George Grant: Straddling the Political Fence by Andrew Kaethler

Why does it feel like voting in a
political election requires a moral compromise? Should casting a ballot be
based on choosing a lesser evil? How can a Canadian citizen vote and be
ethically responsible?

In a recent issue of Sojourners magazine an article pointed
to a few oddities of both the emblematic ‘left’ and the mainstream ‘right.’ The
‘left’ is anti-war because innocent lives will be lost yet it embraces
abortion, pro-choice. The ‘right’ is pro-life on the abortion issue because
they seek to protect the lives of the innocent babies yet are pro-war. How can
a person seeking to defend the lives of specific innocent individuals so easily
embrace taking the lives of those outside of that exclusive circle? Although
there are some similarities between abortion and war there are many
philosophical differences and the illustration is far too simple, but it does
help paint the picture. It reveals the moral inconsistencies of our politics.

In Canada the parties that seem
most morally opposed are the Conservative Party (CP) and the New Democratic
Party (NDP). The salient moral issues that our CP politicians stand against are
late term abortion and same-sex marriage. The NDP promote the importance of community
over the individual shown in their embrace of ‘green’ issues and public health
care. The two parties are far from seeing eye to eye on these important issues.
Of course there are other controversies of fiscal responsibility and
international policy and so forth, but from a purely moral standpoint which
party do you want to stand behind? Often this is answered by our heritage, our
past allegiance to a specific party, or it is dictated by one’s occupation.
Both parties emphasize something that is important as well as something
negative. This political ambivalence is made clear in the writings of George
Grant.

George Grant, often cited as
Canada’s most influential philosopher, clearly saw the moral inconsistencies of
the political sphere and floated between the ‘left’ and the ‘right’—this may be
the reason for his popularity and influence. In 1960 a group of intellectuals
gathered to discuss the recreation of the CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth
Federation) into the NDP. Grant was one of those invited because of his
positive writings on Marxism in Philosophy
and the Mass Age. He participated in this project contributing an article
for a collection called The Social
Purpose of Canada. Grant lauded the NDP’s emphasis on education and
concluded that they would act as a restraint on capitalism. A year later he
turned his back on the party. He disdained the idea of collective salvation
through political action which the NDP embraced; Grant believed that such a
view aims for utopia on earth and ignores deeper spiritual longings and needs.

In 1965 Grant wrote Lament For a Nation in which he
reservedly praises Diefenbaker’s nationalism (Diefenbaker, a Progressive
Conservative, was prime minister from 1957 to 1963). Here one begins to see the
balancing act Grant performs for the rest of his life. He extolled
Diefenbaker’s stand against America, but found his approach wanting—it lacked
depth. Later with the Vietnam war Grant was seen protesting with the young and
speaking to the outraged students about America’s imperialistic nature. But
just when the ‘‘left’’ figured Grant was back in their camp he wrote English Speaking Justice. Here Grant
critiques technology, the priority of individual right’s, and the corporation.
So far the ‘left’ are nodding their heads, but then Grant rejects the notion of
pro-choice, and with both arms swinging he tears apart the liberal judgment of
the U.S. Supreme Court in the “Roe vs. Wade” case. In Grant’s last book, Technology and Justice, he furthers his
critique of Western thought standing on the ‘left’ in regards to the commonweal
and on the ‘right’ with abortion and euthanasia.

No wonder Grant had such a wide
readership. Unfortunately, both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ took what they
wanted and disregarded the rest. Grant saw the good in both positions and did
not kowtow to either political idol. Part of the difficulty for Grant was he
perceived that technology lay at the root of all Western politics; therefore,
the end for all parties is implicit mastery over both human and non-human nature.
This, in part, is why he is such a strong nationalist and why he so desperately
desired that Canada keep her distance from her Southern liberal neighbor—the
quintessence of technological society. The language of technology has removed
our ability to speak morally; thus all we are left with are eroded remnants of
a past moral foundation, a foundation that is needed if we are to be morally
consistent.

Was George Grant wishy-washy? Not
in the least. Grant was in harmony with Christianity. If he had fully sided
with any party he would have compromised either the social or the moral ethics
of the New Testament. As C. S. Lewis (Grant attended the Socratic club at
Oxford, which was chaired by Lewis) says, first things must come first and
second things may follow: “It may be stated as follows: every preference of a
small good to a great, or a partial good to a total good, involves the loss of
the small or partial good for which the sacrifice was made.”[1]
The gospels are primary for Grant and to completely embrace either party would
involve sacrificing what he knew concerning first things.

Regrettably, even with the help of
Grant’s insight one is left with the quandary: what issue is the most
important? If only there was a party that shared the ‘left’s’ social awareness
with the ‘right’s’ traditional understanding of morality. Why can’t there be?
For those of us, like Grant, who believe that we are not the measure of all
things, but are measured by something other, choosing the ‘left’ or the ‘right’
is an act of moral compromise. What Canada needs is a party that is morally
responsible, a party that holds together thought and charity. Grant postulates
that originally the conservative party was one such faction, but now the
conservatives are liberals (those who push for extreme individualism of whom
America is the epitome) in disguise. Can we recreate this group or has our
dimmed remembrance of what Canada once was eradicated this possibility?
Whatever the answer, if Grant were still alive he would encourage us to stand
tall on the shoulders of those that came before us.

Grant lamented the loss of a
nation, but he continued calling us to remember our past and to think through
the issues of today in order that we may live as best as possible. Certainly no
party in Canada represents what is best. It is time for us to re-examine our
political alliances, and possibly reform them.