Ghost of a flea

Moving clockwise from the top-right these basic imprints can be described as "the parent", "the dependent", "the paranoid" and "the tyrant". This may sound like so much pop-psych nonsense. But bear with me. It is not necessary to accept the full freight of Transactional Analysis, or tangentially cognate perspectives such as structural analysis or ethology, to recognize the basic insight represented by this diagram. Different orientations toward assertiveness or passivity and a directive or interactive approach to addressing our social environment will produce radically different understandings of political, economic or ethical choices. This will be the case in even those rare circumstances where facts are available and clearly agreed. Stop for a moment and consider the personalities of coworkers, employers or family members and it should be apparent that different personalities reliably interpret the world in ways that are consistently distinct from one another. One useful way of making sense of those differences is to consider their orientation toward power and ability to take into account the perspectives of others.

Robert Anton Wilson has observed the same distinctions may be found in traditional Western medicine in the form of the four humours.

This model of humours should be familiar to Flea-readers from many fictional and mythological contexts as well as personal experience. Take the four Hogwarts houses, for example. Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Slytherin are so resonant because they reflect something basic to our experience of ourselves and our lives as social animals.

I was recently reminded of this four-fold model of personality imprint types as I watched "Allegiance", an episode of Star Trek: the Next Generation. Juc-Luc Picard had been transported to a cell with one locked door and three fellow prisoners who had been abducted under similar circumstances. Picard recognizes their imprisonment as an elaborate psychological experiment when he realizes that each of the four have fundamentally different orientations toward authority and social interaction. Picard, our protagonist, takes the position of friendly strength and consequently attempts to address everyone's concerns and organize their escape. A Starfleet Ensign defers to his authority and attempts to cooperate with her fellow prisoners. Another prisoner moans and whines about everything without offering any solutions. The last prisoner is aggressive and, worryingly, is unable to eat the food offered up by the mysterious jailors and becomes increasingly tempted to eat the rest regardless of their psychological orientation. The personalities translate so neatly onto the map of emotional-territorial imprints that it is entirely possible the writer was reading Transactional Analysis as s/he wrote the script. That said, this axis represents something so basic to our experience as social animals that the resemblance might stem from that shared experience rather than shared reading.

It is important to note that while one aim of Transactional Analysis is to imprint a basic orientation summarized as "I'm OK with me. You're OK with me." that a well-balanced personality is going to sit somewhere closer to the centre of the graph than in any of the four quadrants. While Jean Luc Picard or Harry Potter may be the hero of the story it is also true that their friendly strength is not an appropriate response to every situation. When faced with circumstances ranging from an unreasonable coworker to life in occupied France hostility or passivity may not only be appropriate but necessary responses if only tactically or in the short term. Indeed, part of the development of Picard or Potter as characters is to learn that not everyone acts reasonably and not everyone wishes to be their friend. That this is just as true in our personal development explains some of the popularity of these characters and the stories in which they find themselves.

So... what does this have to do with the Conservative Party of Canada let alone a basic strategy helpful to winning elections? The answer to the first part of that question is another question: if Canadians were polled on the subject, which house at Hogwarts would most say resembled the Conservative party? The answer to that question is obvious.

Before anyone gets their shorts in a knot over this diagram I need to explain two things. First, I am talking about the popular perception of Canadian federal political parties, not the "reality" of strength or friendliness should those qualities be measurable in any reliable sense let alone the applicability of these personality imprint types to any particular individual. Remember, your political views (whatever they may be) are sensible and based on a clear-headed assessment of the facts while the general public, lacking your perspicacity, only perceives the truth, so evident to you, through a glass darkly. Unfortunately, democracy being what it is, public perception is critical to the business of electing a majority in Parliament and it is to that end I am writing this little missive. Second, I am only talking about public perception of federal parties represented in our federal Parliament. This same diagram would look quite different if drawn in British Columbia, say, or Quebec.

In England, the Conservative and Unionist Party is often described as the "nasty party". Such is the fate of conservative parties in many Western democracies. Hard-headed, supposedly good with money yet self-interested and, where the socons are running the show, intolerant of difference. Socialist parties, by contrast, are often represented as caring and cooperative if hopeless at the day to day business of, well, business. While Canadian conservatives are often typed as "nasty" but competent the main Canadian socialist party, the New Democratic Party is still thought of by some poor souls as "the conscience of Parliament." Much as with the Liberal Democrats in the UK, however, that sentiment would abruptly stop translating into votes in any federal election where the public thought they might accidentally elect an NDP government.

This perception of nasty and nice is often extended even to the horrors of Soviet Russia where tens of millions of deaths are breezily explained away with the sentiment that the Communists at least meant well. There is a Nietzschean insight in play here. Western philosophy, and a particular strain in Christian thinking, has taught us to think of power as inherently bad and meekness as a virtue. This asymmetry has been summed up in another way in the American context: "liberals" think "conservatives" are mean while "conservatives" think "liberals" are stupid.

The sovereigntist/separatist Bloc Quebecois are the obvious candidate for hostile weakness. This is a federal party that will never stand for seats outside Quebec and consequently can never form a government. This peculiar electoral strategy only makes sense when it is understand that their stated aim is not to form a government but to remove Quebec from confederation entirely. How this squares with accepting a federal salary or sitting as representatives in Her Majesty's Parliament in Canada is less important to my purposes here than pointing out their role in forming a psychological and mythological whole in which the final piece of the puzzle locks into place.

That last puzzle piece is Canada's "party of government", the Liberals. It is a peculiar fact to me that in the recent kerfuffle over massive criminality and corruption by people associated with the Liberal party in Quebec that public discourse on the subject has invariably pointed out the risk this situation poses to confederation. In Quebec, federalism equals the Liberal party. This is certainly critical to Liberal public relations and an ideology of Liberal electoral inevitability. What is not clear to me is how and why the Conservatives and the socialists all too often acquiesce to this story (more on this in another post). Regardless for the reasons this story is allowed to go largely unchallenged, it fits an overall picture where everything from the establishment media to the colours of our national flag render the Liberal party the Gryffindor of Canadian politics.

What is fine for a childen's story is a serious problem for running a country. While it may be in the interest of individual members of parliament to represent ideological purity, the institutionalized awkward squad that is the Bloc or to simply enjoy the perks of life as a Liberal backbencher it is crippling for any party to have a permanent lock on power. In such circumstances, the best and the brightest do not seek office through the electoral process but through the internal unelected and unaccountable machinations of the ruling party. If Canadian entrepreneurialism and adventurousness have come to resemble communist Albania (if you will allow me the hyperbole) it is because of the same structural problem of management in a de facto single party state. It is simply not feasible to run the country indefinitely under any single political party and I believe it is for this reason that we see the occasional hint of a Conservative majority in the polls. That Conservative prospects look so grim at the moment does not change this fact.

Neither does it change the Conservative problem as the "nasty party". I have heard a great deal lately from a number of sources that Conservative leader, Stephen Harper's public persona or circle of advisors are to blame for the party's current travails. I do not believe this to be the case. What looks more likely to me is the all too common rhetoric of party supporters to the effect that Canadians only think Conservatives are nasty because they have been fooled into so thinking by our education system and mass media. Canadians, and particularly those Canadians living in Toronto, are often described by Conservatives as "stupid". That Canadians might look at Conservative party policy and not like what they see rarely seems to cross the minds of the people offering this uncharitable point of view (more on this in another post). Again, my aim here is not to address the fairness, let alone the "reality", of this perception. It is to suggest the only way the Conservative party can win a federal election and in so doing offer Canadians a government that can shake things up a bit and in turn be kicked out of office in due course.

The answer is to run against type. Tony Blair did not become one of the most important Prime Ministers of the last hundred years by confirming the predispositions and the prejudices of his party. He did so in most cases by running against those predispositions and, more importantly, the public perception of them. Blair has been the "New" Labour Prime Minister commonly regarded by habitual supporters of his Conservative opponents as a man who could be trusted to fight for his convictions, manage the public purse, even to conduct wars. While there are exceptions to this perception of the man it is only necessary to compare him with Neil Kinnock or Michael Foot and my point becomes obvious. Bill Clinton adopted the same strategy of triangulation between the wishes of his party base and the need to speak to the broad centre of the American electorate. The Liberal party, supposedly a party of the centre of Canadian politics, have made a career of tacking to and fro between the exigencies of economic circumstance and public opinion. Indeed, Paul Martin, our current Prime Minister, was meant to embody a hard-headed financial and business acumen complementary to a party with centre-left views on social policy. In those heady days of his leadership of the internal opposition of the Liberal party he was even billed as the Liberal who could take seats in Alberta, something akin to a federal Democratic presidential candidate who could make a strong run in Texas. It is only when the public persona of friendly strength is undermined by mismanagement and corruption that the ideological certainty of Liberal government is called into question. Even then, a litany of statements by all to many Conservative MPs, and Conservative party policies, so ably articulate their role as the "nasty party" that even now their electoral prospects are grim. It is also important to note that the "moral" imperative of toppling the government has grown less imperative, and presumably less "moral", in Conservative public statements with every poll showing it would result in a Liberal majority.

It is to laugh. Except that this means the crucial structural problem of indefinite one party government, and the inevitable corruption it brings about, look ever more likely to remain indefinite. Conservatives of Canada: you need to stop pointing fingers at Canadian "stupid" and forego the temptations of socon ideological "purity" or the satisfactions of an internal party bloodbath. You should instead be looking for your own Tony Blair, someone who can represent the party by running against type. I have no idea who that person might be because most of the successful, management-minded folks gravitate to the Liberal party and away from the repellent low-brow animosity of the Conservative backbench. It is your problem to solve. Unfortunately, it is Canada's problem to live with.

It should go without saying that this chart would look quite different in a context without the four political parties that so conveniently fit into the boxes provided. The American federal example offers what I believe are clear instances of perceived imprint orientations toward hostile strength and friendly weakness but fewer obvious examples of the other two types. But what is true in Canadian politics is equally true in the American case: it is critical to run against type. Only Nixon, it has been observed, could go to China. The Democrats need to present a leader who can offer directive strength while the Republicans need someone who suggests compassion and warmth. This logic made Ronald Reagan an icon and presents a clear opportunity to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Conservatives in Canada are going to have to demonstrate the same insight if they ever wish to earn the trust of the Canadian people and offer us, at long last, an alternative government.