It remains a season of hope for voters interested in the public interest and big-picture thinking.
That comment applies to the federal election looming in Canada as well as the Republican presidential nominations south of the border.
We believe it’s time for the notion of the public interest to again become the primary point of discussion. For far too long, the emphasis seems to be on tax relief with various levels of government divesting themselves of responsibilities.
There’s a bigger picture worth contemplating.
Talk stateside of closing the southern border and repelling illegal aliens and limiting refugee intake has become a talking point for most candidates. Similarly, our election in Canada turned its attention to the issue of Syrian refugees, wherein all leaders offered their take on what the government of Canada should be doing – or not doing.
We hazard to guess decades ago the debate would be short-lived. It’s really not much of a guess, since both countries throughout their history have opened their doors wide for guests from elsewhere.
Last century, the Vietnamese, Dutch and Germans fled war-torn zones and looked to North America as a beacon of hope where they saw potential for a future, where people live in peace. Prior to that, Europeans flocked to this continent seeking religious freedoms and the right to live without the daily threat of persecution.
Much has changed in the world since that time.
Security concerns have impacted the willingness of sovereign governments to open their doors wide. In the wake of 9/11 and terrorist activities in North America since then, we see an obvious hesitation to admit refugees without thorough inspection. It’s a lengthy process best kept in place, despite the fact Europe now faces a crisis from numerous directions and will need relief soon.
We also have to wonder aloud if part of the problem includes a dose of selfishness on the part of North Americans.
This idea was best summed up by a university student we know who figured this whole refugee thing is just not our problem. It’s a point we get, but find troubling, perhaps because it is a more prevalent turn of phrase than we believe healthy for a country with such a rich history of helping others.
In the absence of world powers willing to tidy up the region and vanquish radicals from the landscape, surely safety is owed to gentler citizens of those countries. Safe zones, kept safe by military personnel and fed with food and aid from peacekeeping countries, should be a minimum.
It is in the public interest to aid others where and when we can.
