When moral suasion becomes immoral
Commentary by Laurent Leduc - 18 February 2022, original to the Moon.
I first learned about moral suasion many moons ago when taking my first economics course. At that time I could never figure out why it was called “suasion” when it sounded to be a slight variant of the more common term “persuasion”. My economics professor, who was also (I learned much later) an accomplished jazz pianist, said that it was a term similar to persuasion but different in that it was used exclusively by central bankers.
So, in my mind, I put it down to the fact that it was a gentle word for suggesting that a particular action that might be achieved through fiscal or monetary policy could better be achieved through good choices made by other actors in the financial world. This included me since I was an actor in three ways; as a consumer, an investor, and a worker.
Mark Carney’s recent Globe and Mail article brought back such reflections on suasion versus persuasion and based on a former but precritical evaluation of his moral character, I was more than a bit stunned that he trotted out the word ‘sedition’ at the very get go. You can’t do better than putting it in the title.
Sedition?
While it seems plausible that Mr. Carney is jockeying for position in the next electoral horse race, he is already trying to outdistance the sitting prime minister in terms of fomenting anger and divisiveness. But now that the old War Measures Act has been groomed up, Prime Minister Trudeau may again take the lead. We’ll see as they round the clubhouse turn.
Mr. Trudeau has called the Freedom Convoy truckers racists, terrorists, insurrectionists—the list goes on—but sedition is a new charge.
If I follow Carney’s argument, it is because foreign interests are interfering with Canada’s sovereignty and undermining it. Thus, Canadians need to be vigilant and “follow the money” which led straight to two US-based funding middlemen. But if following the money track is to be thorough, why not complete it to its conclusion, which in this case is its source.
Is it money from Canadians or from folks outside of Canada? This has some importance, especially when it comes to charges of sedition. Mr. Carney is an expert in this field. Why did he not think of sorting this out in his mind and propose a solution so that the issue of sedition would be dissolved? Or does he prefer to ride to the rescue on a high horse, playing the hero by creating a problem that he can solve? True leaders, he should know better than most, seek to dissolve problems before they arise. But that is not something that’s visible. With a non-problem, you can’t do a victory lap.
Perhaps Mr. Carney needs to show his hand. Does he support checks and balances in a democracy or not?
If democracy is worth defending, Mr. Carney might go the extra mile. After all, he is of bright mind. He could lay out principles to be discussed in legislatures of the world whereby legitimate protest could be better protected.
That way, the already frightened populace from two years of unrelenting fear-mongering can rest at ease and watch democracy in action.
Let this, then, be an invitation, Mr. Carney, to build a better world.
Dr. Laurent J. Leduc holds a PhD in Systematic Theology and retired as a professor from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/School of Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto