. Better for me to tell you what I am (as far as I can figure)⁵ and how I’ve come about (as far as I can remember) before I tell you anything else. This way you know whether you can trust me or not. And if you are absolutely outraged by everything I say, you can at least blame society, and my parents, rather than me. Obviously I had no role in any of this. I is just an abstraction with no basis in reality; it’s used to represent the social processes and institutions that created this work. Obviously.

This tone appears now and again in his writings.

Before he died, Hass arranged the book into roughly four parts: the aforementioned apology, the two liberal existentialism parts, the institutional reform part, and a confused final section on international relations. Finally, there is his conclusion or what he completed of it—as he was obviously writing this book in sequence, as every author does. Despite the nature of some of these chapters, we have preserved the authenticity and integrity of his thought by presenting whole thing, wrinkles and all. Time will show this to be a wise decision.

As Hass himself admits, most of the ideas are far from new. Hass was writing at a time after the liberal tradition had supposedly peaked in the work of John Rawls, making it difficult for anyone to create anything new. However, his synthesis of these ideas is, in my opinion, unique; and the value of the reiteration of these seemingly old ideas lies in this uniqueness. There is further value within as the proposed institutional reforms, which also are not new on their own, represent a new form of government for Canada when considered in toto. The beauty is in the synthesis.

For his theory, Hass copied the postmodernist liberal Rorty, only somewhat deliberately (although he claims to have read Rorty after coming up with his theory, this is not so, as he was assigned Rorty during his master’s degree, before he wrote the book). He relies a great deal on a twentieth-century thinker Hannah Arendt, whom he obscurely calls the Philosopher, and on another existentialist, Camus. These and others represent the stronger current in his thought at the time of his death, as the aforementioned libertarian stream (represented, for him, by Robert Nozick and Frederick Hayek) had moved to the background. Hass’s neglect of the liberal tradition in the form of Locke, Mill, and others stems primarily of widespread familiarity with their interpretation of liberal ideas. He felt it was unnecessary to discuss them specifically, and instead he refers to their ideas as liberal without making too much of their contributions.

Hass also relied, to an extent, on biology and psychology in order to make his work more scientific. He wasn’t trained in either discipline, but nevertheless, he undertook them to incorporate such ideas into his theory. Hass rejected the extremes of psychology and instead sought to combine both systemic and social psychology (Zimbardo) with behavioural analysis (Frankl). Obviously this could never work. With biology, he was far less ambitious, relying on the outdated and controversial theories of one lone biologist (Lorenz).

For his institutional reforms, the sources are much more scattered and scattershot. Everything from the Greeks to Hume to the latest developments in apportionment theory apparently had something to offer. Hass picked and chose, with little obvious rhyme or reason, though on closer inspection there is a direct causal relationship between the arguments in the theory section and these institutional reforms.

It is Hass’s existential liberalism that should be the main focus here. Previous bootleg editions have failed to emphasize this strain. His theory of existential liberalism is arguably his main contribution, helping to establish liberal ideas beyond metaphysics as a compliment to Rorty’s work. This theory is important because we, as a society, need political ideas for the here and now. We need ideas that do not promise the impossible. If there is any universal message in this book, that is it. The institutional reforms are for Canada and are therefore only relevant to Canadians (and there aren’t many of them). For the rest of the world, the merit lies in the pure theory, a theory for today and for the future.

R. Nelson Hass died under mysterious circumstances on a Monday. We will never know what he might have accomplished had he lived longer. Rumours abounded as to the cause of his death, for the autopsy has long been kept private. Many believed he finally succumbed to his protracted struggle with female hysteria. Others thought he was a victim of karmic contagion. However, it is my distinct privilege to reveal the real truth of the matter, never before made public until the publication of this work. The introduction is not the place to reveal this information, however. It will be revealed in due course, with all due gravitas.

The final product is probably more due to my effort than to Hass’s. From the multiple drafts and edits of drafts and the notes scattered about in his slum in downtown Hamilton and his run-down car and from a few choice external sources, I have created a book, which is a very much a patchwork, a literary pudding as it were, that I feel best represents the thought of Hass at the time of his death. I have been greatly assisted in this effort by my translator, Mr. Edward Coke, but the final product is mostly of my own efforts. It may seem strange or dangerous to edit an author so out of touch with his time. I took on this project against the advice of my critics and my colleagues, and with dauntless effort and determination I have prevailed. The proof, as they say, is in the quilt.

—Robert Von Stricker-Beresford,

Coote’s Paradise, June 2011

Translator’s Note

A Note on the Translation

The text you have before is the result of hours of work. I have tried to strike a fine balance between preserving the authenticity of Haas’s style while allowing for the greatest understanding by the reader. In so doing, I have left some odd turns of phrase in place while eliminating others. This may seem arbitrary, but I assure you all decisions were arrived at from the most rigorous and traditional of processes. I attended the John Dryden Institute of Translation in London, and my credentials are impeccable. This tome should really be read in its original English, but for those who have never bothered to learn another language, I present the most accurate translation available. Existential Liberalism and the Republic of Canada stands up against the armchair academic ox turd of lefties, pinkos, and especially liberals. Its publication is a new victory in the long campaign to bring our countries and our word back to the era of free enterprise, personal responsibility, and right conduct. I hope you will join us on the crusade.

Sincerely,

Edward Coke

Crooks Hollow, June 2011

Introduction

Wherein the Author Introduces the Work

Until the late-nineteenth / early-twentieth century, political theory, and philosophy on the whole, was entirely concerned with a distinction between existence and essence, where existence was the mundane world of the every day and essence was the pure, true reality beyond the veil of existence, which was to be striven for as the goal to all (or most) philosophical and theoretical inquiry. Though seemingly only of concern to academics, this distinction has had a profound impact on world history. The quest for essence is essentially the search for perfection. In an imperfect world, such a quest is, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, incredibly dangerous. This quest has led to some improvements in the human condition but also to numerous acts of organized mass murder. Over the last 200 years or so, some philosophers and theorists—some existentialists, some pragmatists, some postmodernists—have come to reject this distinction between existence and essence as arbitrary and totally unnatural. It is only through the acknowledgment of the priority of existence and the rejection of essence as something meaningful that human beings can attempt to improve our lot.

This work is concerned with political theory, specifically what we might call liberal theory and how that theory relates to our wonderful country of Canada. Though the theory is generally abstract and not tied down to a certain time and place, my concern is definitely with a certain time and place, and so I am attempting to apply the ideas of political theory to our country, in the hopes of participating in (and influencing) the general discussion of where Canada may be going in the next little while. The first step, of course, is to restore the actual borders of this nation—to include Alaska and Greenland and Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, which were snatched away from us when we were weak. This is a must for any truly successful administration.

Political theory, in general, is a theory about politics. Politics has been defined as many, many, many things. My personal favourite definitions are politics is conflict, politics is the art of the possible, and politics is the … art of solving substantial problems (Schlesinger).⁶ All of these relate to power relationships. These first two help us to define the realm of politics, at least very generally. If politics is conflict, then it is pretty much life (unless You’re a hermit … but then how did You come across this book?). Perhaps that is too broad, but I think we can all think of political issues in our private lives. At some point, this concept of the political comes into conflict with the concept of the social as well, but let’s not worry about that. We’ll use them synonymously and piss some people off. If politics is the art of the possible, then it is also life. I guess what I am getting at is political situations are nearly everywhere; when we have society, we have some form of politics, formal or otherwise (the Philosopher would disagree).

Traditionally, politics has been seen as some kind of means to an end. But it isn’t a means—it merely is (the Philosopher). Life is political. In order to understand it, however, we need to think about it theoretically. To speak about politics, or any other aspect of life, theoretically necessarily involves abstraction; and that’s why the quest for essence has played such a part in political theory and in philosophy in general.

The Philosopher’s fundamental insights into the issues of our times are unsurpassed in my humble opinion. Her understanding of the importance of events and trends is second to none. She is difficult. She refuses to tell you what to do about our problems in any specific way. She merely articulates these problems better than virtually anyone else and leaves them for you to solve, as if to say, You too (the reader) must begin something. Though some consider her a postie, and she was greatly influence by Marx, she is extremely out of fashion with young, hip, radical leftists, because she was a conservative. Also, she banged a Nazi. Being a Jew herself, that bothered some people.

Political theory is distinct from political philosophy to many, but to me, they are pretty synonymous. Political theory is about what kind of politics we can or should have, depending on what type of political theory we are talking about. Though nobody wants to take it as a course in university, it is very, very important. Without theory, we really don’t have a plan. I have learned from experience that plans are very useful and valuable tools.

There are, broadly speaking, two of types of political theory: normative theory and explanatory theory. Normative theory, which is what I mostly studied in school—mostly—concerns the what, in the most general, the why, the ought, and their like. What kind of state is possible or desirable? Why is it desirable? What form of government should we have? Or in our case, what kind of government should Canada have, if any? Why? Questions like these are the domain of normative theory.

Then there is explanatory theory. This is concerned with more particular what questions in the sense of classifications, as well as the how, as is indicated by the name explanatory. What kind of government is this? What kind of institution is this? How did it arise? How can we implement this form of government again in another time and place? How can we actually improve this government? For our purposes, the questions can be more specific: What specific governmental institutions can Canada have? How would we go about changing our current ones to new ones? Since this book presents an argument about a better Canadian government, we are mostly concerned with normative theory—mostly—though explanatory theory also plays a part.

These two kinds of theory are usually separated in academia, but they are not mutually exclusive. In our political studies / science departments in Canada, normative theory is its own subdepartment, while explanatory theory is divided betwixt the other subdepartments: comparative politics, policy studies, and international relations.⁷ Each of these has their own theory sections, which are usually under the rubric of explanatory theory. This distinction strikes me as arbitrary, so I will arbitrarily abandon it.

First I am dealing with a purely normative political theory issue: the metaphysical basis for most political theory. The second issue is more concrete but still normative: what is the best we can do with existential political theory? Then I am dealing with a more applied series of questions, which are still normative: what specific institutions do we, as a country, need to implement this type of government? Explanatory theory can tell us what to avoid and what has worked, but it can’t really tell us what we should aim at.

This tome You’re holding is separated into four parts, more or less. The first part concerns the nature of our world and the nature of most political theory. It begins with a general apology that is of no fundamental importance and is extremely boring. It is only worthwhile to read if You are interested in me. And how could You not be? But if You aren’t, then there is no reason to read it. It is merely a summation of my biases. It is my attempt to placate concerns about my arguments and their grounding in science, reason, and objectivity. The intention is hopefully to create empathy on Your part. The rest of this section is a critique of traditional political theory as being far too philosophical. Perhaps that’s a little obscure, but that’s why You need to read this part! Up with the rest of the first part!

The second part concerns some of the fundamental issues all political societies must address—the basic questions essentially. It is not structured in any reasonable way; instead it is based chronologically on the way my beliefs advanced from statism to anarchism⁸ to the healthy, moderate, sane views I now hold. This makes it easier for me. I have no idea what kind of effect it will have on the reader. Parts I and II are sort of two sides to the same coin, but I have separated them for reasons of structural integrity.

The third part concerns the application of the ideas of parts I and II to Canada (or an idealized version of Canada that should exist, which immigrants keep from materializing) and various practical and not so practical considerations that result from such an application. That is the only part that’s really worth anyone’s time, because I actually try to be practical. I know that this is an amazing proposition, but there it is.

There is a fourth distinct part, and that concerns additional possible applications, as well as what you should do with this book in case you don’t agree with me.⁹ But it is up for grabs. It may not actually be mine, in that I might have stolen it, or it might not be worthwhile or anything like that. On the whole, it is very, very mysterious.

Finally, there is a general conclusion that will satisfy no one and answer no questions. It is based exactly on the structure of this introduction and thereby makes everything come full circle. The book ends as it begins. This book, like everything, is cyclical. Just because it is called the conclusion doesn’t mean You should stop reading. You should start over. It’s like those albums where the first lyric of the album is also the last.

In this day and age, some may wonder why I would write a book about the nation-state, specifically a minor one (that thinks it’s major) like Canada. Well, until the nation-state no longer exists, or has only de jure existence, it is still important. Moreover, in many countries, such as our own, the federal government is the most important level of government, as it influences all other levels below it. We can talk all we want about globalization, but at the moment, the Canadian federal government has more of an impact on the lives of Canadians than the United Nations or Walmart. People can proclaim the death of the nation-state all they want, but these states still fight wars against each other, they still make treaties, and they still tax and jail their citizens. Until this changes, we need to keep talking about politics and political theory at the national level.

We are constantly hearing about the problems with Canada: apathy amongst us youngsters, Western alienation, a democratic deficit, yada, yada, yada. Whatever the answer is, it entails a drastic change of our structure of government. Why? First, the party that seems to constantly inhabit government has absolutely no interest in changing anything about our system. It works for them, and it has worked for them, by and large, since Federation.¹⁰ So we get the occasional eight years of another party, and nobody thinks about even minor reforms. Is this healthy? Absolutely not. The other parties may indeed suggest changes, but these seem to me to be nothing more than minor reforms. If someone is handicapped, they won’t get better when we apply first aid. Proportional representation, to take but the most popular example, will not sufficiently alter the system to fix our problems. Furthermore, we have no idea whether these parties would indeed proceed with their reforms. And since I don’t like the reforms suggested, I don’t really see a solution here. Cynic that I am, I think that once another party succeeds at toppling the Liberals, I think this party (be it Conservatives, NDP, Bloc, or whomever) will then see all the virtues of our current system and want to preserve it …

And then it happened. Like I was some prophetic seer of the myths of old …

Right after I wrote the above paragraph, the Conservatives did one or two interesting things with their first cabinet,¹¹ though they did them badly, and then they continued as all parties should. They maintained the status quo. So really nothing happened. For a second, it looked like something would. But I digress …

Now, one may say that if we can’t rely on the parties to change things, then we can’t change the government. I will address that at the very end of all this nonsense. In the meantime, I have to say that I don’t think the parties will make any significant reforms, and moreover, I don’t think any of these reforms will fix the problems we experience. What I seek to do is to construct a regime (for lack of a better word, but I mean a series of institutions) that allows for more participation by the public at large (or at least those citizens who want to participate) while avoiding the perils of a direct democracy. I hope that I will be able to explain why I think both of these things are necessary. I don’t mean to suggest that my solution is the only one or is even a temporary fix. I am putting it out there because I want to contribute to the debate about Canadian government, and I want to inspire others to do so as well (more than likely by pissing them off …). I doubt I will succeed, but it’s worth a shot, right?

We have to defend liberal democracy from both the left and the right, not just from and to the young, but also from and to the old. We have to defend it from those who think that it is somehow the embodiment of a particular class or group interest, particularly the interests of westerners or white people or capitalists … or Western white capitalists, and we have to defend it from those who think that liberal democracy is morally bankrupt, particularly from fundamentalist religions, both Islamic and Christian, and Straussian, of course. Various groups on the left, usually younger folks, think liberal democracy is too Western and not open to equally valuable traditions—not democratic enough because of the representatives it uses or just a facade for capitalist machinations or, worse, some evil combination of all three: it is the embodiment of the Western antidemocratic capitalist upper class. Muslim fundamentalists see liberal democracy as permitting too much vice and extravagance, and so do many Christians, though they may target different issues. The Christians, at least the prominent ones, tend to be older; but that is far from exclusive. I was going to blame the old for this problem. Then I remembered all those young, rabid fundamentalists all around the world. But the old indoctrinated them. So they’re still responsible. The gist of this paragraph is that the old and young are to blame, and those of us in the middle are the defenders of the good.

The fundamentalists fail to see that all governments are not classifiable as morally good or morally bad in and of itself.¹² I would definitely argue that there have been some truly terrible governments, but I doubt many would argue that there was ever some kind of truly good government in the sense that the fundamentalists think there can be.¹³ It’s easy to find competition for an absolute bad or evil but hard for the opposite.¹⁴ The radicals fail to see that capitalism is a necessary evil, they fail to see the limits of our humanness, and they fail to see that even though liberal democracy is a Western tradition, this does not make it automatically bankrupt. It is a simple truth that great political theory has traditionally always come from the West. I am not being culturally chauvinist when I say that. The East may have gotten many things right that we didn’t, but political theory is not one of those things. (This does not mean that people from the East cannot now contribute to political theory; it just means we shouldn’t be looking to traditional Eastern philosophy for our political ideas.)

That is, as it were, the intro proper. If You would like to better understand the reasons for this whole mess, please investigate the next part of the book. If not, please skip ahead to the theory section, in parts I and I, and gorge Yourself on the many intellectual candies therein. If you can’t handle the sweet stuff , then maybe you should just skip to part III. I’m kidding. Maybe.

Part the 1st

On the Nature of the World

Before we can establish any kind of political theory, we need a theory, or assumptions anyway, about the world. We need this because the basic concepts of political theory, the basic concepts of any so-called social science, rest on basic assumptions about the world. So that’s what this part is about. It’s about my basic assumptions and getting You to agree with them. This could be problematic, as Canada is such a diverse country that many, if not most, of the people in it might disagree with many of my basic assumptions. First, I offer an apology as to my biases entering into this enterprise. Second, I do my best to lay out what I think of the world we live in. This is more in the realm of philosophy, and the political ramifications of these chapters might not be readily apparent. But know this, gentle reader! If You read the whole book, You will find out why I spend so much time on these preliminaries. But only if You read the whole book, You understand.

The thing to learn is to know what people are thinking about, not what they say.

—Sherwood Anderson

Ontario

Tuesday

I’m on the road, I’ve left, I won’t be back for weeks or months, but it doesn’t feel like I’m going anywhere. I’m not nervous. I have a huge adventure ahead of me and I don’t feel like I’ve started. I think it’s because I’ve been on this road many many times in my life. It’s not as familiar to me as the 400, but the 401 between Toronto and Montreal, and especially between Toronto and Kingston, is something I’ve traveled so many times I couldn’t even count. And I’m staying with a friend in Montreal. So there’s nothing new about this. I’ve been to Kingston at least once a year, often multiple times a year, most of my life. I’ve been to Montreal many times. The friend is a good friend from school. This is not new. I wonder when it’s going to feel new. I guess when I begin for Quebec City, a place I have never been …

The car is a problem. I don’t know how long it will last. It has stalled on me a few times; the ‘check engine’ light is on all the time. I would have bought a new car for this trip but I didn’t have the money. It was the mission or the car, and the mission won, obviously.

I have to be in Happy Valley-Goose Bay by Sunday to make my ferry. It’s Tuesday now. Isn’t that crazy? What was I thinking?

To many, Montreal is special. But to me it’s just another city. I’ve never gotten the ‘appeal’ or the ‘Europeaness’ that people supposedly see. All I can think of is bad driving, bad roads, and ‘French’ cab drivers pretending they’ve never heard of Westmount. Americans and some Canadians seem to think it’s ‘European’ – Bah. Like any major city, it’s too big. It’s got lots of parts that aren’t great. It may have more character than Toronto, but that isn’t saying much. I’ve actually felt the language barrier in Montreal as acutely as I have in Sherbrooke, which is unexpected. I just don’t see the charm. I’m not trying to imply Montreal is a bad place; it’s just overrated.

Chapter I

The Apology

Of the Quality of Our Esteemed Author

To write a book is for all the world like humming a song—be but it in tune with yourself … ’tis no matter how high or how low you take it.

—Laurence Stern

I never knew, and never shall know, a worse man than myself.

—Henry David Thoreau

Allow me to introduce myself: my name is Phillip Quarles. Actually, it’s Nellie. But You can call me Phillip if You’d like. None of my friends call me Phillip. But You can. You’re special. That’s why I capitalized the letter Y. Because I’m talking to You and only You. You’re a special person. But then You already knew that. And You wouldn’t be reading this book if You weren’t aware of it.

I apologize! I apologize for being. I am a human being. I was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in the fall of 1981, for better or worse. Therefore, I guess I am a Canadian, an Ontarian, and a reluctant Torontonian. I had two and then four parents. I am white but of no specific European background. My family can backdate its time on this continent, via some branches, to the mid-1700s. My ancestors are northern European on both sides. My mom is Canadian, though it would be better for my purposes if she had been English.¹⁵ My dad was American. My mom was what might be called left of centre. My dad was, at least at the time, what might be called right of centre. We could call this