The Myth of Public Opinion

One suspects that people who engage in public discourse in Ontario are part of a small, inbred and disconnected group. In fact, on a good day, what passes for public discourse may involve only 20 per cent of the population. And that's on a good day.

And that leaves a big question. What are the rest of us thinking?

The people who engage in public discourse tend to dismiss the rest of us. Who cares what we think? We're probably not thinking anything. At least nothing of importance. If we have thoughts at all, they must mirror the thinking of the 20 per cent who engage in public discourse. It just stands to reason, doesn't it? I mean, they are the makers of opinion and the purveyors of influence. They lead and others follow. That's the way it is, isn't it?

Maybe. Maybe not. There's no way to tell.

Here's the problem.

The people who engage in public discourse are predominately of two groups. The first is a core group composed of white, middle class, urban folk whose ideas, generally speaking, trickle down from dominant international media (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New Republic, The Economist, Manchester Guardian and so on). This inner group is augmented by an outer ring composed of executive directors or paid flacks for a variety of special interest groups, whose ideas trickle down from international lobby groups (World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the Vatican, the Soviet Union circa 1958, the Chicago group and so forth). Their conversation is essentially international, in the sense that it focuses on the values and misdeeds of the United States of America.

The dialogue takes many twists and turns. It may, at times, pretend to centre on Canadian issues and concerns. It may veer off into interesting lane ways -- are Muslims always victims; should Canada support Israel; is NATO occupying Afghanistan or supporting it; are Europeans racist pigs; should Canadian Muslim women be allowed to wear veils when they vote; should native young people be seen as violent when they move into a guy's house and beat him senseless for objecting? But the Canadian context is just camouflage and the conversation's endgame is always the same -- the moral superiority or bankruptcy of the United States of America.

The conversation is so noisy that it drowns out the voices of the average Joes and Jennys who make up Ontario.

It is extreme, representing the hardline, Cold War positions of those who raise funds or tap government treasuries to advance their causes.

And it is arrogantly contemptuous of those who don't dance on the hard-relief edge of sanity.

So Joe and Jenny, being gentle souls consumed with the daily task of putting food on the table, learn to keep their own counsel, lest they be demonized as rednecks or leftwing loonies or baby killers or worse. They go about their business, hold their tongues and watch the world unfold.

And they think their thoughts. Whatever they may be.

Since no one wants to talk to them, we may never know the thoughts of these Joes and Jennys -- until some event occurs that calls them to the surface.

Remember Meech Lake? That was a stunner for the 20-per-centers, wasn't it?

The people who engage in public discourse should take care. There may be other Meech Lakes lurking out there. Joe and Jenny have opinions, which they may or may not reveal to pollsters. They may not even talk about their real opinions to each other, for fear of embarrassing themselves. With the racket spewing from the yakkety-yak class, individual Joes and Jennys may believe they're completely out of synch with the world around them. So they keep quiet.

But the thoughts are there. You can bet on it.

And those thoughts may not reflect the opinion we see reflected every day in the media of the province.