New Book



$21.95 hardcover · 224 pages
9978-1594037641-January 2015


The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing -- and that could mean democracy is failing.

This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface -- not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.    


Good Reading

Charlie Hebdo - It's a War of the Gods!

Here is the full text of this article, as published on last Sunday


"I'd rather die standing, than live on my knees"

            That 2012 statement by Stéphane Charbonnier, Editor of the satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo, was a compelling battle cry, and the tragic murder of him, his staffers, and two policemen in Paris on January 7th guaranteed its place in the modern democratic liturgy. He was willing to die a martyr for the sacred principle of "free speech," and he did.

            The flurry of media response has been anguished and, it must be said, ambivalent as to what should be our response. So although there is no doubt we are engaged in a war of terror, it may be time to risk some deeper questions. Such as: Do we adequately understand the theological roots of Islamism, let alone those of democracy? Is it really true that free speech is one of our sacred and "fundamental" principles? And if so, why do we charge citizens with "hate crimes" for speaking freely against such things as abortion, gay marriage, and multiculturalism, yet so passionately defend their right to ridicule Mohammad? The clash of principles voiced on both sides suggests we are engaged in a modern version of a very old confrontation between two incompatible theologies: a sacred religion called "Islamism", and a secular belief system we nonetheless consider sacred, called "democracy".

          A poster carried in the million-plus march in Paris said it all: "Our freedom is greater than your faith." It's a war of gods.

          Democracy now has very little to do with the old Judeo-Christian God, and even less to do with God's will. Indeed, we insist on the "separation" of democratic life from God and religion. But it has everything to do with co-opting the full force of God's will and repackaging it as a pure and sacred "will of the people." Indeed, during its early modern period, the right to democracy was everywhere defended in the phrase Vox Populi, Vox Dei ("the voice of the people is the voice of God"). Freedom, for us, means following the god of our own will. The right we call "free speech" is an indispensable aspect of that freedom, for the reason that if the people cannot speak freely, they cannot express their sacred will.

          Islamists, too, believe in a God of pure Will, but in this case the reference is directly to the divine Will of a God who is wholly remote from the will of the people. The mere suggestion that the voice of a pure and absolute God can be expressed or decided by the vulgar, forever imperfect voice of "the people" is, for Islamists, a horrendously blasphemous notion; the will of God can never be decided by votes. So freedom, for Islamists, means following the will of God, not our own will. And that is why it will be forever impossible to fuse doctrinaire Islam with democracy.

              The fundamentalism with which we are now engaged is sourced in a radical form of Islam that is similar in its strict literalism to the dogmatic Reformation Christianity that arose in the 16th century, in the sense that Islamists yearn to live every detail of life according to the Book. A little study of the work writers such as Sayyid Qutb, and Hassan Al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) will make these distinctions between an ordinary Muslim and an Islamist clear.   

                They are distinctions that make the idea of "dialogue" with Islamism a lost cause, for it is their unshakeable conviction that the word of God cannot be disputed or changed. As David P. Goldman relates in How Civilizations Die (2011), Christianity has been able to survive two millennia of very challenging Biblical criticism because the Gospels, however revered, are still only human reports of Revelation. For Christians, the actual Revelation, is Jesus Christ himself, and no criticism can touch a sincere faith in Him. For Islam, however, the Qur'an -- believed to have been dictated by the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammad in the seventh century -- is the only actual revelatory event, and so "to question any statement of the Qur'an ... amounts to apostasy." As one scholar cited by Goldman relates tellingly: "For Muslims, the Qur'an can be compared to Christ: Christ is the Word of God made flesh, while the Qur'an ... is the word 'made paper.'" Accordingly, writes Goldman, unlike the interpretive work of the Catholic Magisterium, or the Oral Torah of Judaism, there is simply "no human agency with the authority to interpret the text" and that is why Islamists meet any attempt to alter or criticize the Qur'an with "rage and doubt" -- and violence.

           Seen in this light, the rage and doubt of western journalists in defence of "humour" as an anti-totalitarian weapon, or of  "freedom of the press as one of the core values of western democracy," is clearly theological. I am not defending either side at the moment; just trying to understand the war. And I think it goes something like this: With our cartoons and the like we have attacked the God of Islam. So they attack the God of Democracy. We hold the sacred right of free speech higher than their god. They hold the sacred duty to defend God higher than free speech. So what is the difference between 10,000 people chanting "I am Charlie" (faith in free speech is the greatest), and 10,000 people chanting "Allahu Akbar" (faith in God is the greatest)?

               The obvious difference is the violence. For the Islamist, however, there is a similarity but not a parity of violence. Our violence against the God of Islamism is being perpetrated directly in their homelands by a half-century of western invasions of nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, and indirectly in their private lives by the internet, sexual licence, unrestrained materialism, and especially -- excuse the phrase -- by the sacred secularism of the West. True believers cannot invade us with armies in response. So their violence against the god of democracy is in the form of isolated acts of terror in the streets, offices, and public spaces of Paris, New York, Ottawa, and Jerusalem.

             It is time to recognize that we are in the midst of a war of opposing gods just as dramatic, and theologically-rooted on both sides as any of the ancient wars of the gods depicted by historians, or, more to the point at hand -- by the historians of the Crusades.  


New Release Date for The Great Divide

Encounter Books has just confirmed a firm release date for The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree

The book will be delivered from the printer by end of January, and distribution to stores will begin immediately.

The firm release date is now February 17th, at which time reviews can be released and the Publisher is confident the book will be available in stores across the land. 

I am handling a lot of the media promotion in Canada myself, and am happy to announce that about 30 serious interviews/reviews have been scheduled already, and more to come. 

If any of you would like to help, please send me the names and email addresses of media folks in your area whom you think might be interested, and I will follow up. 

This book challenges  liberals and conservatives alike, so we are getting very strong interest from all sides at this early stage because the book includes 15 Tables that ask the reader "Where Do You Stand?" on all the issues examined.

When important interviews get booked, I will post the info here in advance.


p.s Also, PJMedia website, which gets a lot of serious traffic, has just accepted an article of mine on the terror in Paris. 

Should be posted by Friday night. Title is: "It's a War of the Gods", and I believe it presents a novel interpretation of that terrible event.




Ferguson, and the Unreliability of Witnesses

When I was a young university student in a large sociology class in  criminology, the Professor told us that we were going to participate in an experiment on the reliability of witnesses, and that we should come to the next class with five dollars.

When we arrived the next day, he put our money in a pot and said that after the experiment -- he was about to show us a brief film of a chaotic crime scene -- it would be divided and given equally to all those who got the correct answer to a single question about a detail of the film.  As young students without much money, we all got excited, each of us secretly calculating how much food (or beer) getting the right answer was going to bring.  We were motivated to observe carefully.

Then he showed us a grainy, amateurish, thirty-second film of a loud, poorly-lit party scene, in which a lot of people were crowded together, milling about, drinking and dancing. Suddenly, a man with what looked like a stocking over his head burst through a door, waved a weapon at the crowd - which caused a lot of panic and screaming - and as suddenly left the room. The clip ended. It was actually a little scary. And there was a lot of buzz in the class right afterward.

Then came the question: "What kind of weapon was the masked man waving at the crowd?" (a pistol, a knife, a pipe, a sawed-off shotgun?)

A few said the guy either didn't have a weapon, or they didn't see one. Everyone else was sure - absolutely sure - of what they had seen. And most gave different answers: He had a handgun. He had a sawed-off shotgun. He had a long knife. A short knife. A pipe. A short baseball bat. And so on. Students who saw one thing, were in disbelief, to the level of scorn, that others saw something else. 

What was so striking was the certainty of each witness. "Are you absolutely certain?" "Would you swear on a Bible?" Yes. Yes. And again, Yes. And I was no different. I grew up learning about and using guns, and said I was so sure it was a certain kind of revolver that I was willing to put more money into the pot.

Then he showed us the film clip again, but this time in slow motion.

You had to be there to understand the level of disbelief and how shocked we all were to see that what the guy was actually waving at the crowd was ... a  banana!

The film was a set-up. It had been made as an object- lesson in human misperception for criminology students. So at first we felt a bit tricked. But we all agreed that there was never so persuasive and effective a lesson on our own misperceptions, misplaced confidence, and the unreliability of sworn witnesses.

Then he gave us back our money. We were no richer or poorer, but a lot wiser and more skeptical.


"The Great Divide" ... on Amazon everywhere now

Here it is:

In the spirit of flagrant self-promotion, what can I suggest, but: "Buy now, and save!"

Indeed, many people have been advance-ordering already, and long before a book appears, this tends to get a publisher very excited. So if you do eventualy intend to order, please consider sending the publisher a message by doing so now.









Supreme Court Supports Tradition on the Senate

Last July 4th I posted an essay "On the Proper Role of a Senate." It is re-posted here for those who may have missed it. I think this essay reflects the feelings of our Founders on the proper role of a Senate in a democratic system, and readers will see that this in turn rests on a specific conception of our fallible, rather than perfectible, human nature. 


               In the long Western tradition the changing conceptions of what a Senate ought to be are intimately related to changing conceptions of human nature, and thus serve as a kind of mirror in which to see ourselves reflected as we grapple with the most important political question: How should we make the laws?

              The Senates of ancient Greece and Rome, despite their differences, shared an underlying classical model of human nature considered universally true: human beings are weak, but willful and impulsive, and therefore prone to error in the measure that their actions are heated and hasty. For the pagan, this was an eternal truth of human nature. For the Christian, human beings were once perfect in Eden, but fell into sin through disobedience to God. Common to both pagan and Christian however, was the commonsensical belief that will and emotion originate in the heart and the appetitive parts of the body, whereas reason originates in the head.

              Accordingly, the standard picture of humanity in the West has been of a divided being forever tormented by a lifelong internal struggle between appetite expressed as Will, and Reason, each vying to be Master by making the other a Slave. This Master/Slave metaphor emerged naturally from slave societies in which freedom was defined, not as today by doing whatever you might want as long as you don’t harm someone else, but as not being a slave. The goal of all free people was to be a rational being who is master of the slave passions.             

       As it was for the body, so it should be for the body politic. The architects of the ancient democracies felt that the public passions, like the private passions, should be acknowledged and heard, but never given control of the whole body. So in the Greek democracy under Demosthenes, for example, the Senate proposed the laws, and the People discussed and voted on them yea or nay. But the law-making “initiative” was with the Senate and almost all the laws came down from the Senate to the people, rather than the other way around as in the modern democracies.

       For the Founders of Canada and America the Master/Slave metaphor was accepted as a fact of personal and political life: when acting without sufficient experience and reflection, the People and their factions will tend to behave emotionally and willfully, will be prone to error and, if acting in a simple democracy will crush all opposing minorities. Hence an appointed Upper House or Senate equating to Reason and filled with wiser and older people who have a stake in the country but are untouched by party, ought to have the final say over the will of the people in the Lower House, or Commons. To omit such a check on the impulsivity of the People is to render them slaves to their own passions.         

        In retrospect, we could say that the changing role of Senates (the American Senate was changed from appointive to elective in 1913) in the West is an institutional reflection of how human nature is (re)imagined at particular historical periods. In conservative periods of high skepticism concerning natural goodness, the safety check of a Senate is called for to protect all the People from majority oppression. Which is to say: to protect them from themselves! Restraint is then the cry. Conversely, in a liberal period such as our own when a belief in natural human goodness runs high, we hear loud cries for more democracy and the abolition of Senates, because (especially when corrupted by people of low character) they are widely viewed as an intolerable brake on the good and pure will of the People. Freedom is then the cry. The core question, then, has to do with whether or not unchecked human will is good by nature. Modern liberals will say yes, and conservatives will say no. 

          Since the Romantic period of the eighteenth century which forcefully insisted on natural human goodness and the concomitant belief that the purity of Will is corrupted not by ourselves, but by failed institutions, the historical trend of the Western democracies has been to dissolve the real and metaphorical corporal opposition between Master and Slave by arguing that human passions and appetites are good in themselves and so must be generally unrestrained. Examples are the release of restraints on divorce, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, and euthanasia.

           It required but one more step in the logic of unrestraint to dissolve the same opposition in the larger body politic: once the People accept the belief that the Will of the People is an unalloyed good, they accept the idea that as they cannot be enslaved to themselves there is no need for a Senate. But is this true?

        On June 18, 2013, Preston Manning, former head of the Reform Party of Canada published an Open Letter to Canada’s Senators in which he opined that “the greatest weakness of the Senate as presently constituted is that Senators are unelected and unaccountable to electors. The Senate lacks the democratic legitimacy required to command public support.”

        If we accept the liberal belief that the Will of the People, whatever it may be is inevitably good, then he is right on, as they say. But if we accept the conservative view that the unalloyed Will of the People is improved by the restraint of independent “sober second thought” – that Reason (a Senate) should be the master of Will (a Commons), then such a view is quite wrong-headed. The conservative should then reply that “the greatest strength of the Senate is that Senators are unelected and unaccountable to the electors. The Senate has the legitimacy required to command public support precisely because it is not democratic and was never intended to be.”

This latter position seeks to avoid the conflict of democratic legitimacy that inevitably arises between two elected bodies each vying to represent the true will of the people (thus to avoid American-style political gridlock), and to preserve the proper relationship between Reason and Will. 

     It all boils down to the acceptance or rejection of the Master/Slave metaphor of human nature. The weakness in the conservative case is only the paucity of Senators of high character and independent mind who refuse in principle to self-corrupt or to be slaves of popular Will.

      That is the mirror in which we are reflected.  


Quebec Has No Right to Separate!

As the April 7th provincial election in Quebec nears, a reminder of the fact that no province of Canada has a right to a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) is in order.

The following is an excerpt from Ch. 14, "French-Fried," in William D. Gairdner, The Trouble With Canada ... Still! (BPS Books, 2011)


Confederation Is a Co-op                

       Try to imagine that you and nine of your friends (together making up the ten provinces) have all seen a ten-room apartment building you wish to purchase. Together, you enter into an agreement to purchase it based on equal ownership. It’s a co-op. By written agreement, each of you has a share of a certain amount of living space, benefits, and costs, depending on the size of your family, but nothing prevents anyone from relocating within the building, and nothing prevents you as a group from agreeing to reshape the interior. But you all own the whole building equally.

            One day, nine of you arrive home from work to find François, chain-saw in hand, attempting to cut his living quarters away from the building. He is angry. He says he wants to leave and “take what I own.” Imagine the justifiable and spontaneous outrage from the rest: “We all own this building together! You have no right to reconfigure the building without our permission. We all got into this deal together, and no one can change it without unanimous consent. Anyway, you owe us a lot of money. We subsidized you from the start. Even if we decide that we will let you out of this partnership, you will have to settle up with us for what you owe, and maybe even pay damages for devaluing our building, too.”

            So there it is. A confederation of provinces is not like a condo building. It is like a co-op apartment building in which citizens can live in any of the spaces they want. In other words, all Canadian citizens, regardless of where they live for the moment, own Canada equally. The lines on the map for each province (like each apartment wall) are there for administrative and political convenience but do not confer ownership of geographic real assets on the citizens of any province. So if the Québecois, or any other group of citizens in any province attempt to saw off a province and cart it away, they are really trying to take what is owned in common away from all of us without permission. They are breaking their contract.

            Based on this understanding, I suggest there are three large issues, each of them likely irresolvable on the basis of the democratic conceit, around which the dialogue must revolve. They are the issues of permission, partition, and duplication.

1. Permission -- Who Says You Can Leave?

       Can a province just walk away from Confederation? Does any province have the legal right to leave? The answer is a flat “no.” Canada’s Supreme Court has declared as much. But then the court stumbled blindly into political territory when it said that if a clear question on separation had a "clear majority" in favour, Canada would have an obligation to negotiate. But that is not true. Absent real persecution, there is no right for a province to secede unilaterally, and any international court would agree. Why is this so? Legally speaking, if any province of Canada wishes to separate, it must get permission from other Canadians through consent of their Legislatures. Obviously, any such permission must be on terms and conditions that satisfy not only the province wishing to secede, but also all the others from whom it is attempting to secede. That’s a recipe for a massive fight.

            But what if a province says, “To hell with your permission, I’m getting out!” and starts up the chain saw? Well, that’s what’s called a Unilateral Declaration of Independence. A UDI, a form of democratic “self-determination” gets a certain amount of sympathy from freedom-lovers around the world (let it be said: they often confuse democracy with liberty) who are eager to see oppressed people free themselves. But in declaring a UDI, a province would be appealing not to other Canadians, whom they would spite by such a tactic, but to the international community. After all, in the long run it’s the international community that confers sovereignty on a nation through official recognition. If no one recognizes your declaration of independence, you haven’t got a separate country. But let us pause here.

            Arguably, far from being oppressed, Québec is one of the freest and wealthiest territories in the world – in part because it has also been massively subsidized by the rest of us for a very long time, enjoying a standard of living higher than if it had been left on its own. Much higher. More dangerous than any referendum on separation, however, is the decision criterion. Québec nationalists would insist that a simple majority of 51 percent plus one, is sufficient. But many experts argue that for a matter so serious, a special majority of two-thirds, or even 75 percent, ought to be required. Our Supreme Court has called for “a clear majority.” That is because the simple-majority basis would mean that one half of all the citizens of Quebec – more than three and a half million Canadian citizens! - who have paid taxes and sworn allegiance to Canada all their lives and who clearly prefer to live in their own ancestral homes as Canadian citizens, would be forced against their will to live in a separate country. What about their livelihoods, citizenship, passports, properties, investments, rights to Canadian services, and so on? They would scream for protection, and Ottawa would be morally and legally bound to help them. That means federal intervention and whatever force might be necessary to protect loyal Canadians would be used to enter any province that tried this. By now, the idea of a UDI ought to be looking awfully messy.


2. Partition—Or, What Came In, Goes Out

        Well, here’s another problem. As I said, the lines on the map, like the partitions inside the building, are just there by common agreement for administrative and political convenience. The lines do not bestow a right of ownership on anyone. If on Monday you move to Québec, you cannot say on the first day there that you mow own part of Québec. Just as if, on Tuesday, should you move back to Ontario, you cannot then say you own part of Ontario and have surrendered whatever it was you owned of the province of Québec. Just try to imagine the “ownership” of each province switching around every time hundreds of thousands of Canadians decide to migrate internally each year. For who, other than the people as a whole could possibly own Canada? Their governments, right? But democratic governments represent the people. And governments come and go. So we are left with the people as owners of the whole. And make no mistake. The taxes you pay every year on Canada’s federal debt are not earmarked by province. You’re paying off debt for the whole nation. So even if Québec or any other province got nasty and tried to declare a UDI, the battle would quickly shift from lines on the map to arguments over what property could by law to be taken out of Confederation as real assets, and what debts must be paid to Canada.

            In the case of Québec, this takes us straight into treaty law to find out what portions of the province were actually ceded or transferred to Québec; the real question, in other words, is not about separation, but about partition, a distinction we don’t hear much about. But our various governments know this distinction very well, and they consider the whole topic too volatile for our poor little heads. And the media, typically, are silent.

            There are many books and articles on the subject of what actually belongs with Québec. You can Google-search them. What it boils down to is that Québec came into Confederation as a much smaller province than it is now. About two-thirds of that province—a vast cornucopia of future extractable wealth - used to be called Rupert’s Land, and it was ceded by Britain to Canada, then by Canada to Québec in two parcels in 1898 and 1912, to be administered by Quebec as a province of Canada - not by Québec as a separate nation. In effect, Rupert’s Land was given to Canada, then transferred to Québec under the Crown, in trusteeship. Strictly speaking, if Québec attempted to separate, that land would by rights transfer back to Britain.  Now that’s bizarre. Such a result could be legally avoided only if Québec seceded peaceably as an independent monarchy, thus retaining those lands. That’s even more bizarre.

            But the underlying argument over partition is that if Québec (or any other province) were granted the right to separate, it would be allowed to take out of Confederation only what was brought into it in 1867( or thereafter). When push comes to shove, as they say, the French-Canadian “people” (make no mistake, in the Québec case, this is not just a conflict over territory, but over culture and race) could only lay a bona-fide legal treaty claim to a strip of land running from west of Montreal, north about a hundred miles, then east to Labrador. Other “peoples” – including a lot of English people - were involved in settling the rest of Québec.


3. Duplication—What’s Good For The Goose Is Good For The Gander

             In the extremely unlikely event that Québec were to succeed with the argument of self-determination, why should that same argument not be duplicated for the many enclaves of English-Canadians, and other non-French minorities within Quebec? Why should they not use the same self-determination arguments to separate from the newly-partitioned Québec? Separatists attempt to argue that these minority groups are not a “people,” or that in the case of the English, they already have their own “people” in the Rest of Canada. Now that’s a stretch. Just think of some densely populated enclaves within Québec such as West Montreal with its 300,000 (down from 400,000 in 1990) English-speaking people. They, too, will likely demand to be partitioned out of Québec as a Canadian enclave and will want protected travel corridors by land and water, and so on, just like West Berliners had in East Germany. Along with several other enclaves that would vote to stay in Canada, the new Québec nation would look like a piece of Swiss cheese. Having said this, if Canada ever decided to deal with the French fact it could indeed come up with a Cantonal system on the Swiss model, whereby enclaves or legitimate Cantons within what is now Québec territory would exist with ties either to a new Québec state, or with Canada.

            And what about Canada’s Natives and Inuit? They are obviously a “people” in any sense of the term who, in addition to language and culture also have racial distinctiveness, which is not the case for all francophones. And ... Aboriginals in Quebec have already laid serious treaty claims to over 75 percent of the province of Québec. Some 15,000 Cree natives occupying  most of northern Quebec have made it very clear that they want no part of any separation from Canada, and have publicly declared their intent to separate from Quebec if such an effort were to be successful. We can be certain that all native peoples currently under the jurisdiction of Ottawa and enjoying its considerable largesse (about $8 Billion per year spent by Ottawa alone on Canada’s aboriginals) will want to continue this way.