United in grief

Re: Grass fire not seen as threat before catastrophe, military says (Oct. 19)

We are all Canadians. Coming from a large military family, including my own daughter, I feel that when such a disaster occurs, we all feel as if our own have fallen. God bless the Canadian Armed Forces, and the first responders, at this terrible time.

Diane R. Unger

“Trees don’t matter – we have bigger problems to worry about.”

This is what I read on Facebook after someone posted about the importance of voting for municipal candidates who care about Winnipeg’s trees.

I think everyone can agree that our city has many challenges. But I think what is missing in the narrative about this election is that voting with nature in mind isn’t important just because we love our neighbourhood elm tree or enjoy birdwatching.

Nature — in this case, I am referring to trees, birds and climate change — does not exist in a vacuum. Voting for candidates who value our urban canopy, want to have a bird-friendly city and seek to reduce the impacts of climate change is a key way of solving some of those “bigger problems.” According to a recent Abacus Data poll, Winnipeg has been given a failing grade by residents on transit, street maintenance and parks. Not only this, but one half of Winnipeggers think their city is going in the wrong direction.

In 2017 I sat in a legislative committee room and asked a simple question about the bill that would take Power Smart out of Manitoba Hydro and turn it into a brand-new Crown corporation:

“What problem does this solve?”

I never got an answer. Not long after, I was sitting as an independent.

Nine years later, we have the answer. It didn’t solve much.

A long time ago I was interviewing a professor at the University of Michigan (whose name I cannot recall) on various topics of no great interest. I was about to give up when I accidentally asked the right question.

“Have any major human behaviours really changed in the past few centuries?” I asked, and he said “No, but the sociopaths are multiplying.”

I was dealing with a full-time sociopath in my work at that time, so I immediately went back into interview mode. (‘Sociopath’ and ‘psychopath’ both describe essentially the same behaviours, although they may be more extreme in the latter case.) And the professor proceeded to explain it in evolutionary terms.

The typical sociopath is male, above average intelligence, highly manipulative, and utterly without empathy (but he is able to mimic it). He lies often and very persuasively, because he totally believes his own lies as soon as he says them (while retaining the ability to modify them if necessary). He is often charismatic and usually has many children by several women.

With the upcoming Winnipeg municipal election just around the corner, Free Press contributors are reminding us of the risks of low voter turnout and encouraging us to exercise our civic responsibility by casting our votes.

What’s missing for me in these submissions is attention to an underlying cause of these low voting rates — the fact that both the electorate’s trust in politicians and politicians’ trust in the electorate are at a very low ebb. Given the collapse of democratic trust why would we expect otherwise?

The electorate’s mistrust of politicians is easy to understand in light of the all too frequent lapses in moral judgment on the part of politicians of all stripes and at all levels of government. While there are, of course, noteworthy exceptions, we don’t have to look far to be confronted with these lapses.

But what of politicians’ mistrust of the electorate? The fact is there are few opportunities for citizens to work collaboratively with elected officials to explore solutions to the unprecedented problems we are all facing. As a result, the myth of an ignorant and self-interested public goes unchallenged. Yes, we are invited to attend town halls. Yes we are asked to respond to multiple surveys. But is that democracy? Is that true engagement of citizens in political life?