Too Hot to Cool Down
The day after the attempt on Donald Trump’s life, the Prime Minister of Canada called and spoke to the former president to offer every sympathy and to condemn this appalling act of political violence.
This, depending on your point of view, was either statesmanlike or supplicant, canny or cringe-worthy. Me, I’m impressed Trump took the call. Justin Trudeau looks to have been the first leader among the other G-7 nations to reach out personally. That’s top tier advance work.
The Leader of the Opposition, meanwhile, issued a statement that offered the same bromides as every other politician in the Western world (“condemn … prayers … heinous act”) but added a fillip of his own. “I am also happy that the suspected shooter is dead,” he said. “Democracy must prevail.”
Other world leaders conveyed their relief and thanks that Trump was not seriously injured in this knife-edge historical moment, but no other leader or presumptive leader in the G-7 thought to publicly express their happiness at the death of the young man who raised a weapon against former President Trump. That’s the sort of thing that gets you noticed.
Through such terse communiqués the politicians of the world send signals to one another.
A statement like that – I’m happy he’s dead – was intended to draw attention. As quick as the Trudeau team were to place a call of sympathy and support to Trump personally, Pierre Poilievre and his team are building their own Chunnel to the Trump organization. It’s one thing to be thankful that Trump was not injured, or worse. But to express pleasure that the person who posed the threat died an instant, violent death – that’s more on the wavelength of the Trump sensibility. If they’re listening, the Poilievre statement indicates to the Trump people that he understands them.
Here in Canada, some people were appalled while others pumped their fists in agreement. Some saw it as barstool bullshit, the sort of thing you might blurt out in the heat of the moment, but not what someone who expects to lead the country should be saying aloud. Others saw it as genuine and honest, an untempered expression of what other politicians are too timid and careful to say aloud.
More to the point, the people who instinctively agree with Poilievre on this don’t get why other people are appalled. And the people who are appalled are mystified about why anyone would make a point of expressing their delight in the killing of someone. To use a term Poilievre is trying to popularize, both sides look wacko to one another.
On the one hand, why wouldn’t you be happy that the shooter was neutralized? The rifleman on the roof was a threat to American democracy. He was trying to alter the course of history by murdering a candidate for the most powerful office in the world. He was killed before he could do so, by another rifleman on a roof, thank god before he could do any more damage. He tried to commit the worst of crimes – to take someone’s life – and in return his life was taken. Are you not happy at this outcome?
On the other hand, when Poilievre expressed his happiness at the death, news reports were so fragmentary and contradictory that his own statement referred to a “suspected shooter.” What if it had turned out the guy they killed was not the shooter? Would the Leader of the Opposition still be happy this person had been shot to death?
But as far as we know, the person killed by the police sniper was indeed the assassin, so no call for Poilievre to regret being happy about the death of the wrong person.
Still, the declaration that he is happy about this death is as good an announcement as any that he will be happy with other deaths to come. That’s what seems off about the whole thing. When people we like die, we mourn, we feel unhappy. Doesn’t mean that when people we don’t like die, we should feel happy. As Leonard Cohen put it, “Whatever makes a soldier sad will make a killer smile.”
For someone who professes his faith, there is a vengeful note to Poilievre’s remark. If there is such a thing as sin, to wish the death of someone is clearly a sin. To take joy in the death of someone is more sinful, worrisomely so.
And this is exactly the sort of accusation we are telling ourselves we can do without in our politics. Disagree with policies, certainly, but don’t attack character and values. Don’t make it personal. Dial it all down.
Except the policies emerge from the politics, and the politics consist of party machines locked in permanent feuds, led by flawed personalities. Politics is about winning the authority to tell other people what to do and set the conditions of how they will live. When you get right down to it, democratic politics is just an unending dispute about character and values. Under whose moral priorities would you prefer to live? Whose moral priorities would sadden and enrage you?
We all know that the engine of democratic politics is overheating, but we don’t know how to dial it down. We can’t legislate our way out of this. You can’t order people to relax. And we can’t talk ourselves into it. For the political temperature to drop back down into the temperate zone we would all have to agree, right across the political spectrum, but that’s the one thing we can never do. If we could all agree, we wouldn’t need democracy, would we?
And there are so many worked-up people out there on social media who have no interest in being less angry.
Quite the pickle we’ve gotten ourselves into, eh?
The Hill Times July 25, 2024