Politics: National Personalities Inverted?

TORONTO, ONTARIO - In previous posts, I have made the case that the United States demonstrates a view of the world based in the "emotional" world of personalities, Canada demonstrates a view of the world based in the "thinking" world of personalities, and that each perspective has an impact on the political environment of each country. There's apparent disconnect in time perspective inherent in that thesis, though, that deserves some attention. Because of the attraction of each world for its "balancing" world, the apparent time perspectives of the two political environments appear inverted.

The time perspectives associated with the "emotional" and "thinking" worlds are well-known. The "thinking" world looks to the future, often to the detriment of the present and ignoring lessons from the past. I've seen "thinking"-type people in professional situations work so hard at setting up a company for a future business situation that the company ends up near collapse because business wasn't strong enough in the short-term to survive to see the situation for which the thinking type was planning. In contrast, the "emotional" world looks to the past, often so informed by what happened in the past that it can't see how an environment might change in the future, therefore missing opportunities that can arise. It isn't hard to see how these two perspectives can balance one another--the "emotional" world reminds the "thinking" world that they may be looking too far forward, and the "thinking" world drags the "emotional" world out of the past and helps them see how things can be different in the future.

As someone who is a newcomer to Canada, I am not as familiar with past Canadian political history as the average Canadian. I've read about the National Energy Program, the Meech Lake Accord, and the Clarity Act, but I didn't personally experience any of them, and thus they don't mean much to me. Effectively, I'm incapable of providing an "emotional" world perspective on Canadian politics, because I haven't "felt" the history.

Yet, Canada is supposed to have a "thinking world" perspective looking toward the future, so at some level I thought it wouldn't matter that much. So, imagine my surprise during the recent controversy over the Financial Statement in late 2008, when all of the sudden the Bloc Québécois was actively trying to ruin the country of Canada, the Liberals were trying to force the National Energy Program on the west, and the Conservatives were again the Reform Party of western separatists, if we were to believe all the rhetoric coming from the various sides. The disconnect with the reality I had been observing for the past three years couldn't be greater. The Bloc might care more about Quebec than the rest of Canada, but I hadn't heard a word about separation or destroying the country out of them. The Liberals might have favored a "Green Shift," but comparing that with the National Energy Policy was a bit of a stretch, and the last thing in the world I would have ever expected from Prime Minister Harper or any Conservative Member of Parliament was a call for the west to leave Canada. Shouldn't the future-thinking people of Canada be expecting a better vision of the future and leaving all that baggage behind? Instead, they were entertaining completely "emotional," past-based perspectives.

Meanwhile, the politicians in the United States seemed to be about nothing except the future. Barack Obama tried to become a post-racial, post-partisan candidate basing his whole campaign on "hope" and "change." This wasn't exactly a new strategy. George W. Bush had campaigned to be a "uniter not a divider" and for a vision of bringing democracy to the world; it was his inability to deliver that caused his decline in popularity. Bill Clinton had been all about a "third way", a new vision of politics. George H.W. Bush had the "new world order." Ronald Reagan was about "morning in America." Where were the battles and controversies of the past resurfacing? The United States seemed more capable of looking to a future vision than Canada, and not hindered or informed by its past.

So how could this be? The answer seems to be in the attraction of one world for another. Because they are balancing worlds, the "emotional" world and the "thinking" world are attracted to one another. Someone coming from the "emotional" world, like the average voter in the United States, is attracted to "thinking" world arguments about the future, as provided by presidents from Reagan to Obama. Someone coming from the "thinking" world, like the average voter in Canada, is attracted to "emotional" world arguments, as politicians in the latest political crisis all tried to provide.

When push comes to shove, though, politicians cannot simply try to balance the populace. Advertising campaigns based on image and feelings still work better in the United States than Canada, whereas abstract analytical argumentation still has a greater impact in Canada than the United States. It takes a very healthy individual to be able to take on the perspectives of each world as circumstances require and lead effectively. For each country's sake, we should hope that both Barack Obama and Stephen Harper prove to have such skills.