End the Harper Government: My views on Canada's democracy

[Moonlight Graham]

A quote from another thread:

Well, fact is, Waldo, nobody is perfect.

You want perfect, you'll find it in the dictionary between "pedantic" and "petty".

Politics is, and always has been, about compromise. It's not about the narrow view of getting everything one wants, which is naïve at best, and impossible in the real world.

I agree pretty much, but I don't want a government that's perfect. I demand a government and political representatives that are at least somewhat honest, that will put their country above their own career aspirations, above their own re-election, above getting what they politically want at all costs. I demand a government that respects our democracy, and our constitution. I want MP's and a PM that would rather do the right thing and be willing to lose their jobs rather than keep their job if it means needing to do the dishonest/undemocratic thing. Is this really too much to ask? To do otherwise, as many of our politicians do, is almost akin to treason in my eyes. How is Stephen Harper not a traitor to our country and our democracy when he ie: muzzles government scientists just so he can get his own environmental policies enacted without scientific criticism, or muzzles members of his cabinet and party whenever it suits his agenda? Who does this assh**e think he is? If you too support Harper's more draconian policies because they happen to advance your own political agenda then aren't you too a traitor to our democracy?

Call me idealistic, but there's politicians in this country that will put their country before themselves, and we need more of them, and we need a PM like this. The Harper gov is not like this, and is why I'll never mark their name on a ballot so long as they are, even if you put a gun to my head. Because I'm a patriot. Canadian soldiers are willing to die to protect our country, but shouldn't every Canadian be willing to do this, even if not a solider? I'd much rather spoil my ballot than to give my consent to a party or politician that's fundamentally corrupt, even if it's the least worst of the crappy options. This isn't an anti-conservative (small "c"), anti-rightwing rant. I felt the same way with the scumbag McGuinty Liberals in Ontario. I voted for the CPC in 2006 in order to rid our government of the Chretien/Martin-era Liberals, hoping the CPC would end the Liberal corruption. I honestly feel bad for the conservative-minded voters who only have one major party to choose from, but there are other conservative parties out there to support. The BS in our government has to end!

We get the governments and the politicians we deserve, because we give them our consent to govern by marking their names on a ballot. If we demand a certain level of behaviour from our politicians or else we refuse to vote for them, they WILL comply.

To the people who will vote for the CPC anyways this election, FOR THE LOVE OF PETE please at least email your MP, the CPC party, and/or the PM and tell them that despite your support you demand changes in their behaviour.

[Machjo]

Good post. Getting to know our local candidates and voting for the best local candidate instead of party helps too.

[TimG]

I demand a government and political representatives that are at least somewhat honest, that will put their country above their own career aspirations, above their own re-election, above getting what they politically want at all costs.

You will not get that from any party running in the election. The Liberals were 10x worse than the Tories on this front and when the NDP is in power in a province they act the same.

Personally, I think your rhetoric is simply a reflection of your biases. i.e. if politicians do not institute policies that you like you ascribe nefarious motives. If the institute policies you like you presume altruistic motives. The politicians themselves are exactly the same no matter what party they represent or the policies they support.

How is Stephen Harper not a traitor to our country and our democracy when he ie: muzzles government scientists just so he can get his own environmental policies enacted without scientific criticism, or muzzles members of his cabinet and party whenever it suits his agenda?

Why is this any different than the Liberal approach to gun control or immigration, or the NDP approach to unions or various social justice causes? Seems to me this is just more of you ascribing nefarious motives to politicians that fail to enact policies that you support.

If the conservatives don't have policies that you support then you probably should not vote for them. However, this nonsensical vilification that comes from many Harper opponents is extremely hypocritical and tedious.

Edited September 13, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

No TimG.... "the other guys are just as bad" is not an excuse.

[ReeferMadness]

No TimG.... "the other guys are just as bad" is not an excuse.

Harper is corrupt? Obviously, that's Chretien's fault!!

[On Guard for Thee]

No TimG.... "the other guys are just as bad" is not an excuse.

Sounds like he has thrown in the towel and doesn't mind bad government.

[Smallc]

Humanity is corrupt. Believing someone is better on that front because of political affiliation is naive and partisan.

[ReeferMadness]

Humanity is corrupt. Believing someone is better on that front because of political affiliation is naive and partisan.

You just don't believe anything can ever be made better.

If our system sucks, that's OK because all the other systems suck worse.

If our government is corrupt, that's OK because all of the other governments are corrupt too.

How do you go on?

[Smallc]

You just don't believe anything can ever be made better.

If our system sucks, that's OK because all the other systems suck worse.

If our government is corrupt, that's OK because all of the other governments are corrupt too.

How do you go on?

Perhaps because I have some perspective? To believe you've thought of something that no one else ever has is naive 99.9% of the time. You don't have a better idea.

Corrupt leaders should always be tossed. Don't worry though, the next leader will almost always become corrupt (especially by your standards) too, given enough time.

There are no incorruptible people. If you think you're one of them, you just haven't been in the right situation yet.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Agreed.

Edited September 17, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Springer]

Long time ago, I, too, had an idealistic approach to politics. Ideological purity and good manners were high on my list.

Preston Manning and about 50 other Reformers turned up for their first stint in parliament on opposition benches, bound and determined to set a new tone of conduct in the House, and in Ottawa.

Within several months it became patently clear that the Ottawa Press Gallery was already bored with them, and thus coverage of the Reform Party dropped almost entirely off the political radar.

We live in the age of the nine second sound bite, context be damned! And thusly, if an MP is going to open his/her mouth to say something, it damn well better be thought out first...or the MSM will cram it up their's...and their party's, and their party's leader's...butt until hell won't have any more of it, every 15 minutes of air time for days on end.

Loose lips sink ships, and all that rot. That's the reality of politics in these days of the Internet and social media. In the end, when historians pontificate about the things that finally brought down democracy, the sane ones will include the modern media high on that list.

Muzzled scientists? No, no. Scientists whom work for the government...our government and on the taxpayers' dime...have no business whatsoever running their own agendas, on the side or otherwise. And if they don't like that, they are quite free to join the private sector, and see how long such stuff will be tolerated there as well.

Discipline is the order of the day, and it is by pure necessity that this is so. And...as Mulcair and Trudeau are finding out lately...this is the reality for any political party hoping to succeed in these times.

And speaking of the Internet and social media, here's another sad reality of the times: People are tried, convicted and executed in a matter of mere hours now, thanks to modern communications. Indeed, there are those wholly dedicated to this cause...listened to one brag about it recently on CBC radio, even referred to it as the new democracy of the people. I beg to differ! Once upon a time, this was known as "vigilantism", and it was, and still is, illegal in any respectable democracy. Nevertheless, peoples' entire lives are ruined in a heartbeat. Marriages ripped apart, careers crushed, literally thrown to the wolves. And when it turns out everyone was wrong, and someone was innocent, how does he/she get back their life? And when's the last time anyone ever heard an apology even offered to said victims?

Edited September 13, 2015 by Springer

[TimG]

No TimG.... "the other guys are just as bad" is not an excuse.

Just a statement of reality. This entire 'Harper is corrupt' narrative is a political tactic used by people opposed to Conservative policies. They use this narrative to avoid actually debating the merits of the policy. It is largely a fiction because by any objective measure the Harper government is no worse than any other government and you can be assured that whoever follows Harper will be no better *in the eyes of people who oppose their policies*. Partisans that like the new policies will, of course, insist that the new guys are better even if the objective evidence says otherwise.

If you want to debate the policies then debate the policies. I just have no interest in debating phony narratives created to avoid debating the issues.

Edited September 13, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Interesting how Harper all of a sudden comes up with 100 million for the refugee issue, and that it was announced by Christian Paradis, and not Chris Alexander, who's portfolio it comes under, but who is likely under a bus somewhere. Do we need a leader who ricochets around from day to day based on what they think might grab a few votes?

[Exegesisme]

Long time ago, I, too, had an idealistic approach to politics. Ideological purity and good manners were high on my list.

Discipline is the order of the day, and it is by pure necessity that this is so. And...as Mulcair and Trudeau are finding out lately...this is the reality for any political party hoping to succeed in these times.

The whole political system is encouraging corruption, any party in power can not avoid.

Let's change everything with kicking off from here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24942-my-criticisms-and-reforming-suggestions-for-the-canadian-political-party-system/

Edited September 13, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Accountability Now]

Interesting how Harper all of a sudden comes up with 100 million for the refugee issue, and that it was announced by Christian Paradis, and not Chris Alexander, who's portfolio it comes under, but who is likely under a bus somewhere. Do we need a leader who ricochets around from day to day based on what they think might grab a few votes?

How does giving $100m in foreign aid have anything to do with Citizenship and Immigration (Chris Alexander)?

This is an emergency relief fund which is coordinated through International Development which obviously you have no clue what their role is. As such I will provide you a brief definition:

"International development is different from simple development in that it is specifically composed of institutions and policies that arose after the Second World War. These institutions focus on alleviating poverty and improving living conditions in previously colonised countries.[2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_development

Did you catch that last part? Improving living conditions?

I'm really not surprised that you messed this up though

[On Guard for Thee]

How does giving $100m in foreign aid have anything to do with Citizenship and Immigration (Chris Alexander)?

This is an emergency relief fund which is coordinated through International Development which obviously you have no clue what their role is. As such I will provide you a brief definition:

"International development is different from simple development in that it is specifically composed of institutions and policies that arose after the Second World War. These institutions focus on alleviating poverty and improving living conditions in previously colonised countries.[2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_development

Did you catch that last part? Improving living conditions?

I'm really not surprised that you messed this up though

Harper sprung this loose because of the bad press his original position garnered especially during the campaign. Alexander has been sidelined because of how bad he screwed up i 2 TV and 1 radio interview. It's policy based on damage control, nothing else. You would have to be quite naive not to see that.

[Evening Star]

Just a statement of reality. This entire 'Harper is corrupt' narrative is a political tactic used by people opposed to Conservative policies. They use this narrative to avoid actually debating the merits of the policy. It is largely a fiction because by any objective measure the Harper government is no worse than any other government and you can be assured that whoever follows Harper will be no better *in the eyes of people who oppose their policies*. Partisans that like the new policies will, of course, insist that the new guys are better even if the objective evidence says otherwise.

Why is Andrew Coyne so bent on spreading this narrative, then, for example? On economic issues, he is about as right-wing as someone can get (right of Harper if anything). He is in favour of military action against ISIS. He is no politically correct bleeding heart on social/cultural issues. He even endorsed Harper and the Conservatives in their first term. He is certainly not spinning this yarn because he is a leftist who is trying to avoid an ideological debate.

[Smallc]

Why is Andrew Coyne so bent on spreading this narrative, then, for example? On economic issues, he is about as right-wing as someone can get (right of Harper if anything).

Coyne is a ) a constitutional conservative (harper isn't) and b ) doesn't find Harper to be ideologically conservative.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Smallc

[Accountability Now]

Harper sprung this loose because of the bad press his original position garnered especially during the campaign. Alexander has been sidelined because of how bad he screwed up i 2 TV and 1 radio interview. It's policy based on damage control, nothing else. You would have to be quite naive not to see that.

Fess up and admit you screwed up once again.

This is a foreign aid issue and not immigration. Would you prefer Bernard Valcourt handle it. He'd be as relevant as Alexander.

[On Guard for Thee]

Fess up and admit you screwed up once again.

This is a foreign aid issue and not immigration. Would you prefer Bernard Valcourt handle it. He'd be as relevant as Alexander.

Oh I think we know who screwed up. Hence Alexander's mysterious vacancy. Not unlike Joe Oliver though.

[Accountability Now]

Oh I think we know who screwed up.

Yup...and your mistake gets worse with ever word you mutter.

[TimG]

Why is Andrew Coyne so bent on spreading this narrative, then, for example?

Coyne complained just as much about the Liberals and will likely complain about the NDP too. He has his principles and is honest enough to criticize any that fail to live to them parties will live up to them.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yup...and your mistake gets worse with ever word you mutter.

You seem to think all this last miute 100 million bucks was pre planed. Have \i got some waterfront property to show you. LOL.

[Evening Star]

Coyne is a ) a constitutional conservative (harper isn't) and b ) doesn't find Harper to be ideologically conservative.

Although these things are true, I was responding to a post that claimed "This entire 'Harper is corrupt' narrative is a political tactic used by people opposed to Conservative policies. They use this narrative to avoid actually debating the merits of the policy. It is largely a fiction because by any objective measure the Harper government is no worse than any other government". Coyne was been one of Harper's biggest critics on ethical issues in the media. I really don't think that he is making up these issues because he actually doesn't find Harper conservative enough (or the right kind of conservative) and doesn't want to debate the real issues. (As you note, he has no problem criticising CPC policy as well.)

[Accountability Now]

You seem to think all this last miute 100 million bucks was pre planed. Have \i got some waterfront property to show you. LOL.

It doesn't matter when it was planned, it matters what it's intended for which is NOT immigration. It's for foreign aid which falls under International Development. Do you honestly have a hard time understanding that?