Time for some sober second thought
Senate applicant believes government institutions are largely honest
Our series, “Politics for the rest of us,” continues today. It’s an attempt to see if Canadians can find common ground, without resorting to name-calling and insults. Today, meet a would-be senator who offers some sober second thought: When the Trudeau government announced that regular people could apply to be considered for a Senate appointment in 2016, Isabel Gibson of Ottawa jumped in. She created a website, along with a social media campaign to promote her candidacy. The 65-year-old, mostly retired business editor knew the odds were not in her favour, but why not try?
The married mother of two adult children holds a BA and an MBA but did not get the appointment. Instead, she became an aspiring photographer, videographer and storyteller.
You’d expect a candidate to the Senate to be highly involved in politics, but in this case you’d be wrong. The point of her candidacy was that she was thoroughly independent. She follows the news, and voted Conservative in 2015 and 2011, but doesn’t march, organize or write letters.
She herself describes her political philosophy as muddled. “For years I was a reflexive Liberal voter,” she explains. As a young person, she believed the world ought to be kinder and gentler and that government could help it along by levelling economic outcomes. But as she grew older, “I’ve seen the ill effects of being given everything, contrasted with the value of working for things, both material things and accomplishments. I’ve come to appreciate the importance of each of us doing the work it takes to look after ourselves and our neighbours, rather than pushing this off on government.”
Today she’s a fiscal conservative. She’s against abortion, though she wouldn’t legislate against it, but she supports gay marriage and the legalization of most drugs.
She’s not a fan of U.S. President Donald Trump. “I don’t like his bragging style that plays fast-and-loose with the truth and that never admits a mistake. I’m not impressed with what his behaviour reveals about his character, and I think that character matters in political life.” At the same time, she concludes he gets some issues right, such as his eagerness to reduce regulations, his support for Israel, and his appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. “Everything I heard Gorsuch say sounded wellreasoned and thoughtful,” she says.
She believes Canada’s government institutions are largely honest. “I think we expect fair treatment from government at every level — and have reasonably affordable recourse when we feel wronged — which is essential to a peaceful and law-abiding country. By and large, we don’t fear our government institutions or have objective reason to do so.”
Still, she adds, our institutions are far from perfect. If she could make changes, she would have the legislative branch doing better at holding the executive accountable, “so that electing a majority government didn’t effectively make the PMO a four-year dictatorship.” She would limit the terms of senators to five years, and she would limit the Senate’s ability to veto or hold up legislation to no more than six months.
Gibson believes Canadians broadly agree on what makes a good society, and tend to disagree more on means than on ends.
She would, however, like to see Canadians lose their smugness and self-righteousness, “especially vis-à-vis Americans, and the frequent conflation of ‘caring’ values with the Liberal party.” She would eliminate all tax deductions and credits and institute a guaranteed annual income to replace all “social programs that just redistribute wealth.”
She wants to see improvements to Indigenous affairs reach a point, over the next generation or two, where every Indigenous Canadian is “as integrated as they chose to be (versus assimilated), with all the individual rights and liberties that would involve.” She would also like to see non-Indigenous Canadians gain better knowledge and understanding of Indigenous culture and accomplishments.
If she could change one thing to improve our political discourse, “I’d introduce rationality and perspective,” she says — gradually.
“Our current discourse is characterized by strongly emotional responses and by a lack of perspective. Before engaging, we might stop to consider how small our policy differences really are (looked at in an international or historical context), and how well off we are and how small our problems are (again, compared to those in other countries or any other period in history).”