I used to have this political science professor who, notwithstanding his long tenure and distinguished scholarship, insisted on teaching the Intro to Poli Sci course to new freshmen every autumn. Other than that, his course load consisted exclusively of senior-level and graduate seminars.
Every year, he'd walk into the lecture hall, peer out over the sea of fresh-faced suckers and launch into his lecture: "Politics is all about the art of compromise and takes place in the realm of the possible. It's ugly, it's dirty and quite often, it's amoral. If you believe it's about ideology, right and wrong, good deeds and social justice, I'd suggest you leave now and change your major to philosophy. You have until the next class to decide."
And then he'd leave. End of lecture.
It was his version of shock and awe. It was also a reasonably good way to winnow down the freshman class. He wasn't above arguing about the ideological underpinnings of political parties and historical movements, he just didn't want anybody to have any illusions about the real work of politics.
If more of the voters of British Columbia had taken his class, we'd probably have an NDP government this week. I'm not suggesting that's necessarily a good thing, I'm just making an observation.
This was an election where, frankly, I felt I didn't really have a horse in the race. I couldn't countenance the Liberals. They have, over the past 12 years, been duplicitous and underhanded. Their dishonesty undermined one of the few good policies they actually implemented, the HST. Slipping it in through the back door shortly after an election during which they said they had no intention of doing so doomed it to failure. It's the way they ran, cutting sweet deals that had the effect of simply transferring wealth to their business partners, putting a price on everything and generally trailing a bad smell behind them.
But I was under no illusions about the ability of the NDP to run the province. The party lacks depth, is financially naïve, would have zero working relationship with Ottawa under the Supreme Leader's regime, and was stuck with a leader who displayed few leadership skills and all the charisma of a bowl of cold oatmeal.
If ever there was an election where spoiling one's ballot or voting for "None of the above" seemed reasonable, this may have been the one.
The problem though is that too many people didn't spoil their ballot — they wasted it. They wasted it because they never learned the lesson my prof taught all his first-year students in that abbreviated first lecture. They wasted it because they voted their ideology. They wasted it because they voted their heart. They wasted it because they don't have a clue how the game of politics is played. And it won't be the last time they waste it.
Politics isn't like the Olympics. There isn't a gold, silver and bronze medal winner. There is a winner. If you're not the winner you are the loser. With the exception of a single riding — over which much fanfare was wasted — everyone who voted Green is wearing the big "L"; they're losers.
Oh, I'm sorry. Does that seem harsh? Does that offend some delicate sensibilities? Did voting Green make you feel... pure? Loser.
"I voted for what I believed in," was a rationalization heard too often by Green voters after last week's election. Congratulations. You believe in losing. You'd rather have someone in power who shares none of your beliefs rather than compromise and vote for someone who shares most of them, albeit with less purity. That's rational.
In case you haven't been paying attention for, oh, the past several decades, we are living in a fairly polarized society. Polarization, I've decided, is a legacy of the Baby Boomers. Having ignored the lessons of Thomas Harris' I'm Okay; You're Okay, boomers have led their lives more along the lines of I'm Okay; What makes you think you matter... at least if you don't agree with me. And, unfortunately, we've passed along a mutation of that philosophy, leavened with the illusion of self-esteem, to subsequent generations for whom purity of essence isn't just a punchline from Dr. Strangelove.
One of the hallmarks of polarization is duality: left and right, conservative and progressive, blue and red, yin and yang. In a polarized society, the pie is divided into two pieces: my way and your way, me and you, us and them.
Why is this important? Well, this is where math, fractions actually, come into it. If you take a pie and cut it in half, you have two pieces. If there are two people who, coincidentally, believe in different things and don't really much like each other, each has half a pie. If a third person bellies up to the feast, one of two things are going to happen.
Perhaps each of the other two will give that third person some of their pie. This is what you might call the Pie in the Sky outcome. You'd call it that because the chances of it happening are slim, as will be the third person waiting for pie that never comes. That's because that third person tends align more or less with one or the other person. Such is the nature of polarization.
The more likely outcome is the person most closely aligned with our hypothetical third person will, either willingly or reluctantly, share his or her piece of pie.
So back to math. If two people each has half a pie and one person shares his or her half with someone else, one person will still have half a pie and the other two will each have some fraction less than half.
In the world of politics — particularly our antiquated first-past-the-post system — the person with half the pie will be the winner. The two who split the other half will be the losers. I don't make the rules; I only report them.
There were 12 ridings where the NDP and Green vote combined exceeded the Liberal vote. In some, the Liberal and NDP candidate were close; others, not so close. So if there hadn't been a Green candidate, some Green voters might not have voted. Few would have voted Liberal. Most would have voted NDP and chances are Christy Clark would have been going on vacation... for longer.
Frankly, I don't care if B.C. voters figure this one out. I can live with the outcome and I'm probably better off financially. Meh.
Unfortunately, B.C.'s election foreshadows the next federal election. The Supreme Leader will keep his half of the pie and, unless they decide they'd rather join forces and be the winner, the federal NDP and Liberals will be, once again, Losers.
And that's a much harder outcome to live with.
