In all the current hoopla about coalition governments, parliamentary prorogations, and economic crises, the one word that's being used with alarming frequency on all sides and about all matters, is "unprecedented". What, as they say, is up with that?

I don't like using the word "rhetoric" in this way, but for the sake of clarity I'll just say that the current use of the U-word is a very obvious piece of political rhetoric. It's being used in both subtly hypnotic and heavy-handed ways.

Whether it's the coalition's co-leaders talking about Harper's unprecedented move to prorogue parliament, or Harper talking about the unprecedented formation of the Liberal-NDP coalition and its attempt to "overturn the results" of the last election, or any pundit, panel-discussion member or political economist talking about the unprecedented global economic crisis, the word is used, consciously or not, to induce fear and confusion.

A major part of getting people on your side is getting them whipped up into an inarticulate panic. "Unprecedented" does this nicely. It suggests a situation of chaotic uncertainty, of totally uncharted waters. And in such a situation you need the "right people" to take charge and weather the storm properly, because only they know how. That's what you do: tell everybody the situation is unprecedented and that you, as it so happens, have the uniquely appropriate solution.

"Unprecedented" suggests that history is empty, that it can't help guide us. In fact, not much in the current situation in parliament is unprecedented: we had a coalition government during the First World War; proroguing parliament happens after every session (though, of course, using it to avoid a confidence vote is uniquely sneaky); and we've seen many recessions and one big depression in the last century.

"Unprecedented", as it's being used now, quickly wipes the historical slate clean. And once that memory is gone, well, anyone can suggest anything at anytime, and they can expect no "precedent" to be used against those suggestions because, of course, it's all "unprecedented". It lets you get away with saying just about anything. And this all fits in with our age of "solutioneering", of devising ultra-new, never-tried-before solutions to supposedly new and never-seen-before problems, like recessions, which we've actually seen lots of.

For myself, I don't see anything so unusual in any of this. History is full of ups and downs, crisis and stability, people going for power and others defending theirs.

In all the polarized debating over the coalition's democraticness (or lack thereof), or the democraticness (or not) of Harper's move, the one attitude I find most repellent - and undemocratic - is the one that goes, "All the politicians are wrong. They just sit around and argue like children. They're all the same."

I say that this attitude is undemocratic because if you don't think politicians have any scruples, well, you don't really believe in democracy, at least not in the only one we have. And incidentally, this is the attitude - the passive, easy attitude - that both hardcore left-wingers and hardcore right-wingers have in common. That is, both anarchism-loving hippies and hard-headed businesspeople hate all things government. They both see politics as inherently inefficient and infected beyond all hope by corruption, greed, and power-hungry pencil pushers.

All that said, this is a tumultuous and exciting time in politics, here, south of the border, and all around the world. Perhaps, what with an upcoming Obama White House, a potential coaltion government here in Canada, and a refreshingly leftist city hall in Vancouver, we'll see the Age of Terror turn into something a little less dramatic and a little more stable and genuinely democratic. Things change, after all. It's happened before. Nothing about any of this is at all "unprecedented".