I personally identify as a book reading liberal in the 18th century sense of the word: I like my church and state separate; I prefer constitutions to kings and dictators; I favor the notion of morality not being dictated to me by some infallible priest. I also accept, without any qualification whatsoever, that I have a civic and ethical responsibility to respect my fellow citizens, their life choices, and to preserve a society which embraces diversity. I view social change as a good and not as some sort of disease to be eradicated. I also really, really like watermelon, chocolate, bananas, peanut butter, and music.
It is indeed remarkable how strongly a person will believe X is true based on the slimmest (or even complete lack of ) evidence while at one and the same time deny Y is true that actually has empirical and observational evidence in support of it.
Scholastics were medieval theologians and philosophers who focused their efforts on protecting the teachings of the Catholic Church from being challenged and replaced. They never tested anything empirically. Instead, scholastics emphasized the importance of “revealed truth” in figuring out what was right from what was wrong. This means they relied on God Himself to talk to them and reveal truth to them. The problem with relying on revelation was determining whether God was actually talking to you or you were simply talking to yourself. There was no way to scientifically test where the voice (and ideas) were coming from; it was, after all, quite possible scholastics were just convincing themselves God was inspiring them. Ultimately, scholastics had one purpose—to defend Church teachings from challenges by freedom seeking kings, questioning scientists and troublesome philosophers.
Scholastics relied on not only their inner voice but also the use of logic and deduction.  Deduction is a powerful tool because you can use it to create a big idea from little information. For example, in the 20th century we finally had telescopes powerful enough to look outside of our galaxy. A Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître (1894-1966 CE) was the first to notice galaxies were either tinted blue or red. Thus, he deduced light was cast from these galaxies like sound traveling from a car to a person standing still (as in the Doppler Effect). When a car approaches a person standing still the sound is low but when the car passes by the pitch becomes higher. Light, Lemaître deduced, must also change when it is traveling towards and away from us, i.e. if a galaxy was “blue-shifted” it was flying away from the Milky Way but if it was “red-shifted” then that galaxy was flying towards us. Deduction, as illustrated in the example above, can be quite a powerful tool; however, it is not without its problems.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 CE) was an important scholastic and theologian who was responsible for creating something fancy called the “ontological argument” for the existence of God. The word ontology has Greek roots and is roughly equivalent to the English word necessity. Anselm deduced that it was necessary God exist. He reasoned that he could picture the most perfect and powerful being in his mind. The only way this was possible was if God actually existed (because, Anselm argued, the concept of a God had to point to the object God). In other words, it was necessary God exist because otherwise a concept of this being would not be possible. The problem with Anselm’s argument is it is easily disproven. Another thinker came along about 150 years later named William of Ockham (1285-1347 CE). William, like Anselm, was a theologian and worked for the Church. William, however, unlike Anselm was not made a saint by the Catholic Church. Instead, William was persecuted for doing things like absolutely disproving Anselm’s proof for the existence God. Specifically, William reasoned he could conceive in his mind of the most perfect and powerful unicorn; however, he concluded that just because he had a concept of a unicorn in his mind this didn’t necessarily mean the unicorn actually existed; and that’s the problem with scholasticism, really: it was never based on evidence, it was based on a series of self-reinforcing assumptions about reality.
In the 17th century, the Church was successfully challenged by scientists and philosophers. Science represented a new way of looking at the world. The scholastics looked at the world spiritually; they explained the word spiritually. Scientists looked at the world materialistically and explained physical reality by appealing to laws of nature rather than to a God pulling strings behind the scenes. Scientists didn’t rely on revealed truth like scholastics; rather, they literally tested their assumptions against physical reality; it was the work of early scientists, like Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 CE) and Isaac Newton (1643-1727 CE), who nudged science in the direction of finding patterns in nature; and from these patterns they developed laws like the Law of Gravity, the Law of Planetary Motion and the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Church was also challenged by modern philosophy because philosophers like Rene Descartes (1596-1650 CE) and John Locke (1632-1704 CE) encouraged people to “doubt systematically.” When someone doubts systematically they ask a series of questions, and conduct a series of logical tests, to determine whether or not a belief is valid or if it is fallacious. The best philosophers, like Descartes and Locke, also used scientific knowledge to inform their thinking. This is because intellectuals were more focused on finding patterns in nature, patterns in human societies, etc. and from these drawing conclusions about their meaning and significance. Scholastics, on the other hand, started with the meaning and significance and then explained what they saw.
Humanist philosophers used logic and deduction, as well. However, while scholastics designed arguments simply to defend Church teachings and authority, humanists were motivated out of a genuine desired to describe and understand truth for its own sake. This doesn’t mean humanists did not believe in God; on the contrary, virtually every humanist, scientist and philosopher during the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment periods believed in God. God wasn’t in question. The Church’s doctrines, teachings and authority were; and the Catholic Church’s authority gradually grew weaker and weaker over time.
 Testing something empirically means testing it by means of observation or experience rather than through theory or pure logic.
 When we only have a little bit of information we use deduction to work from what little we do know to create a larger picture. The problem with this approach is it requires a lot of imagination and basically no testing or experimentation. Aristotle, for example, used deduction to explain why objects “fell” downwards. He didn’t appeal to the existence of gravity but instead deduced it is in the nature of an object to “want” to fall down. The strange thing about thinkers before the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution is they believed objects actually had intentionality, e.g. magnets were explained as not being attracted due to a force called magnetism but that they had “souls” that sought one another out.
Canada’s is one of the most progressive and tolerant societies (and is arguably the world’s only genuinely multicultural country). Yet, Canada’s greatest political achievement isn’t multiculturalism, tolerance or providing equal protection for every citizen under the law. Arguably what makes the country truly unique is the role political restraint has played in the country’s evolution (especially compared to other countries). More often than not, governments resort to first to violence and more diplomatic methods a distant second; this reflects the high priority governments place on maintaining public order and preventing chaos.
Historically speaking, citizens actually expect governments to resort to violence. In 1524 tens of thousands of German peasants rose up demanding democratic reforms; they knew the German aristocracy would crush them eventually and crush them they did, i.e. after a year of bloodshed over 300,000 German peasants were killed. In 2011 tens of thousands of Egyptian protesters occupied Cairo’s famed Tahrir Square protesting the corruption of Egypt’s dictator Hosni Mubarak. Mubarek ordered troops to fire on the protesters killing 13 people. Within a month of the killings, Mubarak was removed from power and a new government was established in Egypt.
Regardless of either region or century, governments appear to deal with disagreement the same way: the government does something they should or shouldn’t do; peasants, plebeians, serfs or citizens gather to protest (sometimes peacefully, sometimes violently); and then the government “cracks down.” Even Canada has at times followed this pattern: for example, in 1917 thousands of French Canadians protested the Canadian Government going back on its promise not to introduce conscription (forced military service). The Canadian Government brought in conscription to meet its military obligations in Europe during the Great War. Subsequent protests in Quebec grew violent lasting several weeks. Thousands of soldiers were deployed and once the dust settled dozens were injured and five people dead; or more recently, in 1999 students in British Columbia peacefully protested an APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) meeting; they were pepper sprayed by the RCMP with little to no warning. In the 1830s and 40s it was not uncommon for armed members of the Orange Order to beat, chase off and even kill French Canadiens trying to cast votes during elections. Members of Canada’s colonial elite—who often belonged to the Orange Order—felt entitled to use violence to maintain their privileged position (believing themselves ethnically, linguistically and culturally superior to French Catholics). The lesson all of these events teach is governments tend to worry first about maintaining order as opposed to meeting to the immediate demands of the citizenry.
Despite the French-English tension in those early days, Canada eventually overcame ethnic division and in so doing broke this pattern of violence; that is, Canada has developed a society that greatly values ethics like fairness and political restraint while downplaying the importance of the raw exercise of power. By contrast the United States (and every other country) continues ordering its society on the basis of race and power. Race was so central to the American identity and psyche the country almost destroyed itself in a bloody civil war (1862-1865) fought largely to end the practice of slavery. Although the Civil War ended in 1865, America strangely continues struggling with unresolved issues around race in the present day. Canada is not perfect (not by a longshot); however, even a quick glance at American news sites reveals significant differences between American and Canadian attitudes towards race, religion and ethnicity. American politician Michelle Bachman publicly observed African-Americans fared better under slavery; and more recently, during an exit poll following the 2016 presidential election approximately 20% of President Donald Trump’s supporters literally acknowledged they believed Abraham Lincoln should not have freed the slaves (a further 10% were undecided on the issue). So, while Canada is not immune to the occasional expression of violence, interactions between the Canadian People and its government are for the most part diplomatic and “restrained.”
The Swiss-French Enlightenment philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau once observed human beings are born free but everywhere they are in chains. The chains Rousseau spoke of were in one sense real and in another sense imaginary: the chains were real in the sense that in order to live in society people necessarily had to give up some of their freedom, i.e. President Abraham Lincoln argued perfect liberty for the wolves (the elite) meant death to the lambs (everyone else); thus, reasonable limits had to be imposed on personal freedom. In terms of imaginary chains—and that’s what they are, imaginary—when people believe their tribe is best—a tribe based on either race, ethnicity, gender, or religion—they naturally exclude others; and in the process of exclusion, society repeats the same tired pattern of the strong devouring the weak accompanied by all the racism and dysfunction that continues plaguing humanity (preventing it from progressing and enjoying peace). For several reasons Canada has either already overcome, or is currently working to overcome, balancing the interests of the powerful and the weak while also dealing constructively with racism. Yet, before any of this was possible old patterns of behavior had to be broken; the temptation to use violence to solve social problems (or get rid of social complexity and diversity) had to be resisted and overcome; and someone had to emerge to break the mould showing us a new way of organizing ourselves and looking at the world.
Well, as it turns out two people—Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine (a French Canadien) and Robert Baldwin (an English Canadian)—emerged in the 1830s who successfully challenged the expectations of their respective tribes setting Canada on its present course away from violence towards peace and compromise.
 Political restraint is exercised when a government remains unemotional and moderate. For example, government alone has the authority to order the army to fire upon protestors. Historically speaking, violence is used more often than not to restore law and order; however, using violence never solves the underlying cause of the public’s frustration. On the other hand, restraint (or deliberately avoiding violence) creates a space where government and protesters can actually talk to and work with one another to solve problems. In the case of Canada in the 1849, the government had every right to fire upon the English elite who were violently protesting a bill designed to compensate French Canadiens for property damage and loss during the 1837 Rebellion in Lower Canada; however, firing on the English mob would have created martyrs for future protesters to rally around and would simply escalate the situation. Thus, the government passed the Rebellion Losses Bill into law and used strategic patience to outwait the protestors. In so doing, they established that the rule of law and reason—and not the power of the mob—would determine what path Canada would follow.
 The Orange Order was composed of Irish, Scottish and English Protestants. From the early 19th century, members proudly defended Protestantism and Canada’s British heritage. The Order had a strong influence in politics, particularly at the municipal level (town councils) and developed a reputation for sectarian violence (directed usually at Catholics and Jews) and rioting.
 For the sake of accuracy it should be noted that there is still a great deal of need for improvements between white people and First Nations; moreover, many Euro-Canadians hold some “complicated” views towards Muslims and Islam.
 In 2017, a man broke into a mosque in Quebec City opening fire killing six people.
 Canadians tend to value consensus building and compromise. The spirit of compromise is strong among Canadians who typically place greater value on the public good over individual interest. By contrast Americans typically value individual interest over the public good. Michael Adams, Could it happen here?: Canada in the age of Trump and Brexit (Toronto: Simon & Schuster Canada, 2017), 148.
My American friend Lane wondered why Canada turned out so different than the United States. While conducting some research for a Canadian Studies class I teach, I came across the following paragraph explaining why Canada followed the direction it did (despite forces pushing it in other directions):
“What was revolutionary in Canada was not so much the arrival of democracy at its conception. Democracy arrived as a broad program of social, political, economic, and administrative policies consciously and intellectually designed to bring together opposing religions, languages and races. What was radical was the idea that a fair democracy could be based not on a definition of race as an expression of a nation state, but on what today we would call diversity; fairness was the key to diversity and diversity to fairness. The second revolutionary fact was that the Canadian movement was based on the rigorous use of political restraint, precisely the opposite of reform and revolutionary movements in Europe (1848) and the United States (1776-1783). Third, the reform movement here would manage to hold on to power while the others collapsed” (Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine & Robert Baldwin by John Raulston Saul (p.5-6)).
Canada’s English elite in 1848 genuinely believed in the importance of a race-based authoritarian form of government (dominated by the English minority); however, two leaders emerged–Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine (a Quebec politician) and Robert Baldwin (from Ontario)–who challenged the notion we had to live in two solitudes or warring tribes by bringing French and English together; these two men faced considerable pressure to give into the temptation to use violence to advance their political vision for the country; nevertheless, they had the courage and foresight to support, unequivocally, a principle of fairness where all of Canada’s stakeholders (relative to the 1840s) were given equal security under the law; and they created a country (and political process) where people were willing to make decisions based on one another’s opinions and well-being instead of one’s origins or tribe.
LaFontaine and Baldwin are my heros. The world needs more of Canada.
Btw, LaFontaine was Canada’s first prime minister (pre-Confederation).
Martin Luther King Jr. observed he’d (and the civil rights movement) placed too much hope in white people, in that, after some freedoms had been won and initial progress made they abandoned African Americans. King argued white people were more concerned about stability than justice.
I’m a white dude. I also consider(ed) myself a moderate. I contemplated King’s words and I wonder: am I part of the problem? By wanting to just introduce piece-meal reform of the existing system, am I actually getting in the way of something better?
I’m not entirely sure how to answer this. I definitely wouldn’t prefer living under some sort of communist system; I’ll take class systems and freedom of mobility over that every time. But I’m not exactly in favor of an economic system that pools so much wealth into so few hands that it actually contributes to political instability and human suffering.
So, what exactly do we replace capitalism with? Capitalism lite? I like Hedges because he identifies the symptoms of what’s wrong. But, man, where are the people who can genuinely articulate what we can replace the extant system with? And what would prevent that system from simply being dominated by some sort of elite eventually?
I just want people to be free, happy and secure. What political system allows us to achieve that? Democracy and the rule of law are definitely great steps towards this. Hmmm. Maybe reforming the existing system, meaningfully, can achieve some semblance of a more equitable, just society?