Bush is Right

[August1991]

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

Bush Jnr Second Inaugural

The ongoing discussion in Canada of the right of Gays to marry is fundamentally a discussion of freedom.

Bush is right.

[Pateris]

August1991,

You have correctly identified one of the contradictions in the Republican definition of freedom. "We want freedom everywhere, but at home we want to limit that freedom along religious lines."

Similarly, in Canada we claim to have "freedom", yet the government prohibits me from spending my own money on getting my knee fixed. Some freedom.

[Guest eureka]

I would agree that is imperative that liberty should flourish outside the USA: Bush is indeed right in that.

That survival will be the salvation of America when it comes about that we must export freedom and democracy to an America that has lost its way.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Pateris,

"We want freedom everywhere, but at home we want to limit that freedom along religious lines."

Indeed, I saw a headline today "Martin Threatens Same-Sex Vote".

The US wants to impose democracy in Iraq and curtail the 'limiting of freedom along religious lines', yet the media implies that a democratic vote on same-sex marriage is 'threatening'. If Iraq were to vote tomorrow on Same-sex marriage, it would be hailed as a 'great victory for democracy'. (and the USA would say it justified their invasion!)

[August1991]

You have correctly identified one of the contradictions in the Republican definition of freedom. "We want freedom everywhere, but at home we want to limit that freedom along religious lines."

What do you mean Pateris?

That survival will be the salvation of America when it comes about that we must export freedom and democracy to an America that has lost its way.

Haw can you say "America has lost its way"?

IMV, this past presidential election showed the deep engagement of ordinary Americans to their country's principles. It is unprecedented in history that the government of a country of America's size and wealth should be decided in such a manner. No one knew who would be president. But everyone knew there would be one.

I sometimes think that we Canadians are like children who simply assume food will be on the table because our parents always put it there. Little do we know that food doesn't fall from the sky.

Democracy is far from the norm in history. It takes great maturity to make it work. We in Canada certainly have not achieved it, much less make it work for over two centuries.

[Pateris]

August,

I thought I was clear. The "christian conservatives" in the Republican Party want to limit freedom in America along religious and moral lines. They want to revoke Roe v Wade, have prayer in the schools again, and all that...

That's what I meant.

[PocketRocket]

Democracy is far from the norm in history.

Historically, you're right. I agree.

It takes great maturity to make it work. 

Again, I agree.

We in Canada certainly have not achieved it, much less make it work for over two centuries. 

I don't think you give yourself, or the rest of Canada, enough credit. What is maturity in a nation??? Is it flag waving and saber rattling??? Is it the desire to re-shape the world in the image of your own country??? Or is it the ability to say "What works for us may not work for you"???

If we take an individual person as an analogy for a nation, then what I would describe as "maturity" would be someone who is calm, reasonable, generous, helpful and humble.

Not someone boastful, loud or threatening. Not someone who thinks he/she is God's gift to all, and is determined to make over others.

IMHO, Canada fits quite nicely into the first group.

[August1991]

I don't think you give yourself, or the rest of Canada, enough credit. What is maturity in a nation???

At the federal level, we have in effect a one-party state. That shows immaturity.

If we take an individual person as an analogy for a nation, then what I would describe as "maturity" would be someone who is calm, reasonable, generous, helpful and humble.

The analogy is meaningless. The whole point of society is to be able to live with others.

We in Canada have not managed to do that in a stable way. Our federal parliament is a good indication.

Not someone boastful, loud or threatening. Not someone who thinks he/she is God's gift to all, and is determined to make over others. IMHO, Canada fits quite nicely into the first group.

That is entirely your perception, and it says much more about you than it does about the US.

[Guest eureka]

You are quite correct that it is "unprecedented in history for a country of America's size and wealth to choose its government in such a manner." Never before in any modern state has there been such a flagrantly distorted process. The election was bought with several hundred millions of dollars and effectively excluded perhaps 99% of the population from seeking office. Never before has there been such a degrading of the election process into a simple contest of bought propaganda and support.

As for the public being "engaged," I suspect you are joking. No public is engaged that does not have access and input to the process or to accurate information about the policies.

America has indeed lost its way. It was conceived as an oligarchy; struggled for nearly two cwnturies towards maturity and a democratic system; and has now gone unashamedly to an exclusive plutocracy.

This is the administration that wishes to bring about Liberty through the export of its values. Values such as corporate piracy and bigotry and intolerance.

[August1991]

... effectively excluded perhaps 99% of the population from seeking office.

Any country that has had leaders of such humble origins as Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson cannot be described as exclusive. For heaven's sakes, Ronald Reagan graduated from Eureka College.

No public is engaged that does not have access and input to the process or to accurate information about the policies.

Ordinary Americans are as informed and as engaged as they want to be. There is no lack of information available.

The election was bought with several hundred millions of dollars ....

Do you mean Bush bought the election? Do you mean it was a foregone conclusion?

If you subscribe to that theory, then you would have to admit that Canada is a fraud too because the federal government "bought" the 1995 referendum.

Political parties in the US at least respect electoral law. In Canada, governments knowingly break the law.

Values such as corporate piracy and bigotry and intolerance.

People voluntarily and knowingly give money to corporations. Where is the piracy?

As to bigotry and intolerance, which country in the world first made it plain that anyone of whatever origin can truly aspire to a dream? The US was founded specifically to deal with these issues.

I am not saying that Canada is intolerant or bigotted. Far from it. But if we are looking for intolerance and bigotry in the world, I would not start in northern North America.

eureka, anti-Americanism is unbecoming of Canadians. It reminds me too much of the intolerance and bigotry so prevelant elsewhere in the world.

[Guest eureka]

Those Presidents were not so humble in origin and they did not have any hope of high office until they were already able to command the financial resources to try for it.

I don't mean that Bush bought the election. I mean that every senior political office in America is acheived through money - losers too, spend vast sums. Reagan is a prime example of money and celebrity triumphing over all else. He was, as his first wife once said, am amiable dunce. He was also a very wel connected FBI agent with the support of the darker side of American life.

Ordinary Americans may be as informed as they want to be, but is that saying more than they are not informed. It is true that all the information they could hope for is available. That, however, takes considerable skill to ferret out. There is more information about American affairs available on the Web than any other nation makes available. But try to find it!

The information about Reagan's role as an FBI informer can be find - or part of it. How many would know how to look or evn think of doing so. I did because a friend who was a writer in Hollywood told me about it.

I don't know where you developed the idea that political parties in America respect alectoral law. Recent evidence of the elections for the highest office would seem to show otherwise. And, the country has been notorious for political corruption on a scale that would make our sponsorship conspirators seem like a gathering of the Womens' Institute. Those bought elections across the US are well documented.

In days of yore, people knowingly and voluntarily gave money to privateers and happily enjoyed the fruits of that form of piracy. Does that make it less odious or more honourable?

The us was not founded to facilitate the participation of a dream of material success. It was founded to protect and enhance the privileged positions of a minority. Like all civilizations, its economic success was founded on slavery. Unfortunately, it has not got far enough beyond that and maintains an underclass to serve the same purpose. The rhetoric of the founders is something that any demagogue could have produced - just like the Soviet Constitution.

I wonder what Tom Paine would think today of his hopes for Americaa!

Intolerance and bigotry is indeed, prevalent the world over. However, I would say that nowhere in the Western world is it so pronounced as in America today. It just won a Presidential election there.

Nearly half of the American population seem to agree with what I say so I find it hard to accept the translation of that as anti-Americanism. I am decidedly anti an elitist and anti-democratic political system and process. I deplore the ignorance and conformity to a delusion that is the "Common Sense" of the other half.

[Black Dog]

The ongoing discussion in Canada of the right of Gays to marry is fundamentally a discussion of freedom.

Bush is right.

The discussion of gay arriage is a tempest in a teapot, part of a shell game to distract us from issues of consequense.

Bush is also full of crap. Bush knows (or at least his handlers do) that words like liberty and freedom play well simpky because they are pleasant-sounding abstracts. Empty platitudes that in no way reflect the true agenda.

At the federal level, we have in effect a one-party state. That shows immaturity.

Howzat? In Canada we have a minority government and four lively opposition parties representing a duiverse range of viewpoints. Were it not for our antiquated electoral system, we'd have an even more vibrant democracy.

The United States has two parties in shades of red.

[I miss Reagan]

Nearly half of the American population seem to agree with what I say

How do you come to this arrogant conclusion? simply because they voted for Kerry. This reminds me a letter to the editor in the paper I read from a Kerry supporter. She basically chastised Canadian arrogance for assuming she'd want to move to Canada just because Bush won.

Bush is also full of crap. Bush knows (or at least his handlers do) that words like liberty and freedom play well simpky because they are pleasant-sounding abstracts. Empty platitudes that in no way reflect the true agenda.

Oh Black Dog, you are obviously an intelligent guy, but I believe your hatred of George Bush clouds your thinking. In all honesty do you really believe Bush's agenda is against freedom?

[Black Dog]

Oh Black Dog, you are obviously an intelligent guy, but I believe your hatred of George Bush clouds your thinking. In all honesty do you really believe Bush's agenda is against freedom?

Yes. It's nascent fascism.

[August1991]

Yes. It's nascent fascism.

Nascent?

The house is burning down and BD is worried because the brother-in-law, whom BD never really liked, appears to be playing with a lighter.

The United States has successfully avoided fascism for over 200 years. The system is fairly well designed and there are many, many people who would stand up to defend it.

I'm not too worried about fascism arriving any time soon in the US.

Now in Canada, on the other hand, I don't know. The distinctive features of Canada are that the provincial governments keep the federal government in check and the provincial governments are civilized with one another.

[Black Dog]

The United States has successfully avoided fascism for over 200 years. The system is fairly well designed and there are many, many people who would stand up to defend it.

George W. Bush and the 14 points of fascism

I'm not too worried about fascism arriving any time soon in the US.

Now in Canada, on the other hand, I don't know. The distinctive features of Canada are that the provincial governments keep the federal government in check and the provincial governments are civilized with one another.

Which is completely unrelated to fascism.

[Guest eureka]

IMR, where is the arrogance in my statements? Do you consider the percentages in an American Presidential election the only measure of American principles?

There have been many polls on these issues that would sometimes show that more than half of the American population agree with most of what I said. Bush won his 52% because he was an incumbent in time of "war" and because of his core constituency of bigots.

August, the Provinces in Canada do not keep the federal government in check; the Courts do. That is the part of the American system that has suffered the most serious breakdown together with the manipulation of public opinion.

And, those two factors are the defining elements of true democracy.

BD, thanks for that link. I have for a long time now been wondering how to make that case.

[Black Dog]

What's the meaning of 'freedom?'

George Orwell wrote about "meaningless words" that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like "freedom," "democracy," and "justice," Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell's view, political words are "often used in a consciously dishonest way." Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word "democracy" as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom.

[I miss Reagan]

IMR, where is the arrogance in my statements?

LOL

Bush won his 52% because he was an incumbent in time of "war" and because of his core constituency of bigots.

This is what I hear from the anti-Bushites: "I hate Bush and cannot understand how anyone would vote for him. So I must disparage and scoff at those who voted for him." Isn't that in fact bigotry and intolerance. The irony kills me.

[caesar]

Just look at who Bush wants to pay for his unwise unnecessary expensive financially AND IN HUMAN LIVES

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Monday proposed a $2.57 trillion budget that slashes domestic programs from farm aid to housing grants for the poor, as he sought to curb budget deficits that have soared on his watch.

[August1991]

Thanks BD for bringing this thread back to life.

August, the Provinces in Canada do not keep the federal government in check; the Courts do.

The Supreme Court now has 7 of the 9 justices appointed by the Liberals. With the exception of Diefenbaker and Mulroney, the Liberal party has formed a government for the past 70 years.

The fact is that in Canada, the main opposition to the federal Liberal Party comes from the provincial governments.

-----

As to your 14 points web site BD, it is precisely such attitudes that guarantee the US is not a dictatorship. In 2008, there will be an election. If the Democrats put forward a candidate as savvy as Clinton or Johnson, they will win.

The US Constitution was designed specifically to protect against tyranny. For over 200 years, it has withstood dominating politicians of far greater skill than Bush Jnr or Dick Cheney.

US Presidents come and go. And vilifying a President is hardly new in American politics. But the fact is that power in the US is greatly diffused. The US is far closer to anarchy than a police state.

I am watching Bertolucci's 1900 now. If you want to learn a little about fascism, I suggest you see it.

[Guest eureka]

The appointment process - for the SCC - has proved to be an alomost unqualified success. It is not merely Prime Ministerial appointments that man it. Appointments are made only after consultation with Attorneys General and the Law Societies of Provinces. There is no example in Canadian history of a political appointment.

There are few examples of decisions renedered on the basis of political will or expedience. In fact, I hink the only ones that may fall into that category are those I have complained of: those relating to language laws. There, I prefer to think of those as inaccurate interpretations rather than political.

The US Constitution may well have been designed to protest against tyranny but it has not done so. Politlcal decisions over the last two hundred years have concentrated power in the Presidency. The houses are simply forums where competing local interests reap the friuts of payment for favours.

The changing Constitution has served to increase the oligarchical nature of US society: that was partly its intent anyway but I don't think the Founders could have dreamed of how far beyond their wishes it would go.

Will the Democrats win the next elections either in Congress or for the Presidency. I doubt it very much unless there is a revolution in the Party. The Democratics have forfeited their traditional base and merely compete with the Republicans on Republican home ground. Demographics are also running against them in the voting populations of the swing states.

The political and social future of America presents not a pretty picture and I see little likelihood of any dramatic change from its present course. That is, before the Revolution.

[August1991]

There are few examples of decisions renedered on the basis of political will or expedience. In fact, I hink the only ones that may fall into that category are those I have complained of: those relating to language laws.

eureka, you are simply saying that you agree with the Supreme Court's decisions. And when you don't agree (for example, on language), then you call the Court's decisions "expedient".

Are you capable of having a critical mind? Is the measure of the Supreme Court and Canada's government whether you agree with what they do?

The Democratics have forfeited their traditional base and merely compete with the Republicans on Republican home ground. Demographics are also running against them in the voting populations of the swing states.

So you now criticize the American government because it represents the views of the American people as a democratic government should.

eureka, not everybody in the world agrees with you. IOW, you may be wrong.

The political and social future of America presents not a pretty picture and I see little likelihood of any dramatic change from its present course. That is, before the Revolution.

Revolution? Really?

[Shakeyhands]

IMR, where is the arrogance in my statements?

LOL

Bush won his 52% because he was an incumbent in time of "war" and because of his core constituency of bigots.

This is what I hear from the anti-Bushites: "I hate Bush and cannot understand how anyone would vote for him. So I must disparage and scoff at those who voted for him." Isn't that in fact bigotry and intolerance. The irony kills me.

Now this I find remarkable coming form you IMR, I am going to hazard a guess that you just might agree that same can be said of the right, who to this day call any person who disagrees with any theing that the GOP does a "UNAmerican" or "UnPatriotic" and my personal favourite - "Against Freedom and Liberty" or better yet, a 'terrorist"

Give me and everyone else not wearing the red glasses and drinking the koolAid a freakin break. Thats the most typical Republican move yet....

[caesar]

The Supreme Court now has 7 of the 9 justices appointed by the Liberals. With the exception of Diefenbaker and Mulroney, the Liberal party has formed a government for the past 70 years.

The fact is that in Canada, the main opposition to the federal Liberal Party comes from the provincial governments

If so, then isn't about time the Consevatives and other opposition parties brought their thinking closer to that of the majority of Canadians so that they can be effective. Don't blame the Liberals for their failure to get support from the public for their platform.