Book Review

The Age of Disruption

Barry Cooper
October 19, 2018
What does it mean to be living in a so-called “age of disruption”? Barry Cooper, reviewing Stephen Harper’s Right Here, Right Now: Political Leadership in the Age of Disruption, argues that our current disruption arises from the collapse of the USSR and the ensuing extinguishment of the ideals of the French Revolution. Harper’s recognition of this, argues Cooper, is evidence of “inspired political understanding.”
Book Review

The Age of Disruption

Barry Cooper
October 19, 2018
What does it mean to be living in a so-called “age of disruption”? Barry Cooper, reviewing Stephen Harper’s Right Here, Right Now: Political Leadership in the Age of Disruption, argues that our current disruption arises from the collapse of the USSR and the ensuing extinguishment of the ideals of the French Revolution. Harper’s recognition of this, argues Cooper, is evidence of “inspired political understanding.”
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

The reception accorded Stephen Harper’s recent book, Right Here, Right Now: Political Leadership in the Age of Disruption, by leading columnists for Toronto’s two national newspapers was not friendly. Indeed, it reconfirmed the professional preference of Laurentian journalists for carping criticism of our 22nd Prime Minister. There was no chance that such certified knowers as they claim to be might ever learn from Harper’s reflections. According to one, the book revealed a mind that is “all too conventional, even banal.” It consists of “a mix of received wisdom and undergraduate shibboleths, many of them long debunked.” This from a journalist who (so far as I know) has never written a book or taught undergraduates.

Others were surprised that Harper showed so much scorn for “intellectually adolescent” progressives and liberals. None bothered to explain why such an attitude was inappropriate. Rather, Harper’s criticism was dismissed as “cartoonish.” A particularly “unappealing aspect” of the book was his “generous treatment of Mr. Trump.” In fact, Harper was agnostic on the possibility of a successful presidency owing to Trump’s “erratic behaviour” and “simmering scandals,” his “veneer of anger” and “tinge of darkness,” which was the source of “outrageous statements and outlandish conduct.” Anything other than insults, the uttering of anathemas or the casting of hexes passes for generosity among Trump-haters.

Granted, it is always difficult for some minds to understand new ideas, but several letters to the editor expressed gratitude at having learned from Harper’s insights. That is the real question: what can be learned from Right Here, Right Now?

The key is a phrase in his subtitle: “the age of disruption.” What does he mean? On the second page of the book, Harper identifies the current age of disruption as beginning when “conservatives won the Cold War.” In 1989, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and yes, John Paul II, quarterbacked the disintegration of the already moribund Soviet Union. A few pages later Harper summarizes Frank Fukuyama’s thesis, that this event launched “the new world of democratic capitalism and globalization,” which Fukuyama famously described as the end of history.

It’s a long story but Fukuyama was wrong – not about the significance of the event, but about the date he assigned to it. For those who use such language, the most accomplished of the end-of-history thinkers, namely Hegel, explained that history “ended” in 1806, after the battle of Jena, which stabilized the French Revolution as the Napoleonic Empire. That empire, in turn, was the first incarnation of what has come to be called the Universal and Homogeneous State (UHS). Today liberals evoke its memory by conjuring up a “global community.”

For two centuries (1789-1989) the ideals of the UHS, expressed in the French revolutionary slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity, were institutionalized in Napoleonic dicta regarding careers open to talent or corporals carrying a marshal’s baton in their knapsacks. So henceforth the primary job of the state was to enforce freedom, equality and brotherhood (or sisterhood or even comradeship). By this narrative, the Russian Revolution was the culmination of the French one. The disintegration of the USSR also meant the extinguishment of the ideals of the French Revolution. And so began the current age of disruption. Whatever one’s reservations concerning details, Harper’s recognition of this is an inspired political understanding.

Stephen Harper was trained as an economist, though he has acquired an enormous amount of political experience. So his focus is not on Hegel or the end-of-history language, but on the pragmatic and mostly economic consequences of 1989. These appeared with astonishing speed: within a generation, a billion human beings, mostly in Asia, and especially in China, escaped poverty. The economic aspects of liberty, equality and fraternity, namely markets and mobility, were universally inscribed as the new normal.

Harper stresses the unanticipated economic effects on the winners of the Cold War. That would be us: chiefly the Anglo-American liberal democracies, but also the Europeans and in some respects even Russia. When China became the major and global supplier of goods, this was not trade, which is reciprocal: the Chinese sell, the rest of us buy, and jobs move one way. The chief beneficiaries were not the Chinese people but the Chinese government whose tyranny has been enhanced by state-controlled economic prosperity.

More specifically still, the current Disruptor-in-Chief, Donald J. Trump, clearly grasped that the economic consequences of the end of the Cold War, particularly globalization, were detrimental not just to the economic self-interest of the United States, but also to the self-respect of millions of Americans. The same dynamic played out in the Brexit referendum. The European Union can be seen as another face of the Universal and Homogeneous State, but it too was undermined in the aftermath of 1989. The slogan of the Brexiteers might well have been: “Make Britain Great Again.”

Liberals and progressives have simply been unable to understand that those who did nothing to win it have disproportionately harvested the benefits of our victory in the Cold War. This blindness alone justifies Harper’s critical remarks regarding them. Paradoxically, today’s liberals are also today’s reactionaries, glumly sticking to a dogmatic understanding of markets, immigration, free trade, ethnic-based identity politics, and gender neutrality. Harper’s political experience, not his economic training, taught him the practical lesson, for example, that markets are a tool of sound economic policy, a means to an end. And so too is mobility of capital and labour. This includes immigration.

The notion that immigration is not a right to be claimed but a means available to governments to pursue the national interest assumes the legitimacy (and sovereignty) of national governments. Reactionaries on the left apparently still long for the now obsolete Universal (and effectively borderless) and Homogeneous (or secular and gender-neutral) State. But their nostalgia for the era that began in 1789 with the French Revolution and concluded with the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9th, 1989 grows quainter by the year. The latest “end of history” is over.

The Berlin Wall is breached between East and West and falls in November 1989.

However one identifies it, post-Cold War globalization introduced an ecumenic order that was fundamentally new. Fine. But what did that event have to do with populism, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump? Harper is very clear that those who criticize populists as demagogues are themselves being demagogic because populism is a reaction to the suppression of legitimate questions by liberals, progressives and other left-wing (and in Canada chiefly Laurentian) elites. Examples of such “suppressed discourses” (Foucault) or “repressive tolerance” (Marcuse) would include the aforementioned issue of free trade, but also anthropogenic climate change, a gender-neutral and gender-fluid society, or the significance of illegal and irregular immigration. Populists are distinctive because they insist that these neglected issues, which remain constituents of social and political reality, be put on the political agenda.

In response, such persons are derided as sexists, racists, climate deniers and the like. Even so, normal persons can distinguish between arguments and abusive epithets.

Harper’s argument has another interesting implication for Canadian politics. It is true, as he notes, that no serious populist movement has arisen on the right – for which he credits his own government. Or rather, no such populism has appeared yet. But ask yourself: what have liberals and progressives in this country particularly ignored or suppressed and thereby invited a populist response as an available option? The question practically answers itself: the ascent of the prairie west as the resource-based centre of Canadian prosperity.

In this context we can consider the current refusal (not failure) of Laurentian Canada to permit pipeline construction to be a continuation of the progressive Liberal policy of a generation ago, the National Energy Program of the current Prime Minister’s dad. Recall the outcome of Pierre’s folly: a minor populist uprising that Harper eventually turned into a defeat for the Laurentians. This time more is at stake and more of us are fed up. So stay tuned: such repressive policies are an invitation to populist initiatives, right here, right now.

 

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The First-Past-the-Post Way of Voting is Better-than-the-Rest

To hear proponents tell it, proportional representation is the cure for all that ails Canadian democracy. It’s fairer, less divisive, more diverse, makes voters happier and is less prone to “strategic” voting. About the only thing it apparently can’t do is make childbirth painless. But could replacing our traditional first-past-the-post voting system really improve how Canada is governed – and how Canadians feel about their government? In his grand-prize-winning entry to the 1st Annual Patricia Trottier and Gwyn Morgan Student Essay Contest, Nolan Albert weighs the arguments for and against replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation, and in doing so uncovers the real cause of voter dissatisfaction.

The Runaway Costs of Government Construction Projects

Ottawa’s post-pandemic $300 billion spending orgy was coupled with the pompous claim to “Build Back Better”. As it happened, most of that spending was recklessly borrowed – stoking inflation – while Build Back Better was a dud, was discarded in embarrassment and, if recalled at all today, is told as a sick joke. Far too many planned projects now sink into a quicksand of political haggling, regulatory overkill, mission creep, design complexity and, if built at all, bungled execution. Looking at specific examples, Gwyn Morgan presents the lamentable results: far less is actually getting built across Canada, nearly everything takes forever and – worst of all – costs routinely soar to ludicrous levels. Added to that, Morgan notes, are woke-based criteria being imposed by the Trudeau government that are worsening the vicious cycle.

Adam Smith’s “Saline Solution” for Canada’s Health Care System

That Canada’s health care system is ailing is no longer news. That it is not only victim but perpetrator – killing patients through indifference and neglect – is also increasingly understood. But is Canada’s publicly funded and operated monopoly health care system an economy of sorts, a set of relationships that can be understood in economic terms, and one that might lend itself to reform by applying economic principles? In the second of three prize-winning entries from the 1st Annual Patricia Trottier and Gwyn Morgan Student Essay Contest to be published by C2C Journal, Alicia Kardos answers a resounding “Yes”. Drawing on key ideas and principles of the genius from Kirkcaldy, Scotland, Kardos envisions an overhauled health care system in which incentives are rational, self-interest is rewarded and the consumer – the patient – is king.

More from this author

In Case of Emergency, Read This! Alberta’s Covid-19 Report

Despite the wreckage wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic – social disintegration, ruined lives, physical and economic tolls – the governments and public officials who “managed” the emergency have been decidedly uninterested in assessing their performance. Except in Alberta, where a government-appointed panel just released its Final Report. Though predictably attacked by politicians, media and “experts” who can abide no dissent, the report makes many sensible recommendations, Barry Cooper finds. The report calls for emergency management experts – not doctors or health care bureaucrats – to be in charge when such disasters strike, with politicians who are accountable to the people making the key decisions. Most important, the report demands much stronger protection for the individual freedoms that panic-stricken governments and overbearing professional organizations so readily quashed.

Empire of Fear: How the Pandemic Made a Canadian University Lose its Mind

As a lifelong academic, political scientist Barry Cooper believed the university had the means – and the duty – to lead government and society in the quality of reasoning it brought to bear on difficult issues. Like Covid-19. Instead, Cooper’s document-based review of the University of Calgary administration’s decisions and statements during the pandemic suggests that, far from carefully weighing evidence and reaching balanced (or even courageous) decisions, the leadership was governed by emotion, driven by impulse and willingly subject to the shifting whims of medical bureaucrats. Logic, evidence, rational risk assessment and even basic humanity were cast aside. Whatever one might think of the resulting policies, the paper trail Cooper examines is shocking for its banal thinking, atrocious writing, pompous condescension and immature emotionalism.

Quelle Surprise! Quebec Wants More (Seats in the House of Commons, that is)

Demographics is destiny, we’re often told. But while Canada’s fastest-growing provinces – primarily in the West – have every right to expect that their increasing share of the country’s population will be matched in their political representation at the federal level, the morass of Canadian federalism stands in the way. Barry Cooper takes a close look at a recent Bloc Québécois motion demanding Quebec be given more MPs even as its share of Canada’s population continues to sag. This affront to the basic democratic principle that every person’s vote should carry equal weight was supported by all parties, including many Conservative MPs. And it might soon become law. Cooper untangles the perverted logic, backstory and future implications.

Share This Story

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.