Patriotic correctness in Newfoundland and Labrador
Reprinted with permission
Editors’ note: The following is an excerpt from a speech David Cochrane delivered to the St. John’s Board of Trade on Feb. 21, 2007. Within Newfoundland and Labrador it led to the term “patriotic correctness” being used to refer to the stifling of pluralistic public debate on topics that go against a nationalistic ethos and/or the will of populist premiers. The speech is a snapshot in time whose content arguably remains relevant today.
There exists in Newfoundland and Labrador a phenomenon I like to call “patriotic correctness.” Like political correctness, it makes certain words or expressions unacceptable. But most significantly, it has fostered an environment where informed dissent is seen as nothing short of treason, where the simple questioning or criticism of the government or the premier is viewed as an unpatriotic assault upon the very fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Patriotic correctness manifests itself in times of conflict. Usually it pits the premier and the government against an outside force such as the federal government, a nickel company, Big Oil or a fish company that happens to be run by a Nova Scotian. It creates an incredibly lopsided public debate, one where all good Newfoundlanders and Labradorians must rally to the side of the government.
What matters most is a public display of loyalty, of being on side with the stated goal of getting the best deal or best return, and most benefits for the province.
What matters least is a public debate about the merits of this stance, or whether these goals are even reasonable or achievable, or whether the government is acting in a way that is fair to all parties.
When a particular political issue is causing the government grief, it dispatches hit squads to the radio open-line shows. Armed with talking points, they seek to hijack the debate. And if someone questions the government on an issue … the us versus them argument is reopened.
I’m not saying people should vote against the government. I’m not suggesting they should vote for one party over another. But people should be free to make up their mind and vote in an election without having their patriotism questioned before they step into the voting booth, just as they should be free to question this government — and any other government — without having their love of place put to some sort of test.
The sad reality is that for my entire adult life the intellectual leadership of this province has been confined to the legislature and the open line.
I believe this has to change. The broader elements of our society need to participate in the larger discussion on how the government conducts itself and how it manages the economy. People need to be free to question, challenge and criticize their government without fear of reprisal or of facing a public challenge to their patriotism.
A society cannot progress unless it does so on the strength of its ideas. And good ideas require the courage and the intellectual leadership that aren’t always found in the legislature or from the caller on Line 3. Public debate cannot be ceded to the mob, because when it is, the mob almost always chooses to free Barabbas and send the good man to the cross.
David Cochrane is a senior reporter with the CBC’S parliamentary bureau. Previously he was a political reporter for “Here and Now” and CBC Radio in Newfoundland and Labrador. He is the former host of “On Point with David Cochrane,” a political discussion program that aired on CBC-TV.
People need to be free to question, challenge and criticize their government without fear of reprisal or of facing a public challenge to their patriotism.
A society cannot progress unless it does so on the strength of its ideas. And good ideas require the courage and the intellectual leadership that aren’t always found in the legislature or from the caller on Line 3. Public debate cannot be ceded to the mob, because when it is, the mob almost always chooses to free Barabbas and send the good man to the cross. I’m not saying people should vote against the government. I’m not suggesting they should vote for one party over another. But people should be free to make up their mind and vote in an election without having their patriotism questioned before they step into the voting booth, just as they should be free to question this government — and any other government — without having their love of place put to some sort of test.