Why so much emphasis on, and praise for, politics as a game? Treating politics like a game is demeaning to a supremely important activity in a democracy

It is often noted that the news media portray elections as horse races and politics as a game. Are you sick of columns and articles which focus on politics as a "game" and -- worse -- lecture politicians about how better to play that game. My cup runneth over in light of certain columns responding to the federal government's sponsorship scandal.Perhaps the quintessence of cynicism and the "game" perspective on politics was given by Lawrence Martin, author of two best-selling biographies of Jean Chretien, in his column entitled, "Martin team broke every rule in Machiavelli's book" (Globe and Mail, Feb. 19). The columnist did not appear at all outraged by the Quebec scandal (some $100-million wasted). Rather, he criticized the PM and his handlers for failing to adopt standard Machiavellian tactics, e.g., never admit error (stonewall the whole thing), use timely leaks, and make sure the PM is out of touch of reporters when the merde hits the fan. Because he "opted for calling an outrage an outrage," the PM got badly hurt, Martin said. His advice: "play the old-fashioned way -- play dirty and don't own up to a thing -- " you can win every time."Columnist Martin ("One PM's 'small stuff' is another PM's crises," Globe and Mail, Feb. 12, 2004) described the multiple political scandals -- most involving Quebecers -- under Jean Chretien, as "small stuff." Pollster Allan Gregg wrote an op ed entitled "Why the fuss? AG's report deals with a drop in the bucket," in the Globe, Feb. 13. He argued that the apparent $100-million wasted over four years in the sponsorship program in Quebec "represented.015 per cent of the tax dollars entrusted to government." Yet the contracts through which funds were channelled to Quebec ad agencies and on to the federal Liberal Party undermine democratic politics.Columnist Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail, Feb. 19, 2004) described how Jean Chretien, aware of what the AG's report said in November, 2003, arranged matters "so that the Auditor General didn't have a chance to drop her stink bomb while he was still in the room." He dissolved Parliament and retired in December. Thus Paul Martin was saddled with the fecal fallout in February 2004. How clever of Mr. Chretien.In the Globe and Mail on Feb. 21, Drew Fagan tells us that Paul Martin's apparent outrage at scandal was all contrived -- simply part of a strategy of "Make it blow. Let it flow. Let it go." That is, the idea was to lance the boil of emotion and then quickly move on to the important task of getting the Liberals re-elected later this spring. But a funny thing happened. The boil turned out to be closer to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. And we know what happened to Pompeii and the Romans who lived there.Clearly, Lawrence Martin, Allan Gregg and their fellow travellers have been too close to the power too long. They have come to approve the ugly methods that were used so frequently by Jean Chretien and his henchmen. They have bought into the lie that the purportedly noble end (keeping Quebec in Canada) justifies the immoral and illegal means. In their desire to show off their "sophistication," they endorse the worst aspects of political behaviour (a la Machiavelli) and laugh at the "straights" (the naive?) by minimizing the significance of yet another example in a long series of similar behaviour that is clearly unacceptable by bourgeois standards.What are the attributes of politics as a "game" as reported in the news media? First winning -- even on small matters -- is highly prized. The point is for politicians to dominate. Politics as a game is like the child's game of "king of the hill" -- about dominance over others -- for its own sake. Second, players of the game prize being "clever" and in being seen by others as clever. Central to being clever and playing the game well is skill in manipulation of people, images, reporters, information. The truth is held to do largely irrelevant -- what people perceive or believe or act upon is the most important thing.Third, the focus in the game is on technique -- not substance. It is on who is outmanoeuvring whom for immediate advantage. The object is to gain or to retain power -- for its own sake, not to achieve certain substantive goals. (Obviously, power is a highly fungible asset. It can be used to obtain a wide variety of benefits.) Fourth, politics as a game means skirting the edge of what is legal or "acceptable" -- and both standards do change over time. For those who treat politics as a game, the real crime (and loss of face) lies not so much in the deed as in being caught out.Fifth, the game of politics is best played by the most cynical and by those best able to appeal to the baser instincts of people. Idealists are seen as dupes.Those who endorse the "game" perspective may do so for several reasons. They are turned-off and cynical. Perhaps they are unaware they have turned positive observations about politics into a normative ("ought") perspective. Or they may not be able to deal with substantive political issues. Possibly, they have even have become morally bankrupt.Allan Gregg (Globe and Mail, Feb. 13, 2004) argues that "when the public ceases to trust government with the stewardship of public finances, the entire system breaks down." Agreed! But what Gregg fails to appreciate is that there is a long record of good reasons not to trust government, and not just for its profligate handling of taxpayers' money. Recall the long suppressed $1-billion cost-overrun on the federal gun registry -- and the fact that the hapless policy does not save lives to boot.If the view that the sponsorship scandal is "small stuff" becomes widespread there will come a "turning point" at which the "straights" will recognize that their strategy must change to one based on pecuniary self-interest combined with a greater willingness to skirt (even violate) the law in the political arena (and possibly elsewhere). The result could be a politics which is to adapt Thomas Hobbes -- "nasty, brutish and opportunistic."It is often noted that the news media portray elections as horse races and politics as a game. Are you sick of columns and articles which focus on politics as a "game" and -- worse -- lecture politicians about how better to play that game. My cup runneth over in light of certain columns responding to the federal government's sponsorship scandal.Perhaps the quintessence of cynicism and the "game" perspective on politics was given by Lawrence Martin, author of two best-selling biographies of Jean Chretien, in his column entitled, "Martin team broke every rule in Machiavelli's book" (Globe and Mail, Feb. 19). The columnist did not appear at all outraged by the Quebec scandal (some $100-million wasted). Rather, he criticized the PM and his handlers for failing to adopt standard Machiavellian tactics, e.g., never admit error (stonewall the whole thing), use timely leaks, and make sure the PM is out of touch of reporters when the merde hits the fan. Because he "opted for calling an outrage an outrage," the PM got badly hurt, Martin said. His advice: "play the old-fashioned way -- play dirty and don't own up to a thing -- " you can win every time."Columnist Martin ("One PM's 'small stuff' is another PM's crises," Globe and Mail, Feb. 12, 2004) described the multiple political scandals -- most involving Quebecers -- under Jean Chretien, as "small stuff." Pollster Allan Gregg wrote an op ed entitled "Why the fuss? AG's report deals with a drop in the bucket," in the Globe, Feb. 13. He argued that the apparent $100-million wasted over four years in the sponsorship program in Quebec "represented.015 per cent of the tax dollars entrusted to government." Yet the contracts through which funds were channelled to Quebec ad agencies and on to the federal Liberal Party undermine democratic politics.Columnist Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail, Feb. 19, 2004) described how Jean Chretien, aware of what the AG's report said in November, 2003, arranged matters "so that the Auditor General didn't have a chance to drop her stink bomb while he was still in the room." He dissolved Parliament and retired in December. Thus Paul Martin was saddled with the fecal fallout in February 2004. How clever of Mr. Chretien.In the Globe and Mail on Feb. 21, Drew Fagan tells us that Paul Martin's apparent outrage at scandal was all contrived -- simply part of a strategy of "Make it blow. Let it flow. Let it go." That is, the idea was to lance the boil of emotion and then quickly move on to the important task of getting the Liberals re-elected later this spring. But a funny thing happened. The boil turned out to be closer to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. And we know what happened to Pompeii and the Romans who lived there.Clearly, Lawrence Martin, Allan Gregg and their fellow travellers have been too close to the power too long. They have come to approve the ugly methods that were used so frequently by Jean Chretien and his henchmen. They have bought into the lie that the purportedly noble end (keeping Quebec in Canada) justifies the immoral and illegal means. In their desire to show off their "sophistication," they endorse the worst aspects of political behaviour (a la Machiavelli) and laugh at the "straights" (the naive?) by minimizing the significance of yet another example in a long series of similar behaviour that is clearly unacceptable by bourgeois standards.What are the attributes of politics as a "game" as reported in the news media? First winning -- even on small matters -- is highly prized. The point is for politicians to dominate. Politics as a game is like the child's game of "king of the hill" -- about dominance over others -- for its own sake. Second, players of the game prize being "clever" and in being seen by others as clever. Central to being clever and playing the game well is skill in manipulation of people, images, reporters, information. The truth is held to do largely irrelevant -- what people perceive or believe or act upon is the most important thing.Third, the focus in the game is on technique -- not substance. It is on who is outmanoeuvring whom for immediate advantage. The object is to gain or to retain power -- for its own sake, not to achieve certain substantive goals. (Obviously, power is a highly fungible asset. It can be used to obtain a wide variety of benefits.) Fourth, politics as a game means skirting the edge of what is legal or "acceptable" -- and both standards do change over time. For those who treat politics as a game, the real crime (and loss of face) lies not so much in the deed as in being caught out.Fifth, the game of politics is best played by the most cynical and by those best able to appeal to the baser instincts of people. Idealists are seen as dupes.Those who endorse the "game" perspective may do so for several reasons. They are turned-off and cynical. Perhaps they are unaware they have turned positive observations about politics into a normative ("ought") perspective. Or they may not be able to deal with substantive political issues. Possibly, they have even have become morally bankrupt.Allan Gregg (Globe and Mail, Feb. 13, 2004) argues that "when the public ceases to trust government with the stewardship of public finances, the entire system breaks down." Agreed! But what Gregg fails to appreciate is that there is a long record of good reasons not to trust government, and not just for its profligate handling of taxpayers' money. Recall the long suppressed $1-billion cost-overrun on the federal gun registry -- and the fact that the hapless policy does not save lives to boot.If the view that the sponsorship scandal is "small stuff" becomes widespread there will come a "turning point" at which the "straights" will recognize that their strategy must change to one based on pecuniary self-interest combined with a greater willingness to skirt (even violate) the law in the political arena (and possibly elsewhere). The result could be a politics which is to adapt Thomas Hobbes -- "nasty, brutish and opportunistic."Cynicism is not confined to some columnists. Voters are also infected. Their view was probably well expressed by a caller to a Toronto radio talk show who said he would vote Liberal: "I think people should just get over it" (quoted in Christie Blatchford, Globe and Mail, Feb. 17, 2004).Treating politics like a game is demeaning to a supremely important activity in a democracy. Politics is about how we express and effect our collective will. Politics is about our most fundamental rights. Politics is the means we use to allocate about half the GDP! Newspapers should abandon the horse race and "game" approach to politics and give far less space to columnists who revel in it.The Hill Times

Why so much emphasis on, and praise for, politics as a game? Treating politics like a game is demeaning to a supremely important activity in a democracy

Public service job cuts loom as Ottawa misses spending and deficit targets

Conservative MPs bailed on France visit early, won’t say why

Ratna Omidvar on immigration, and eight years of legislating in the Senate

Relaunch advisory group to prepare for Trump’s return, says original NAFTA Council member

Liberal strategists say Trump’s victory will cement Trudeau’s decision to stay

Plenty of reasons why ‘political’ is almost always a pejorative adjective

Never has legal profession so dominated political life

Ottawa media like former prime minister Jean Chretien’s schtick

John Gomery Commission denies leaks to The Globe and Mail

MichaÃ«lle Jean steps out

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Why so much emphasis on, and praise for, politics as a game? Treating politics like a game is demeaning to a supremely important activity in a democracy

Become a Political Insider