My Political Evolution

My interest in politics was first sparked perhaps by George Orwell's Animal Farm, and later the notorious 1984. I had long earlier paid keen attention to the political aspects of my history classes, but was limited to that alone.

Naturally, such books when accompanied with quotes recited to me, "Government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is also powerful enough to take everything you have." turned me into a strident libertarian. It didn't seem to be something I was naturally predisposed to, I quickly felt as though government capable of doing something for general welfare, and choosing not to, was apathetic and irresponsible.   

Then I found out George Orwell considered himself a Democratic Socialist. I refused to believe anyone writing such books appearing, on the face of it so anti-government, could consider himself a socialist. His fear of tyranny, I later learned, was far outweighed by compassion and empathy for the poor. As my history classes continued, I garnered more and more respect for 1984 and Animal Farm as being semi-intentional predictions about the Cold War.

As I found myself at The International School of London (International Baccalaureate), I found myself in a crowd of what you might mockingly call the liberal elite. These were mostly classmates from successful and rich families, well travelled and well cultured. I considered myself a misplaced middle-class Canadian among a crowd of international rich kids, if you could call them that.

They were elite in that they were all genuinely clever and academic, but they were not elitist. They didn't fit into my North American perception of a rich kid: they were neither show-offs nor judgemental. That was such a key part of my conception of a rich kid at the time, I kept forgetting just how upper-class some of these teenagers were.

When the Great Recession hit in 2008, I was 16 and had enrolled (conveniently) in a Higher Level Economics class. To be perfectly blunt, this was economics at the University level. For two years, my political focus was solely economics and history. Our economics teacher did a brilliant job at remaining unbiased when it came to Monetarist vs Keynesian economics. We were presented with articles and documentaries that leant in both directions. Twice I tried to insert a bias into one of my essays just to see if our teacher would call me on it, and both times he did.

I eventually saw Keynes to be far superior both in theory and in application. I read the grand book, Keynes and After, I read the John Kenneth Galbraith's opinions in Economics of Innocent Fraud, his book The Affluent Society, and even it's monetarist and iconic equivalent The Road to Serfdom. I also also started reading Paul Krugman's blog around this time. I've never liked the man's sheer partisanship, but his writing is far superior to that of John Kenneth Galbraith. He backs every statement he makes with independent empirical evidence and historical context.

And so I factored in every single thing I had learned and experienced. A modernized 'New Keynesian' economic model was necessary. I had read two, older and newer copies of that brilliant book, The Spirit Level. Both academic and accessible, it is impossible to criticize without purely political motivation. For the sake of social mobility and the health of society, equality could be an active pursuit of government.  For deeper and lasting equality, employee ownership of companies was necessary.

That being said, there is a rare instance where I agree with Margret Thatcher. She spoke of her government's aim to make sure every single taxed pound was spent as efficiently as possible. If government is to raise taxes on citizens to the extent of Sweden and Denmark, that trust with taxpayers money must be earned! I cannot tolerate neither welfare abuse at the very bottom, nor tax evasion and loopholes at the very top.

In the United States, Republicans who cut taxes while raising military spending, point at government failures and say "This is why we need less government." Sorry, cutting taxes while raising military spending is the most perverse and closeted form of Keynesian stimulus there is! Public education produces the builders, doctors, artists, innovators of the future! Public infrastructure creates a short-term economic demand fulfillment and a brilliant long-term supply boost to private business! These are the investments of the future!

For the two years after my study of economics, from the age of 18 to 20 (2010-12) I focused solely on social issues. I had read Michael Sandel's, Justice, at the age of 17, and it was my first introduction to communitarianism. By the age of 18 I considered myself and egalitarian (John Rawls' work) with communitarian sympathy. I read the academic work of Michael Sandel and Alistair McIntyre, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, and After Virtue respectively.

I had two constant problems with communitarianism: the first was that it appeared to me far to idealistic in its application, often using classically conservative arguments for the sake of liberal policy. The second was that communitarianism seemed to give way for moral relativism. Michael Sandel hoped to circumvent this with Practical Wisdom: judges and politicians who were willing to do the right thing, and wise and experienced enough to know what the right thing is. I like Practical Wisdom, but it can't function as a safeguard against moral relativism. I needed my egalitarian views to be consolidated with my communitarian sympathy.

With my first moral philosophy teacher at Capilano University, I ended up talking to him outside of class for a good hour. His course at the university was like that of Michael Sandel, I registered for it because of its similarity. During our talk, he became exceedingly aware of my conflicting views and introduced me to Will Kymlicka. His greatest work is a book called Liberalism, Community and Culture. This book not only consolidated the views, it did so in a Canadian context.

Rejecting over a year and a half of more communitarian work was exceedingly painful to say the least. While communitarian thought and writing may tell us the most about how human minds and citizens actually work and function, as a whole it is far too idealistic in its application. Where moral relativism is concerned, I admire The Moral Landscape, a creation of Samuel Harris. It seeks to show that there can be definite and multiple right and wrong answers to moral questions. It's an idea which Michael Sandel also supports.

I've exposed myself in the past to work I disagree with just for the sake of it.  Often, I agree with some ideas and disagree with others.  This includes the work of Fredrick Von Hayek, Philip Blond, David Brooks, and Milton Friedman. The work of the Cato Institute, Ludwig Von Mises institute, the meritocratic rhetoric of New Labour, and the opposing Conservatives in Britain when I resided there. Occasionally I'll listen to conservative radio. I've exposed myself to work I disagree with just for the sake of it, to avoid to living in a bubble of ideas that agree with me.

If I've learned anything from that, it's this: liberals often claim conservatives attack them not for their ideas, but because they're coming from liberal writers or speakers. Sorry, but we're equally guilty of doing the same to them! Time and time again I have seen liberals in the UK and Canada attack ideas purely because of the conservative who is saying them. 

The clear exception is the United States, it is one place where Republican partisanship really does appear that bad. David Brooks is noteworthy for coming across as a far less partisan Republican.

Ultimately, I have accepted the work of Will Kymlicka as the best combination idealism and pragmatism, both socially and economically. I am overjoyed that it also works so well in a specifically Canadian context!

Obviously I'm not done with my political views. I still need life experience, I'm only 20. This narrative was never meant to chronicle the evolution of my political views as a whole, this only dictates how I've solidified my principles.