Strategy

For years Conservative MPs and members of the media referred to Stephen Harper as a strategic genius; now some of them are not quite sure. There is no doubt that the PM is tactically brilliant but increasingly his strategic competence is being called into question.

Many people confuse the two. The easiest way to differentiate them is to think of tactics as what is needed to win a battle; strategy is what you use to win a war. Tactics will let you take that hill; strategy determines whether that hill is worth taking in the long run. Tactics require cleverness and trickery but strategy is a matter of vision and wisdom.

I have long believed that Stephen Harper has no vision. He has a few amorphous goals – smaller government, more people in jail – but his vision? Well, it’s unclear. Which is why so many of his hard core followers are wondering why he seems to have drifted from the firm principles of the old Reform movement. Where has the man who seemed so arrow straight gone exactly? Well, perhaps he was never there.

Whether it is Senate reform or fiscal accountability or even his law and order agenda, Stephen Harper has been thwarted over and over by events outside of his control. That’s what happens to tacticians; strategists expect things to turn against them and take such possibilities into account. Tacticians are by nature cautious – as Harper has been – choosing to fight the battles they know they can win rather than risk losing a battle to win a war as strategists often must.

Still, he can be cagey. There is a reason why he is avoiding debating Trudeau and Mulcair in the coming election. As for Mulcair, he was experienced his incisive debating style in the House. While it hasn’t been a knockout every time, Mulcair is almost always ahead on points. As for Trudeau, Harper’s whole strategy has been to say: the PM’s job is not an entry level position – you’re not ready. He doesn’t want to face the obvious rejoinder: Tell, me Mr. Harper, other than being a politician and a political hack, what real job have you ever had? Wasn’t PM an entry level position for you? Because Stephen Harper never has had a real job; he never was a ‘working Canadian.’ And, if you’re honest, you can’t say the same thing about Trudeau.

I think Mr. Harper is running scared and I think his MPs are running scared too. There is an air of desperation about them. And it all goes back to a strategic victory scored by Justin Trudeau a few years ago. You may recall the charity boxing match he had with Senator Patrick Brazeau. Brazeau wasn’t the first Conservative Trudeau challenged – both John Baird and Jason Kenny turned down a chance to go in the ring. Baird and Kenny are both combative but no-one would mistake them for athletic. That was a tactic. The Conservatives needed a champion. Who better than Brazeau – 5 years younger than Trudeau and way more muscular? And a mixed martial arts champion in his army days. The Conservatives smelled blood – Brazeau, they claimed, would wipe up the floor with Trudeau.

As it turned out, Trudeau had been secretly training every day for the fight. Brazeau was exactly who he wanted to fight. It was a risk – Brazeau almost won in the first round. But he didn’t and by the third he was exhausted – the ref stopped the fight because the Senator could no longer defend himself. And that, my friends, is how strategy works – using tactics, taking chances, to draw your enemy in. And then delivering the knockout blow.

It should be an interesting election.

And that’s slightly more than ten minutes.

The Hugos 3

So here I am poking that sore tooth with my tongue again. I wasn’t going to but when you lie awake at night thinking about something, it creates a certain urgency. It’s my version of “I have to write,” I guess.

The whole Hugo thing is really starting to spin out of control. Revered figures in the field have announced they won’t present at the awards; some say they won’t even attend the convention. Meanwhile, two of the nominees — people who apparently weren’t consulted when put on the Sad/Rabid Puppies slate — have withdrawn their nominations. Not sure what that will do to the ballot but it has to add to the taint that this year’s awards will inevitably have. On the flip side, defenders of the Sad Puppies (most go out of their way to differentiate Sad and Rabid Puppies) produce elaborate — though flawed — data analysis of why there may be some basis for their complaints. {I could deconstruct them — as a policy analyst, it is what I do — but who has time in ten minutes?}

But that wasn’t what kept me awake at night. Really, the Hugos don’t matter that much to me. In the eight World Cons I have gone to, I’ve only attended the ceremonies twice. I like awards well enough — I’ve won a few myself and they always made me happy — but sometimes the process makes me tense and sad for those whose hopes are dashed.

The thing that bothers me most about this is the division it is creating among people who mostly have no ‘dog in this fight’ if you will excuse the expression. On a personal level, I think this kerfuffle taints the whole award process, not just the Hugos but every popular award process in the field of science fiction. Usually at this time of year I’m bringing things to people’s attention for the Canadian Aurora Awards. But in 2015 I’m reluctant to do so. I probably will anyway but it won’t be that enthusiastic.

Then there is the impact on people I know. I see people taking sides — arguing and even de-friending each other on social media. Even the most gentle suggestions that there might be merit in one side or the other, leads to arguments. Most of my friends are definitely outraged by events — especially by Theodore Beale (Vox Day) — but some have raised defenses of the Sad Puppy slate or at least of their stated mission. I happen to think they are wrong but I’m used to thinking people are wrong about their political views. I’m more than happy to debate with them and suspect that, if name calling is avoided and reason prevails, I can more than hold my own. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate those in the field who are trying to have that debate or trying to make something good happen out of it all.

I don’t think that the Hugo controversy of the last two or three years will lead to the destruction of the awards altogether. Most people — believe it or not — are reasonable and a compromise that works for everyone might be found. But if not — if the Hugos simply become another casualty of the endless culture wars that Americans like to wage with themselves, so be it. Institutions have a lifespan just like people. Some things have to die so other things can grow. If the Hugos go away, too bad, but science fiction as a field will survive and probably thrive — even if we are all confined to our respective ghettos and made poorer both financially and culturally by that.

What I do regret is that some people are going to remain enemies forever — based on a matter of opinion. I’m a loyal person and I won’t abandon friends simply because we have a political disagreement (though I might feel sad about it). But because of that some of my friends might abandon me.

And that’s slightly more than ten minutes.

Arguments

I grew up arguing. With my father, my teachers, with ministers and friends. I had strong opinions. I would express them forcefully. You might find it hard to believe but I could be quite vociferous. Occasionally, these arguments would degenerate into fights. My mother would worry.

Gradually, I realized that the fights started not when my opinions disagreed with others (though it sometimes seemed so on the surface) but when one or the other of us lacked the facts or the rhetorical skills to effectively present our case. When the rules of debate degenerated into ad hominem name calling, references to a (false) authority and all those other flourishes of verbal jousting you rely on when your argument don’t hold up to scrutiny.

These days we are encouraged to avoid arguments. At work, we try to find a peaceful consensus that is respectful of other people’s views, even when they are unsubstantiated. Even when they are wrong. Sometimes, one cannot resist proving one’s opponent wrong. But instead of fighting back — marshaling their facts and skewering your presentations — a lot of people seem to sulk.

You might win the argument but you almost certainly will lose the popularity contest.

Meanwhile, on social media, people hesitate to put forward strong and controversial opinions. It almost always leads to dueling posts — the on-line version of reference to authority — or more likely to flame wars where your integrity or intelligence is called into question (or, more hideously, your safety is threatened). It happens to everyone though I’ve noticed that white straight males are less likely to be slapped down than everyone else. The on-line world has become the haven on anonymous hatred and disrespect.

More disastrously it has become the land of unreason.

Because argumentation — or rather debate — is at the very foundation of reason. Through language we gradually carve away at untruth and weak thinking. We slowly put aside our evolutionarily honed instincts and replace them with meaning constructed out of goals and purposes that extend beyond our simple needs for food, shelter, sex and status. Through argument, we build civilization.

How do we restore the forum as a place for public debate, where different viewpoints can be represented forcibly, backed by evidence and where we might actually come to an agreement on the big social, political, environmental and economic issues facing the world? Can it be done? And, if so, how? Certainly not by relying on faceless algorithms that encourage us only to hear what we ‘like’ and talk to those who belong to the same choir.

And it certainly won’t come about when we allow money and narrow interests to dominate our political institutions.

It’s a task worth pursuing. But I certainly can’t do it alone. Anyone want to argue with that?

And that’s ten minutes.

Volunteers

According to the CBC several Canadian veterans are planning on (or are already) fighting against ISIS. They say the Canadian government is not doing enough in the battle by sending over jets and advisors. The Minister of Public Safety says he doesn’t mind while the Chief of Defenses suggests they should simply re-enlist in the Canadian forces. Neither says what the consequences are.

Technically, it is not illegal for a Canadian to fight for another nation’s army. As long as that nation is not actually at war with Canada. Or, in this case, as long as the group you are fighting with is not considered a terrorist organization. In the case of the people who are fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq — some are not considered terrorist while others are. Wind up in the wrong foxhole and you will be tried for supporting a terrorist organization and perhaps even treason. In this case, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Then there is the question of who takes care of you if you are captured or wounded. If you are killed, who, if anyone, takes care of your family? The Minister and the military is silent on this but the evidence is pretty clear.

No-one will take care of you. Go and fight in a foreign army and you are on your own. Now, one might cynically ask: how is that different than if you fight for the Canadian army? However, while veterans’ programs are completely inadequate, at least they do exist. Medical services are available above and beyond what is available to the public (and the recent announcement of more is welcome) and some form of payout or pension is provided. Again inadequate, but compared to what these volunteers will get, it is substantial.

Canada has a long history of having men, and sometimes women, volunteering to serve in foreign forces. Quite a number fought with the Americans and British in Iraq. Before that, thousands of Canadians enlisted with American forces to fight in Vietnam. The most famous contingent was the all-volunteer Mackenzie-Papineau battalion that fought on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War.

Of the former, they may have received some compensation from the governments of the countries they fought for — though most were not eligible for Veterans benefits. But they got nothing from Canada. Perhaps a country has no obligation to support those who choose to fight for other countries but maybe we shouldn’t put them in jail if we actually approve of who they are fighting.

The Mac-Paps were treated even worse. Not only were they not provided any compensation while fighting, they were treated as ‘communist scum’ when they got home.  Most were not actually communists at all but were drawn by an early understanding of and hatred for fascism. I expect the ‘scum’ quotient wasn’t high either. Even after it became clear that Franco was nothing but a puppet for Hitler and Spain a testing ground for German weapons, these volunteers were not rehabilitated — though they did become heroes of the left and that’s something.

But that’s ten minutes.