News

I agree wholeheartedly with Kady O'Malley that Gary Goodyear displayed an appalling lack of political acumen in walking straight into a discussion of his belief - or lack thereof - in evolution. Coming so soon after his weird blow-up with representatives of the CAUT, it suggests our science minister is in way over his head in a portfolio that's taken on more profile than Stephen Harper probably anticipated when he appointed him to it. And yes, Goodyear's background as a chiropractor is probably not going to help him much in his discussions with Steven Chu.

All that being said, does anyone else get the feeling we're losing the plot a wee bit here?

If we're going to criticize the Conservatives for violating the new spirit of civility and collective purpose we were all eagerly (if improbably) anticipating in the midst of the toughest economic situation in decades, then it's only fair to point out that they've got some company.

Not that the government or its ministers should get a free pass, on matters economic or otherwise. We saw in the United States, for several years after 9/11, what can happen if it's seen as unfashionable or unpatriotic to criticize your government. The Conservatives flirted with similar messaging only a few months ago, when their backs were to the wall, and for the record there's nothing "unCanadian" about attacking them in the harshest way you see fit.

It can just get a little juvenile.

On one hand, we've got half the Liberal blogs in the country making Flinstones jokes about a guy who tried - extremely clumsily, but still - to explain his efforts to balance his scientific views with his faith. There is no evidence Goodyear's inner dialogue, however often it slips out, will have any bearing whatsoever on the government's funding of science, particularly since he's just a glorified spokesman for the Prime Minister anyway; nor is this suddenly going to make the rest of the world think Canada is made up of a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool creationists. It's a moderately alarming case of bad political judgment, and not much else.

At the same time, the Quebec media is having a great laugh at the expense of the Heritage Minister, James Moore, who failed to identify Atom Egoyan, Guy Laliberte and various other celebrities in a pop quiz put to him on Tout le monde en parle. Unlike Goodyear, Moore isn't seriously seen by anyone as a weak link in the current cabinet; he's also the most eager advocate for arts and culture those communities could conceivably hope for in the current government. He had the guts to go on a notoriously difficult talk show, in his second language, and while there he no doubt surprised much of his audience by expressing support for gay marriage and abortion rights. And for his trouble, he's being advised to attend "a catch-up class on Quebec culture for idiots."

There are many Liberals, I suspect, who will see all this as a welcome return to the days when they could paint their opponents as a bunch of mouth-breathing neanderthals. And in some corners of the country, notably Quebec and a few urban centres outside it, it may even work. But elsewhere, I suspect its time has passed.

There are many legitimate concerns with the Conservatives - from the personality of their leader to their confused and skittish response to the economic downturn - that will likely keep them from ever winning a majority, and could easily conspire to punt them from power before the year is out. But after more than three years of mostly non-ideological government, their social or cultural views don't fit the bill in most battlegrounds. And if the leader of your opposition party is already vulnerable to accusations of elitism, you'll want to be careful about inadvertently offending voters who may themselves struggle with the conflict between science and religion, or be unable to pick the founder of Cirque de Soleil out of a lineup.

More to the point, when people are weary of the viciousness that's come to characterize federal politics in this country, attacking the personal knowledge or views of your opponents is a dangerous game to play. At least, I'd like to think it is. And I'd also like to think that those of us in my line of work will keep our eye on the ball as much as we've implored our politicians to do.

***

Update: I'm shocked - shocked! - that Dan Gardner disagrees with me on this.

I think Dan, and some others, have missed my point somewhat. I didn't say it's not a fair topic for discussion, nor that the minister shouldn't be shot down on it. Where I get uncomfortable is with the "gotcha" nature of some of the responses, especially when they get into outright mockery.

I maintain this is all a bit peripheral to matters of public policy, since there's absolutely no way that creationism is about to become government policy, or is even seriously in play. Nor is anybody really looking to Gary Goodyear to shape their view of how we got to be on this on planet - a sad reflection on what being a cabinet minister means these days, perhaps, but a reality all the same.

That being said, Goodyear's interview with Jane Taber is not all that encouraging. I said up top that he seems to be in way over his head in this portfolio, and the bafflegab that he spits out to prove that he really does believe in evolution does not sway me from that view.