politics one
There's two weeks to go till elections, so let's get this show on the road. The more I go into this whole elections thing the less certain I am. I found it much easier to make blanket statements about parties and choose the one who smiles nicest in pictures (speaking of which, I noticed Stephen Harper trying really hard to work on flashing a "friendly beam" throughout the debate tonight. It was an interesting look for him. And by interesting, I mean awkward.)
I watched tonight's debate; or rather, I was lying down on my couch drifting in and out of consciousness while jetlag kicked in. But I think I got the gist of it. My conclusion is: I haven't a clue.
I recently read a really excellent article in The Economist (from almost a month ago) that captures the frustrating deadlock that is Canadian politics. I'm just going to skim through for some quotes that stand out to me:
"So the Liberals may survive the sponsorship scandal. But the affair points to a deeper malaise in Canada's politics. It is worrying that the Conservatives are considered unable to win even when the Liberals are laid low by scandal . . . The New Democratic Party is a socialist party from the old world that is ill at ease in the new one and has yet to find its Tony Blair... The Bloc Quebcois has a capable leader in Gilles Duceppe, but a party based in a single province can never win federal power - and as the champion of sovereignty for Quebec does not want to. This leaves the Liberals in command of the squishy centre where so many Canadians feel they belong, with a valid claim to be the only party with truly national appeal."
True, true, true. And the only party with national appeal is chin deep in scandal residual. While watching the debate I was most impressed by Duceppe. He appeared impassioned, charismatic, deeply convicted and confident of having strong backing, while the other three party leaders would desperately make love-eyes into the camera and plead for support. As for what the Bloc stands for - yes, it bothers the rest of Canada, but after spending a summer in Montreal I just listen to Martin or Harper, or Layton even, talk about being able to be the voice for Quebec as well, and I really think, "that sounds like a load of rubbish." If I was Quebecoise and listened to that I would vote Bloc. But I'm not, so I'm somewhat safe from that... potentially awkward choice. Instead I am left with the Conservatives, the Liberals, or the NDP, which are awkward enough on their own. And I haven't a clue.
I'm going to leave off this rather unconvicted ramble with a little excerpt from that same article:
"Canada's political debate is tepid: most people seem happy to gather around an unadventurous liberal (and Liberal) consensus. As befits the people who rejected the American revolution, Canadians distrust big ideas, preferring to put their faith in a proven ability to muddle through. The price of all this is a certain complacency. And the price of complacency is a certain lack of ambition . . . Many Canadians affect not to mind about this prosperity gap [compared to America]. There is more to life than money, they say, and it is worth being a little poorer if that is the price of preserving their social model: a kinder, gentler and more egalitarian capitalism than the heartless version they detect south of the border. It sounds admirable. But this proud-not-to-win attitude - what one Canadian diplomat has bewailed as a "passion for bronze" - misses the point."
If you're reading that as a Canadian that probably riles you up a little. Unambitious! Tepid! You're indignant, you dismiss the whole thing as "written by an American"! But you might also feel, at the same time, that it sounds dreadingly close to the truth.
As for me, I definitely find myself "muddling" my way through this webby mess of an election.
I watched tonight's debate; or rather, I was lying down on my couch drifting in and out of consciousness while jetlag kicked in. But I think I got the gist of it. My conclusion is: I haven't a clue.
I recently read a really excellent article in The Economist (from almost a month ago) that captures the frustrating deadlock that is Canadian politics. I'm just going to skim through for some quotes that stand out to me:
"So the Liberals may survive the sponsorship scandal. But the affair points to a deeper malaise in Canada's politics. It is worrying that the Conservatives are considered unable to win even when the Liberals are laid low by scandal . . . The New Democratic Party is a socialist party from the old world that is ill at ease in the new one and has yet to find its Tony Blair... The Bloc Quebcois has a capable leader in Gilles Duceppe, but a party based in a single province can never win federal power - and as the champion of sovereignty for Quebec does not want to. This leaves the Liberals in command of the squishy centre where so many Canadians feel they belong, with a valid claim to be the only party with truly national appeal."
True, true, true. And the only party with national appeal is chin deep in scandal residual. While watching the debate I was most impressed by Duceppe. He appeared impassioned, charismatic, deeply convicted and confident of having strong backing, while the other three party leaders would desperately make love-eyes into the camera and plead for support. As for what the Bloc stands for - yes, it bothers the rest of Canada, but after spending a summer in Montreal I just listen to Martin or Harper, or Layton even, talk about being able to be the voice for Quebec as well, and I really think, "that sounds like a load of rubbish." If I was Quebecoise and listened to that I would vote Bloc. But I'm not, so I'm somewhat safe from that... potentially awkward choice. Instead I am left with the Conservatives, the Liberals, or the NDP, which are awkward enough on their own. And I haven't a clue.
I'm going to leave off this rather unconvicted ramble with a little excerpt from that same article:
"Canada's political debate is tepid: most people seem happy to gather around an unadventurous liberal (and Liberal) consensus. As befits the people who rejected the American revolution, Canadians distrust big ideas, preferring to put their faith in a proven ability to muddle through. The price of all this is a certain complacency. And the price of complacency is a certain lack of ambition . . . Many Canadians affect not to mind about this prosperity gap [compared to America]. There is more to life than money, they say, and it is worth being a little poorer if that is the price of preserving their social model: a kinder, gentler and more egalitarian capitalism than the heartless version they detect south of the border. It sounds admirable. But this proud-not-to-win attitude - what one Canadian diplomat has bewailed as a "passion for bronze" - misses the point."
If you're reading that as a Canadian that probably riles you up a little. Unambitious! Tepid! You're indignant, you dismiss the whole thing as "written by an American"! But you might also feel, at the same time, that it sounds dreadingly close to the truth.
As for me, I definitely find myself "muddling" my way through this webby mess of an election.