Canadians for the most part are an understated people. Hockey celebrations aside, Canadians tend to shy away from overt expression of emotion. So the recent outpouring of grief elicited by the passing of Jack Layton has been both refreshing, and surprising. Layton of course was a respected (and in some circles beloved) politician at the height of his powers, so a considerable amount of public mourning was to be expected. But not since the passing of Pierre Trudeau can I recall a public figure whose death has brought about such heartbreak. There are a few reasons why the passing of a progressive leader like Layton would elicit such emotion. A populist who from his days as a city counsellor, Layton sold himself as the guy in city hall fighting for 'the little guy'. But Layton did more than just pay lip-service to his constituents; Layton was consistently able to wield considerable power in parliament despite never controlling a significant number of seats, procuring billions of dollars for affordable housing developments and health care for the elderly.
Which is why this morning's column by Christie Blatchford of the National Post was so odd. Blatchford, a prominent conservative columnist who has mystifying managed to find consistent work with national newspapers over the past three decades, criticized the public displays of grief and mourning, calling them a 'public spectacle'. Blatchford was especially critical of journalists who had apparently abandoned their impartiality by calling Mr. Layton 'Jack', and having the gall to act visibly shaken by Mr. Layton's death.
But what was apparently the most upsetting to Blatchford was the apparent canonization of Layton after his death, with Layton's letter to Canadians already approaching meme status, and the makeshift memorials popping up everywhere throughout the country. I empathize with Blatchford's point to a certain degree; overlooking a politician's transgressions and granting them post-death sainthood has always been a pet peeve of mine. The death of Ronald Reagan comes to mind. Those on the right practically crowned him the killer of communism and fascism in Europe, while overlooking the devastating effects 'Reaganomics' and the 'War on Drugs' had on the working poor of the country. Even his own children, who have publicly stated that some of Reagan's later decisions may have been clouded by the effects of Alzheimer's, have been burned at the figurative stake for besmirching the 'Great Communicator's' legacy.
However it wasn't differences in policy and effect that irked Blatchford so- after all, if she argued that Layton was a bad politician who did more harm to Canada than good and was thus unworthy of all this praise, her argument would remain controversial but at least be persuasive. No, what bothered Blatchford was her belief that Layton wasn't the grounded, salt of the earth image he projected- what bothered Blatchford was deep down he was just another (gasp) politician. Just another suit whose smiley and cheerful veneer was just another glossy polish on the image he tried to project. Blatchford even criticizes Layton's last letter as 'vainglorious' (look it up kids); trite partisan pap meant to self-aggrandize Layton's accomplishments. I for one think a little boasting and self-reflection should be permissible when sitting on one's death bed, but I digress.
In the end, Blatchford's column is a lesson in the fact that no event in today's society is above meta criticism from all angles. While you'd think death, the absolute leveller of all people, would allow people to set aside our seemingly trite and shallow differences for a few days, the truth is that there is no such respite anymore. In an age where everyone has an opinion, people are bound to be distasteful even at the most sensitive of times. And while I hope this doesn't dissuade those from outwardly expressing their true and sincere feelings, I fear columns like Blatchford will only serve to harden us and make us more cynical.
Blatchford's comments made me feel cold, like I and everyone else that felt just a tinge of grief were wrong or misplaced in feeling that way. I realize there's a great deal of deification that comes with the death of a public figure, like Michael Jackson or Ronald Reagen like you said, but the thrust of her article was so cynical. Where's the empathy in this woman? Does she have any?
She’s probably just bitter knowing that when she kicks the bucket there will be no public spectacle, because she’s never made any impact in Canada and her death will be as unremarkable as her life.