August 19, 2023
HERE'S MY TAKE
Malaise probably isn’t the right word. Anxiety, maybe? Insecurity? None hit the nail on the head. I’m trying to describe an era in which the expectations of children are lower than their parents. It’s a time of general scepticism that the unintended negative consequences of every solution will outweigh the positive benefits. There’s a suspicion that even the best of our leaders, to whom we offer a surface emotional loyalty since they clearly aren’t as bad as the other guy, really don’t have what it takes to lead fundamental change. It’s not pessimism about specific leaders doing specific wrong things (although there is plenty of that.) Rather, it’s the befuddlement that comes from seeing no way out. We lack confidence that there are realistic answers to “How do societies change?” in a way that will translate theory into present practice.
How much of this is “our malaise”? I suspect many immigrants arriving in Canada compare our problems to those of the countries from which they came and wonder what our angst is all about. (Although let’s not over-romanticize and assume we are the most desirable place in the world to live. We don’t talk as much about the twenty percent or so of immigrants who look to leave Canada within a decade of arriving.) It’s by no means universal, but I still sense within mainstream opinion a significantly diminished optimism regarding the future. For lack of a better word let’s call this a “malaise.”
A couple of recent columns helpfully have peeled a few layers off the current-news onion to cast some light on this matter. David Brooks asked his New York Times readers, “What if We are the Bad Guys Here?” He challenged the “Trump is the bad guy; anti-Trumpers are the good guys” narrative that undergirds so much of today’s media coverage, noting that the educated class, which prides itself on speaking up for the marginalized, has equated being “smart” with a particular political approach. They are educated, sophisticated cool kids who benevolently have the best interests of everyone at heart (and the best answers). Therefore, by default, anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and heartless, although we only tell them that when we misspeak.
What Brooks points out is that while the elites are preoccupied with providing education spaces, jobs, and opportunities for the marginalized (in part because it makes them feel good), those ending up getting excluded are the middle class. You are either an elite decision-maker with significant social status and the privileges that accompany it or you are the beneficiary of one of their programs. One pundit I heard this week noted that either you have a salary that can afford a million-dollar-plus home or the government provides some sort of affordable housing. What’s not acknowledged is that most expect neither. Rather, they want an economy that provides jobs with salaries proportionate to a mortgage payment on an average house. They want to raise their kids in similar conditions to what they were raised in. They don’t need to get to the top income percentiles; they just want to get ahead.
Sean Speer picked up on Brooks’ argument in his essay “Welcome to the age of overeducated underachievers.” Speer references Cardus' research on the working class highlighting how there is a significant group of “overeducated underachievers” who are in jobs for which the post-secondary credentials they have earned are not required. There is a mix of contributing factors: a cultural focus on credentialism; post-secondary education not delivering what the market is requiring; not to mention globalization, public policy, and technological change. There is a resentment that comes from social promises not being delivered on.
If this column was twice as long, I’d add to these basic economic, educational and political factors links to articles outlining the problems with our present cultural and moral focus. We’ve ended up with a professional preoccupation with pronouns; diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that have many tip-toeing with their language and checking boxes, but avoiding the real discussions and not necessarily helping those who are marginalized. Well-intentioned people who employ plain-speak end up being treated as backwards and offensive. This combines to make an increasing segment of the population feel like outsiders in their own land. Throw into the mix a complicated set of demographic imbalances. Look at any population pyramid and see that those who today are in their thirties and in their sixties represent the largest cohorts. To state the obvious, they tend to think quite differently from each other. The result is an ill-defined stew of ingredients leaving a malaise taste which isn’t quite what anyone ordered.
Naming the malaise isn’t offering any solutions. To be honest, I don’t have straightforward answers to offer. What I do know is that there are various conversations we all need to have if we are to get there with any sense of social cohesion. These include:
Dismiss these as highfalutin ontological questions if you will but what they really amount to is a conversation about what it means to be human. Who are we and why are we here? Living together requires shared social as well as personal answers. Might part of our present malaise be our present preoccupation in education, the workplace, and society with dealing with people based on their identity (real or aspirational), rather than as human beings with bodies, souls and spirits made in the image of God?
At Comment Magazine, we have been musing out loud as to whether Christian humanism might be a helpful framework to get us beyond the day’s default of procedural liberalism (based on a now-exposed myth of neutrality) as something that better suits our pluralistic North American reality. To be sure, it has its own baggage (as does every framework) and may not be the final answer, but it provides some features that may give it a broader social reach.
Most Christian leaders' day-to-day lives involve a to-do list with organizational objectives needed to survive. The rubber hits the road when their anthropology–their answer of what they truly understand it to mean to be human–finds expression in how they treat their co-workers and customers, prepare their kids for the future, and set their priority list regarding the day-to-day things they will use or avoid. You don’t need to be able to articulate your answer in order to have and live according to one.
While there is learning-by-doing, as well as learning-by-thinking, both end up putting labels on things. It is the only way to move forward. I don’t think malaise is necessarily the right word, but it is important to talk about these issues long enough to find the right words. Only when we find a way to understand things can we deal with them.
If this all sounds dreary, I did title the article, “Dissecting Our Malaise.” Remember high school biology? Dissecting has always been a bit messy and smelly. But Christians need to remind themselves that brokenness never has the last word. Just because present clouds make it dull and dreary doesn’t mean the sun has disappeared. I’ve said many times in this space and will repeat it again: A Christian pessimist is an oxymoron. We know how the story ends. The first task of leadership is defining reality honestly. We understand our times by properly naming things. That equips us to serve those we are called to lead down the road of beauty, truth, and goodness. There will be rainy days and so our leadership must include providing umbrellas. But make no mistake, redemption is real. Malaise may or may not be the right word. But it will not be the final word.
WHAT I’M READING
The Happy Warrior
I only met Hugh Segal twice, both in networking reception settings where introductions are quickly made and as quickly abandoned when someone of greater rank catches your newly-made-acquaintance’s eye. Not so with Mr. Segal. On both occasions he showed interest and engagement in topics where he was better qualified than I, yet he was nevertheless interested in probing my views and seeking to learn. His punditry and passion on many subjects made his frequent commentary worth following. His passing last week prompted many tributes from across the political spectrum, but this one from Father Raymond de Souza (a Cardus Senior Fellow) is striking in offering perspective on how a friendship across faith divides can survive and serve even to life’s final days.
Presidential Indictments
Making sense of the now four indictments against Donald Trump–totalling 81 charges–is difficult. Pro- and anti-Trump sentiments colour much of the coverage. And while Sarah Isgur’s Dispatch analysis of the four cases doesn’t escape this entirely, Ms. Isgur’s legal pedigree and political experience do combine to provide a careful analysis that is helpful in making sense of the subject.
Framing the Housing Debate
Next week’s federal cabinet retreat is widely expected to have the housing crisis as a primary agenda item, prompting the Globe and Mail to editorialize a plea for honesty in the debate, noting that the interests of those presently owning homes are very different than those who do not. Given the significant size of both groups, any proposed fix to the problem comes with real pocketbook consequences for Canadians and political risk for those who implement it. Wednesday’s Ottawa Playbook (a very valuable daily newsletter if the nitty-gritty of Canadian politics is your thing) provided a good summary of some of the issues with links to most of the significant coverage of the issue.
Post-liberal manifesto
Samuel Gregg’s review essay of Sohrab Ahmari’s book Tyranny Inc. released this week, suggests that “the private realm of today’s economy is not an arena for freedom. Rather it is a ‘zone of tyranny.’” Accounting for this within a liberal order– something he suggests neither the left nor the right has seriously done–is a prerequisite to building a new order for flourishing. The book is on my to-read list and raises questions that need to be considered in any accounting of our malaise.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Go to church; Have more kids
The latest analysis of the fertility aspiration survey of Canadian women, a dataset collected by the Angus Reid Institute on behalf of Cardus last year, shows that there is a correlation (note that is not a claim of causation) between the “at least monthly” attendance at worship on the part of Canadian women and their childbearing decisions. The analysis by Cardus Senior Fellow Lyman Stone highlights four features that distinguish regular-attending from never-attending women: earlier marriage, stronger family and community support, less barriers, and a greater openness to having both biological and non-biological (adoptive, foster, or step) children. “Contrary to popular narratives, our survey results show no evidence of meaningful differences in women’s employment across different religious groups,” says Stone. “This suggests that higher fertility is not due to a lack of employment among religious women.”
TAKE IT TO-GO
Hot Dogs, Bat-flips, and Outta Here
I passed the time last Saturday engaging in America’s favourite pastime, highlighted by a former player who was past his time. The honouring of retired 42-year-old Jose Bautista, the slugger who slugged his way into the hearts of Blue Jay fans, had the sold-out crowd bobbling in appreciation. Bautista didn’t distinguish himself as a cub player, drafted as he was in the 20th round and bouncing around without distinction for eight years before being traded to Toronto in 2007. However, six all-star seasons as a Blue Jay, and especially the 2015 playoff, ensured that Bautista stands out from the thousands of players between Accardo and Zosky that have worn the Toronto uniform.
The opposing Chicago Cubs (so named in 1907 because of their then-lineup of youngsters) threw a curve into the sold-out crowd’s celebration plans. They delivered a ninth inning double-double to score the winning run. There are no Tims in the present line-up; it was mocha better for the home team back when Jose was stirring the Blue Jay drinks. Canadians are familiar with the anticipation of a win only to roll-up-the-rim with the polite message, “Please, play again.” Last Saturday’s version was an off-tune Jose-Jose-Jose chant, pleasant enough but hardly satisfying the thirst for a win.
Let’s admit it. It’s 2023, not 2015. Even though this roster features a pair of Schneiders, we are unlikely to be officially hot dogging it after the game no matter how much we relish that experience. Sports “fandom” is irrational–shorthand for fanatic, not usually a compliment. So is buying a Tim’s drink expecting a prize. But that won’t stop Canadians from trying.
That isn’t a complaint. I had a good time, even though I skipped the peanuts and crackerjacks. The only way to get anything that resembles value for money at the Rogers Center is to show up on a Loonie Dog Tuesday. Then again, if that Tuesday happens to be in October, it would mean the Blue Jays are in the playoffs. And as we remembered Saturday, playoff plays can bat flip into our memories so that we nostalgically celebrate them even decades later.
So let’s sign off with this triple play. Let’s go Blue Jays. Thanks Jose for the memories. The next Insights pitch will be a fastball into your inbox next Saturday morning. And with that, like a Jose homerun, “it’s outta here!