Ignatieff & Two Ideas

[August1991]

In the English debate, Ignatieff repeated the word "democracy" and then claimed that Stephen Harper didn't respect democracy. Ignatieff claimed that Harper viewed democracy as mere bickering.

“It’s not bickering, Mr. Harper, it’s democracy.”

Andrew Coyne

I beg to differ. However you slice this, democracy ultimately means that there is a civilized way to throw the buggers out. That's it. What's happening now (or not) in Libya, what happened in Egypt or Tunisia recently, or happened in eastern Europe before illustrates the point.

We in the civilized world can get rid of idiots/tyrants in a peaceful manner after four years at most of their nonsense. In North Korea or Libya, people have no civilized means to rid themselves of corrupt/despicable regimes.

That, in simple terms, is democracy.

We can add the niceties of a federal state (respect for sovereign jursidictions) and a formal respect of individual rights but after all is said and done, a civilized way to get rid of an idiot is the basis of democracy.

Is "bickering" democracy? No. Bickering wastes people's time on nonsense. According to Ignatieff, we could have 33 million people each arguing their viewpoint and he would call this "democracy". This forum is a good illustration of my point. We bicker and argue. We waste alot of time - but we choose to do this at our own expense.

I think government is necessary but I have no secret solution to make governments effective and responsive. From having sat through too many meetings in my life, I know that "bickering" is usually a big waste of time, and wasteful meetings is no definition of democracy.

--

In very practical terms, Canadians want a federal government that will deal with problems for the next four years - without bickering. If the government is bad, we can throw the idiots out in 2015. Moreover, Canada is a federal state - and there's the Charter of Rights. Harper with a majority can only do so much. Quebec and Alberta will protect Canadians against a tyrannical Harper.

------

Second Idea

In the French debate, Ignatieff argued as an anglophone that in his view, one can be a good Canadian and a good Quebecer.

I have often argued here that Canada works best when people are not forced to choose between Canada, and "the place where they live".

In the National Post, this was Kelly McParland's translation of Ignatieff:

“You can be a Quebecer or a Canadian in the order you prefer,” he assured the viewing audience.

No doubt it went over well in Quebec, at least temporarily, but do people in the rest of the country want to endorse that view? Imagine Abraham Lincoln, circa 1860, issuing a statement on the secession of the southern states. “Look, there’s no reason to leave the country. If you want to be a Georgian or a Virginian rather than an American, we’re OK with that. It’s not like the notion of a united country is all that important or anything.”

NP

I'm sorry, Ignatieff was right and McParland was wrong. Even the reference to the US is misleading. (For Americans who post here, if you want to debate the federal nature of your history, please take the debate to another thread.)

Canada is a federal state where we respect individual differences and varied allegiances.

Edited April 15, 2011 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

Is "bickering" democracy? No. Bickering wastes people's time on nonsense. According to Ignatieff, we could have 33 million people each arguing their viewpoint and he would call this "democracy". This forum is a good illustration of my point. We bicker and argue. We waste alot of time - but we choose to do this at our own expense.

In a competitive adversarial system, bickering, arguing and out and out verbal battles are an inevitable consequence.

[August1991]

In a competitive adversarial system, bickering, arguing and out and out verbal battles are an inevitable consequence.

No civilized, functioning society allows everyone to bicker.

It would be insanity to allow this forum, for example, to decide collectively for any government. We would never decide anything, or we would decide nonsense.

----

Harper was right. This bickering has to stop. The long term future of Canada is at stake because if our federal politicians continue to waste time in this manner, they may well throw the baby with the water.

If, in four years, it proves that Harper is an idiot, we can peacefully replace him. In the meantime between now and 2015, if Harper has a majority he only has control of the federal government. Provincial governments and the Charter of Rights restrict his actions.

Fortunately, Canada is a well-established democratic federal state with a Charter of Rights.

Edited April 15, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

....I'm sorry, Ignatieff was right and McParland was wrong. Even the reference to the US is misleading. (For Americans who post here, if you want to debate the federal nature of your history, please take the debate to another thread.)

OK...but the irony of requesting that is obvious. Feel free to use the American experience as needed to define Canada without challenge!

Edited April 15, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

OK...but the irony of requesting that is obvious.

Irony? Please explain.

There are some 300 million Americans in the world. There are about 30 million Canadians, or about 23 million English Canadians. B_C even if 1 in 1000 Americans took an interest in Canada, you 300 thousand Americans would take a prominent place in this forum. And as Shirley Valentine said, you say you like autumn, he says he likes spring - and the next thing you know, you're talking of spring.

----

B_C, this is a Canadian thread. Take your personal issues elsewhere.

Edited April 15, 2011 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

OK...but the irony of requesting that is obvious. Feel free to use the American experience as needed to define Canada without challenge!

Right. no Thread Drift Allowed...even when he introduced the subject itself.

[bloodyminded]

Irony? Please explain.

There are some 300 million Americans in the world. There are about 30 million Canadians, or about 23 million English Canadians. B_C even if 1 in 1000 Americans took an interest in Canada, you 300 thousand Americans would take a prominent place in this forum.

Well, if that were the case, then it would become a forum prominent with American opinions--which are varied, not a single entity--and...what's the issue again? Is it some matter of Canadian ownership, or something? Or that Canadian views here are under threat by BC_2004 and American Woman?

I'm not mocking you...I genuinely don't quite get your point.

But it's moot anyway, because as it stands, there are a handful of American posters, and a whole bunch of Canadian ones.

Edited April 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

No civilized, functioning society allows everyone to bicker.

Allows? Allows? Do you think there's a moral code against bickering?

Politicians bicker all the time. Always have and always will. When you see a politician who bitches about bickering, you're either seeing a hypocrite or a mouse.

[Tilter]

I'd like to say this about the English debate.

The bickering, interruptions, speaking out of turn & that type of Nyaa Nyaa stuff were at a minimum so, unlike the last set of debates, I stayed tuned. Actually I stayed tuned too long in the previous one. I'm ashamed of myself for not jumping into the fray (not that I could have) but I usually try to break things up when someone weak is being picked on and Dion WAS being picked on. Iggy deserved what he got.

[CANADIEN]

The problem with the notion that Ignatieff was equating bickering with democracy, is that he did not make that argument.

If anything, it was Harper who equated the normal functioning of our democratic institutions - that is a party in power proposing laws and polocies, and other parties opposing or supporting those laws and policies - to bickering. Sorry, but he is in the wrong.

Harper likes to be in control, with nobody being allowed to interfere, whether it is students who hav dare to be on a picture or Ignatieff, journalisists asking too many questions, or well-respected NGO`s.

The problem... for him that is, is that this is not how it works. Whether he likes it or not, opinions contrary to his are and will be expressed. And if (or should I say when) he fails in his quest for a majority, he'll have to deal with it. Not that I expect him to be around very long after that.

[msj]

I like Margaret Atwood's not so fictional story in the Globe and Mail: Election 2011, A Dark fiction

A vacuum cleaner salesman comes to your door. “You must buy this vacuum cleaner,” he says. “Why?” you say. “Because I know what’s good for you,” he says. “I know things you don’t know.” “What are they?” you say. “I can’t tell you,” he says, “because they’re secret. You are required to trust me. The vacuum cleaner will create jobs.”

“Where is the vacuum cleaner made?” you say. “In another country,” he says. “So the jobs will be created in another country? Not here?” you say. You believe it’s your right to query: It’s your money and, come to think of it, you pay this guy’s salary.

“Stop bickering,” he says. “I am competent. That’s my story and I’m sticking it to you.” “I’m not bickering,” you say. “I’m asking relevant questions. How much will the vacuum cleaner cost me?” “I can’t tell you that,” he says. “Why not? Because it’s more than you claimed at first?” you say. “Or because you don’t really know the cost?” “I can’t tell you that, either,” he says. “But you have to pay.”

She sums it up quite well, I think; but, I don't want to "bicker."

Edited April 20, 2011 by msj

[PIK]

Jack himself used the word bickering today or yeasterday.