Why Canadians are turned off politics

[Argus]

There was an item in the post a short while back which kind of crystallized what I've been thinking, and to some degree, saying, about politics for some time. A rookie Alberta MLA I'd never heard of was big news - big enough news for the Post to breathlessly inform readers of his outrageous conduct from coast to coast anyway.

Doug Elniski made a few offhand comments in his on-line blog which some people took as not being in the true spirit of feminism and equality. He commented that young girls should smile more, and mentioned that there was a bikini car wash somewhere or other. He also twittered - at a gay pride parade "I am surrounded by bumping and grinding lesbians," and "that guy has size-14 stilettos."

Alberta MLA "screwed up" over comments

Now the first thing which might come to mind is - boy, a politician said that!? But after that what came to mind is - well you know, those kind of comments wouldn't even raise anyone's eyebrow if they came from anyone other than a politician.

But we don't see comments of this sort coming from politicians any more. Everything we get from politicians is washed, rinsed, ironed and laid out precisely according to the carefully and precisely studied plans of spin-doctors and media consultants so they can't even be deliberately misinterpreted as offensive or denigrating towards anyone or anything. It's bland pap which gives us no insight whatever into what a politician actually is like, into their personality, into who and what they are. Most everything politicians say publicly has all the personality of a media release from one of the big banks.

Their speeches are dull, boring, and straddle fences on nearly every issue. They don't answer questions, instead talking around the question. They don't confront issues. They don't deal with problems. Their media and political people scan through polls selecting population segments which might be swayed to vote, or which need reinforcing, and craft messages tailored specifically for those groups. It's all very professional, very scientific, and completely absent any form of human personality or character traits.

And why do they do that? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was it our (meaning the media) jumping on every mistimed statement or mischievously "interpreting" every comment they could to run screaming headlines which brought about this defensive strategy? Or do we react to the slightest personality quirk so much because the spin doctors have robbed politicians of humanity and we're thus shocked to see any?

When I look back at the politicians I actually paid any attention to over the years, they were always the ones who showed spirit, humour and character. Last week, Romeo Leblanc died. I remember Romeo Leblanc as the perfect, loyal party man, a complete drone in a suit without personality or character. He was a bland MP, a dull cabinet minister, an invisible senator, and a governor general no one paid much attention to. Yes, he was the kind of politician which we're stuck with today. He's the kind who is successful. That's sad. In a country with tens of millions of people, the current three hundred losers on parliament hill are not the best we can do. They're just the only ones able to suppress their personalities and characters enough to climb the greasy poll to a steady income and political success.

Now I'm not saying I want Harper driving around Ottawa, twittering about every hot chick in a bikini or tank top he passed - but on the other hand, that'd be kind of cool, don't you think? It'd at least show he had a personality.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus, this is very true. In fact, if there was a national leader with a lot of character at this point, I'd suspect him/her of merely being an excellent actor.

The problem, if you call it that, is that we're actually very close to each other on values. Despite what it seems when you read these posts, our country is defined as generally tolerant, with an environment that supports individual success, while providing a social safety net. The differences between politicians that existed in the 1930s aren't there anymore, and we don't have anything good to argue about.

Throw into the mix the fact that television - and by extension advertising agencies - is the guiding light that beckons all party election strategies, deciding what the party 'brand' should be and we shouldn't be surprised when the leaders end up looking like consumer products. We end up with Iggy Pepsi, Harper Cola, and Diet Sugar-Free Layton each one with a leaden personality that only sparkles in the way Mr. Clean does.

Brand. Bland.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So in effect you folks think we need a more "real" politician. Warts and all, being preferable to the "Barbie and Ken" popularity contestant breeds we current select from partisan ranks. I think I can agree with that.

[Sir Bandelot]

Jean Chretien certainly had character. He often said things in plain language, some if which he took criticism for but people admire a person who is strong, as long as they are fair and stand for fundamental justice. (Contrast this with Bush). Chretien even famously walked up and choked a heckler in the crowd on National Flag Day. For which there's a famous photo on the internet. I really must provide the link-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6...illclennett.jpg

Known as the "Shawinigan Handshake"!

Happy Canada Day!

Edited July 1, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[CAMP]

Well I have to agree with the idea of this post. I will add one of the main reasons you have dry politicians is due to attack adds. Just look at what the conservatives did with Dion. He didn't have much of a personality but let some words slip out and bang. The conservatives seem to be the worst propagators of attach ads but I'm sure if they keep it up it the other parties will retaliate even more with them.

[Michael Hardner]

The conservatives seem to be the worst propagators of attach ads

I know this to be be true.

There were a bunch of blue velcro balls with 'Vote Harper' let loose in the subway during the last election and I even found one stuck to my sweater !

(more smileys)

[CAMP]

I know this to be be true.

There were a bunch of blue velcro balls with 'Vote Harper' let loose in the subway during the last election and I even found one stuck to my sweater !

(more smileys)

Ewwww that's worst than stepping in DS lol!

[tango]

There was an item in the post a short while back which kind of crystallized what I've been thinking, and to some degree, saying, about politics for some time. A rookie Alberta MLA I'd never heard of was big news - big enough news for the Post to breathlessly inform readers of his outrageous conduct from coast to coast anyway.

Doug Elniski made a few offhand comments in his on-line blog which some people took as not being in the true spirit of feminism and equality. He commented that young girls should smile more, and mentioned that there was a bikini car wash somewhere or other. He also twittered - at a gay pride parade "I am surrounded by bumping and grinding lesbians," and "that guy has size-14 stilettos."

Alberta MLA "screwed up" over comments

Now the first thing which might come to mind is - boy, a politician said that!? But after that what came to mind is - well you know, those kind of comments wouldn't even raise anyone's eyebrow if they came from anyone other than a politician.

But we don't see comments of this sort coming from politicians any more. Everything we get from politicians is washed, rinsed, ironed and laid out precisely according to the carefully and precisely studied plans of spin-doctors and media consultants so they can't even be deliberately misinterpreted as offensive or denigrating towards anyone or anything. It's bland pap which gives us no insight whatever into what a politician actually is like, into their personality, into who and what they are. Most everything politicians say publicly has all the personality of a media release from one of the big banks.

Their speeches are dull, boring, and straddle fences on nearly every issue. They don't answer questions, instead talking around the question. They don't confront issues. They don't deal with problems. Their media and political people scan through polls selecting population segments which might be swayed to vote, or which need reinforcing, and craft messages tailored specifically for those groups. It's all very professional, very scientific, and completely absent any form of human personality or character traits.

And why do they do that? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was it our (meaning the media) jumping on every mistimed statement or mischievously "interpreting" every comment they could to run screaming headlines which brought about this defensive strategy? Or do we react to the slightest personality quirk so much because the spin doctors have robbed politicians of humanity and we're thus shocked to see any?

When I look back at the politicians I actually paid any attention to over the years, they were always the ones who showed spirit, humour and character. Last week, Romeo Leblanc died. I remember Romeo Leblanc as the perfect, loyal party man, a complete drone in a suit without personality or character. He was a bland MP, a dull cabinet minister, an invisible senator, and a governor general no one paid much attention to. Yes, he was the kind of politician which we're stuck with today. He's the kind who is successful. That's sad. In a country with tens of millions of people, the current three hundred losers on parliament hill are not the best we can do. They're just the only ones able to suppress their personalities and characters enough to climb the greasy poll to a steady income and political success.

Now I'm not saying I want Harper driving around Ottawa, twittering about every hot chick in a bikini or tank top he passed - but on the other hand, that'd be kind of cool, don't you think? It'd at least show he had a personality.

I agree with much of what you have said.

However, instead of championing nasty sexist cracks (which all boys do but we don't need to hear them), I'd prefer our politicians actually took a stand on some important issues.

Bland pap, party line, boring boring boring ... and meant to lull us to sleep so we don't ask the hard questions ... like why hasn't the federal government resolved even the simplest Six Nations land claim in three+ years of negotiating?

[CAMP]

I agree with much of what you have said.

However, instead of championing nasty sexist cracks (which all boys do but we don't need to hear them), I'd prefer our politicians actually took a stand on some important issues.

Bland pap, party line, boring boring boring ... and meant to lull us to sleep so we don't ask the hard questions ... like why hasn't the federal government resolved even the simplest Six Nations land claim in three+ years of negotiating?

You're right on the money tango... !!!

[Molly]

But after that what came to mind is - well you know, those kind of comments wouldn't even raise anyone's eyebrow if they came from anyone other than a politician.

Nope. I don't agree with that.

We might not retort, but we do definitely take note, and we judge the character of the speaker based on what he has said.

And we just might quit doing business with the guy or even try to get him fired, depending on how sensitive a role he is filling.

[Shady]

Now I'm not saying I want Harper driving around Ottawa, twittering about every hot chick in a bikini or tank top he passed - but on the other hand, that'd be kind of cool, don't you think? It'd at least show he had a personality.

Geez, it'd be nice if you applied this standard to all politicians, like maybe Sarah Palin? Hypocrite. If this indeed turns Canadians off of politics (which I doubt), then you contribute to it.

[Remiel]

This reminds me of one of kimmy's threads in Provincial Politics from a little while back.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=13962

It is my sincere hope that the prevalence of this sort of "friendly surveillance" of the social kind will force a transformation in society in which people will stop worrying about things that have little if anything to do with the ability of politicians to do their job well.

I mean... " OMG!! Male politicians like sex and fun? WTF?? "

That is what I said there, in response to a picture of a candidate in his 20s and an embarrassing picture of him doing something really lewd but basically harmless.

[eyeball]

I think the only practical answer is to phase out political parties and politicians and move towards representing ourselves and crafting policies using jury-like citizen assemblies with panels of experts from the civil service and judicial branch and have voters pass legislation via referenda. I'd also go with councils of elders in lieu of the Senate.

The executive branch should just be a public corporation with no vested interest in anything but seeing that the people's orders are carried out.

As for political parties they'd still be free to try and peddle their influence to anyone who cared to listen.

[CAMP]

I think the only practical answer is to phase out political parties and politicians and move towards representing ourselves and crafting policies using jury-like citizen assemblies with panels of experts from the civil service and judicial branch and have voters pass legislation via referenda. I'd also go with councils of elders in lieu of the Senate.

The executive branch should just be a public corporation with no vested interest in anything but seeing that the people's orders are carried out.

As for political parties they'd still be free to try and peddle their influence to anyone who cared to listen.

Wow and I get told starting another political party is radical! This is radical but believe it or not it has merit. Unfortunately most Canadians are stuck in the party rut. The Central Party is not that far away off from your set up, except we are using a bottom up party formation where MP's will be responsible to their ridings instead of a party boss, and we want direct democracy which is similar to what your saying.

www.canadian-alternative.com

Edited July 1, 2009 by CAMP

[Sir Bandelot]

I think the only practical answer is to phase out political parties and politicians and move towards representing ourselves and crafting policies using jury-like citizen assemblies with panels of experts from the civil service and judicial branch and have voters pass legislation via referenda. I'd also go with councils of elders in lieu of the Senate.

The executive branch should just be a public corporation with no vested interest in anything but seeing that the people's orders are carried out.

As for political parties they'd still be free to try and peddle their influence to anyone who cared to listen.

Been reading Plato?

[jdobbin]

When I look back at the politicians I actually paid any attention to over the years, they were always the ones who showed spirit, humour and character. Last week, Romeo Leblanc died. I remember Romeo Leblanc as the perfect, loyal party man, a complete drone in a suit without personality or character. He was a bland MP, a dull cabinet minister, an invisible senator, and a governor general no one paid much attention to. Yes, he was the kind of politician which we're stuck with today. He's the kind who is successful. That's sad. In a country with tens of millions of people, the current three hundred losers on parliament hill are not the best we can do. They're just the only ones able to suppress their personalities and characters enough to climb the greasy poll to a steady income and political success.

When they have too much character like Chretien, you protest though. Here was a guy who didn't need a bodyguard. He or his wife could take out the odd protester. And when they make a pepperspray joke, you think the world has come to an end. I don't think you can see he was bland.

So, make up your mind.

[Argus]

I agree with much of what you have said.

However, instead of championing nasty sexist cracks (which all boys do but we don't need to hear them), I'd prefer our politicians actually took a stand on some important issues.

See, you're reacting the way the media does. His crack wasn't nasty, was only mildly sexist in the way, as you say, that all boys talk, but revealed a spark of personality. How many other mannerisms, jokes, attitudes and the like on a wide variety of issues do we never get to see from our politicians because we jump on them for the slightest sign of human imperfection? I'd rather see and hear them as they are, and judge them on the same scale I judge regular people, not on this demand for some kind of robopol who doesn't think or feel.

And if they're afraid to express themselves on so basic a level, what are the odds they're going to honestly confront controversial issues where people are going to be unhappy with them on matters of actual substance?

[Argus]

Nope. I don't agree with that.

We might not retort, but we do definitely take note, and we judge the character of the speaker based on what he has said.

And we just might quit doing business with the guy or even try to get him fired, depending on how sensitive a role he is filling.

If you hate men, maybe, but then you're probably not likely to vote for a man anyway.

[Argus]

Geez, it'd be nice if you applied this standard to all politicians, like maybe Sarah Palin? Hypocrite. If this indeed turns Canadians off of politics (which I doubt), then you contribute to it.

What the hell are you talking about? Sarah Palin was an empty suit. She never spoke in any way at any time where her words weren't tailored. Her entire image of the good mom, family values, conservative religious whatever, came out of a factory, and there was nothing behind it but a wide eyed naif without substance.

Probably someone you much admired, come to think of it.

[Argus]

When they have too much character like Chretien, you protest though. Here was a guy who didn't need a bodyguard. He or his wife could take out the odd protester. And when they make a pepperspray joke, you think the world has come to an end. I don't think you can see he was bland.

So, make up your mind.

I didn't dislike Chretien because he displayed character. I disliked him because he was a liar and a thief leading a corrupt party of crooks, liars and cheats. As for the pepper spray, it wasn't his joke that bothered me, it was his using the RCMP as a political police force to illegally arrest legal protectors in order to fulfill his promise to a dictator that no protesters would be seen.

[eyeball]

Been reading Plato?

Wasn't he more into philosopher kings? I'm just a humble fisherman I'm afraid.

[jdobbin]

I didn't dislike Chretien because he displayed character. I disliked him because he was a liar and a thief leading a corrupt party of crooks, liars and cheats. As for the pepper spray, it wasn't his joke that bothered me, it was his using the RCMP as a political police force to illegally arrest legal protectors in order to fulfill his promise to a dictator that no protesters would be seen.

I guess that is often the problem with colourful people. They are often not just making colourful statements, they rule with no thought of wrong or right.

[punked]

I remember when Peter MacKay? Told to Alexa McDonough "Get back to her knitting!"

[Sir Bandelot]

I remember when Peter MacKay? Told to Alexa McDonough "Get back to her knitting!"

Another proud moment for Mackay and the CPC.

[Argus]

I remember when Peter MacKay? Told to Alexa McDonough "Get back to her knitting!"

We'd all have been better off if she'd taken his advise.