In politics, the demand for perfection and strict adherence to orthodoxy can be the enemy of the good. In a political system that thrives on the art of creative compromise, the true believers who insist on nothing less than the perfect solution can end up blocking improvement in the very thing they support.
Tucked away inside a report on Canada’s medicare system last week was a striking bit of evidence to support that nugget of political philosophy.
Former members of the National Health Forum were asked by health minister Allan Rock to offer their current view of the health-care system 18 months after they first reported that it is weakened, but still functioning and fixable.
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
In dishing out much of the same advice, they offered an interesting observation.
Publicly funded medicare, they wrote, is being undermined from two sides.
The first is obvious – those who oppose “socialized” medicine and advocate an American-style system. They dream of privately funded coverage or at least a two-tier system which gives access to the best care money can buy, for those who can afford it.
The second is more surprising, since it comprises a group of medicare devotees who see themselves as the system’s friends.
This second group includes those who insist that medicare is so badly underfunded, it is unable to do the job properly.
They use the argument to try to shame governments into pouring more cash into a system most Canadians cherish.
But as forum members see it, their doomsday arguments actually are working to convince Canadians that medicare is broken and should be replaced.
These uncompromising supporters are unwitting allies of those who would like to see public medicare blown up in favor of private medicine. “Both spread fear and create public anxiety.”
The implications of this, and other examples like it, should be pondered by all players in the political system, grassroots Reformers included.
To hear some of them talk during this summer of Reform discontent, any politician they send to Ottawa who does not adhere 100 percent to their version of the New Jerusalem (or perhaps the New Calgary) should be renounced and denounced as another political sell-out.
Reform politicians have only themselves to blame for some of this, of course.
They have been fast to impose a holier-than-thou standard to Canadian politics over the past decade. Now, they are fast learning that life is a tad more complicated inside the democratic tent where progress is made through compromises.
But if Reform voters think that the spectacle of MP reversals on issues such as pensions and perks is more than they can stomach, that political purity would be possible with more principled representatives, they should think again.
Love it or hate it, the Reform Party has made a difference in the Canadian political debate. To insist on absolute orthodoxy would marginalize the party’s effectiveness, replacing it with more “traditional” politicians. For those who believe in moving Canada toward Reform ideals, rigid insistence on perfection would be the enemy of progress.
