J.D.M. Stewart: Canadians Often Well-Served By Leaders Who Do Right Thing
[J. D. M. Stewart teaches Canadian history at The Bishop Strachan School in Toronto. He has twice been a finalist for the Governor General's Award for Excellence in Teaching Canadian History.]
In private life be courteous, in handling public business be serious, with all men be conscientious. Even though you go among barbarians, you may not relinquish these virtues. -- Confucius
Poor Confucius. Every aspect of this quotation has been violated this year. Whether it was what was revealed in The Secret Mulroney Tapes, Scott Reid's "beer and popcorn" quip or the shenanigans of question period in the House of Commons, this was a sorry year for virtue in politics.
And for those now on the hustings, it must be daunting to read the words of Confucius and wonder if they can meet his standard. For that matter, if any leader is passing familiar with what the great philosophers have said about virtue (and Paul Martin may well be since his undergraduate degree is in philosophy), he would likely be a little concerned about measuring up.
Aristotle, for example, said that virtue was "a settled disposition of the mind, determining the choice of actions and emotions." By this he meant that the course of right action was a habit.
Plato advocated that our best choice for leaders came from the ranks of the "philosopher kings," men of wisdom and virtue who, as leaders, could not be enticed by wealth, power or ambition.
...
But how could thoughts as high-minded as those of Confucius et al possibly mix with the greasy world of politics? The question is a valid one considering the nature and history of politics. From the sponsorship scandal of 2005 back to the Pacific Scandal of 1873, Canadian history is littered with moments that would make Confucius blanch.
The point, however, is not whether Canada can attract and elect leaders who perfectly fit the Confucian mould; indeed, that is impossible. But Confucius sets out an ideal for a virtuous leader -- something to aspire to, even if, in the end, it is not quite attained.
After all, this is a difficult country to govern, as every prime minister in history has noted at one point or another. In fact, set against the idealism of Confucius is what I might call the Pearson Corollary: Lester B. Pearson, one of Canada's most-liked prime ministers, said the person who had the job needed the "hide of a rhinoceros, the morals of St. Francis, the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the leadership of Napoleon, the magnetism of a Beatle and the subtlety of Machiavelli."
Either way -- Confucian or Pearsonian -- there is a tall order to fill.
Nonetheless, push your cynicism aside for a moment and you will find that Canadian leaders have risen to the occasion and served as avatars of virtuous conduct, despite the barbarians who have occasionally hounded them. They have been unwavering -- despite temptations to do otherwise.
Take Pearson himself, for example. There may not have been a more courteous, serious and conscientious prime minister in our history. And despite the albatross of minority governments from 1963 to 1968, when he was prime minister, he pursued significant change for Canada from bilingualism to medicare.
...
Other leaders come to mind when thinking of men of great character. Louis St. Laurent, for example, is remembered as a gentleman and example of impeccable integrity. Mackenzie King served honourably and at length. But what about those asking for our support today?
Paul Martin and Stephen Harper both seem to be courteous and serious when needed. They seem conscientious. But when the barbarians come calling (the premiers, the lobbyists, the insiders, separatists, to name a few) one is left wondering how strong they will be.
In private life be courteous, in handling public business be serious, with all men be conscientious. Even though you go among barbarians, you may not relinquish these virtues. -- Confucius
Poor Confucius. Every aspect of this quotation has been violated this year. Whether it was what was revealed in The Secret Mulroney Tapes, Scott Reid's "beer and popcorn" quip or the shenanigans of question period in the House of Commons, this was a sorry year for virtue in politics.
And for those now on the hustings, it must be daunting to read the words of Confucius and wonder if they can meet his standard. For that matter, if any leader is passing familiar with what the great philosophers have said about virtue (and Paul Martin may well be since his undergraduate degree is in philosophy), he would likely be a little concerned about measuring up.
Aristotle, for example, said that virtue was "a settled disposition of the mind, determining the choice of actions and emotions." By this he meant that the course of right action was a habit.
Plato advocated that our best choice for leaders came from the ranks of the "philosopher kings," men of wisdom and virtue who, as leaders, could not be enticed by wealth, power or ambition.
...
But how could thoughts as high-minded as those of Confucius et al possibly mix with the greasy world of politics? The question is a valid one considering the nature and history of politics. From the sponsorship scandal of 2005 back to the Pacific Scandal of 1873, Canadian history is littered with moments that would make Confucius blanch.
The point, however, is not whether Canada can attract and elect leaders who perfectly fit the Confucian mould; indeed, that is impossible. But Confucius sets out an ideal for a virtuous leader -- something to aspire to, even if, in the end, it is not quite attained.
After all, this is a difficult country to govern, as every prime minister in history has noted at one point or another. In fact, set against the idealism of Confucius is what I might call the Pearson Corollary: Lester B. Pearson, one of Canada's most-liked prime ministers, said the person who had the job needed the "hide of a rhinoceros, the morals of St. Francis, the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the leadership of Napoleon, the magnetism of a Beatle and the subtlety of Machiavelli."
Either way -- Confucian or Pearsonian -- there is a tall order to fill.
Nonetheless, push your cynicism aside for a moment and you will find that Canadian leaders have risen to the occasion and served as avatars of virtuous conduct, despite the barbarians who have occasionally hounded them. They have been unwavering -- despite temptations to do otherwise.
Take Pearson himself, for example. There may not have been a more courteous, serious and conscientious prime minister in our history. And despite the albatross of minority governments from 1963 to 1968, when he was prime minister, he pursued significant change for Canada from bilingualism to medicare.
...
Other leaders come to mind when thinking of men of great character. Louis St. Laurent, for example, is remembered as a gentleman and example of impeccable integrity. Mackenzie King served honourably and at length. But what about those asking for our support today?
Paul Martin and Stephen Harper both seem to be courteous and serious when needed. They seem conscientious. But when the barbarians come calling (the premiers, the lobbyists, the insiders, separatists, to name a few) one is left wondering how strong they will be.