Idealism is that practice of pursuing ideals, often unrealistically. Too much naïve and unsustainable idealism can be irritating to those who must listen to it. Too little idealism is dispiriting. Currently, we seem to be experiencing a shortage of idealism.
In response to economic and political uncertainty, we express pessimism and doubt these situations may be overcome and we will emerge stronger. We debate endlessly without conclusions what the solutions should be, rather than decisively develop solutions and begin implementation. We are resistant to good ideas, even if they make sense, because we resent that someone else had the idea or we fear the risk of negative consequences, even if they are highly unlikely. But risks must be taken, it is better than doing nothing.
The lack of idealism is showing in our communities. Business leaders are rightfully wary of what lies ahead, as are the citizens who participate in various cultural organizations, causes, or religious and fraternal groups. The fact is, we are all in this together as friends, neighbours, and family, so we would be better off to put fear aside and collectively move ahead together. Again, this requires a need to be open to the ideas and methods others share.
Canadian reservedness and politeness are both good and bad. Politeness and respect are good. A reserved reaction to a sudden, challenging situation is also good because it often indicates people take their time and think before they speak or think their physical actions through before they respond. Unfortunately, there is peculiar numbness and dullness that can come with perpetual reservedness and politeness. It can make a necessary, decisive response seem milquetoast or smug. There is no time for this when firm “yes” or “no” answers are needed. “Perhaps we will see,” or “I doubt this can be done,” are not answers people want these days. The wimpy political term “pushback” is particularly lacking in idealism. It’s a weak way of saying that someone does not like something.
In past times of economic, or political crisis, citizens were better united. Common ideals and a sense of purpose were more identifiable, and more universally embraced. Unfortunately, it seems to take a crisis to bring people together. Responsible, practical idealism is possible in good times though. The best social and financial policies of the past century characterized the decades immediately following the Great Depression and World War Two. Again though, it took devastating crises preceding these years of idealism to inspire people into a largely common sense of determination about what not to do wrong again. Sometimes, it feels like we have lost that common sense of determination. There was a time when capitalists, socialists, conservatives, liberals, religious and atheists could basically agree on achieving a common goal of what was right, or at least having a society where everyone could have their own freedom but within a basic framework of responsibility to each other.
We need to revive idealism in a tangible, decisive way now, rather than waiting for a crisis to worsen.
