Is Canada going Marxist?

[herbie]

It is impossible for ultraconservatives to imagine a Premier or Prime Minister as a CEO, Chairperson administrator. They can only view them as Kings or Emperors as that is the 'classical' concept of leadership. On top of that we're bludgeoned daily with the saga of Donald Trump announcing what "he" will do and his party cowering and falling in line like the sycophants they are.
What's needed here is a demonstration of the difference where like the UK and some other Parliamentary democracies, the leader is removed by the Party itself if he/she strays to far from policy.
The biggest problem here is that the ultraconservatives have convince themselfes they are mainline conservatives and themselves wander all over the political map on conservative economic policies and only congeal like willnuts* on 'traditional' social issues.

*look it up if you don't know

[Moonlight Graham]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Like I say they have to be supported by the public.  And that means they can't be so different from them.

If you want to look at the archetype of brilliant leaders, the mid-century American presidents... Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon

All of them had wide support in their day, and were so far above what we see in the likes of Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush Jr.

Why do they have to be supported by the public?  Who chooses the public we should listen to?   What if the masses don't agree with most of the public figures?  Isn't a democracy about what the masses want?  Why doesn't the public vote and the masses just not get a vote?

Not sure how political figures fit into this.  A lot of people hated Obama because he was black and had a Muslim/Arab middle name.  Including Trump.  Leaders are essentially puppets and spokesmen for the party itself, which means they aren't very much leaders at all, just PR heads.  Except for Trump, which is why the likes of Liz Cheney hate him.

You can't be a populist or even democratic leader when many of your dictates come from your base of donors.  The Liberals have to be good to SNC-Lavalin, and PP to the oil corps in Alberta, and they're all in bed with the banks, real estate developers etc.  So the publics might sway opinions, but how much are they swaying policy?

[Moonlight Graham]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Careful what you wish for, especially these days where border issues and invasive dictators need to be combined to do anything about them.

Don't understand.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Don't understand.

Why is saving Ukraine contingent on closing the border with Mexico? That what I don't understand.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Why is saving Ukraine contingent on closing the border with Mexico? That what I don't understand.

I don't know.  Pork is a thing in the US system.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Why do they have to be supported by the public?  Who chooses the public we should listen to?  

2. What if the masses don't agree with most of the public figures?  Isn't a democracy about what the masses want?  Why doesn't the public vote and the masses just not get a vote?

3. Not sure how political figures fit into this.  A lot of people hated Obama because he was black and had a Muslim/Arab middle name.  Including Trump.  Leaders are essentially puppets and spokesmen for the party itself, which means they aren't very much leaders at all, just PR heads.  Except for Trump, which is why the likes of Liz Cheney hate him.

4. You can't be a populist or even democratic leader when many of your dictates come from your base of donors.  The Liberals have to be good to SNC-Lavalin, and PP to the oil corps in Alberta, and they're all in bed with the banks, real estate developers etc.  So the publics might sway opinions, but how much are they swaying policy?

1. This line of questions came from me describing a kind of ideal tribal model for collaborative governance.  You asked if everyone gets a say, and I answered that they have to be supported.

2. Now we're talking more about the 20th century and 21st century model of democracy.  And I'm not sure if I should be answering how things do work, versus how they could work better.  In the beginning the masses didn't vote. It was only the public. 

3. I think leaders still put their stamp on things, even Obama did. Trump definitely does. How they appear to the public today is very different than in the days democracy was designed in the USA. That's because the advertising model is used to push the personality of the leader, the actual facts are too complicated. The evidence is that a lot of smart people on here can't even agree on the basics. 

4. I think the level of support in the US, from the so-called donors, and the basic idea of creating a good business environment are very different activities.  There's no Canadian equivalent to the NRA helping Bernie Sanders defeat a Republican in 1990.  But I'll bet Canadians don't appreciate that their representatives are not as beholden to business.

....

Big picture: even in highly educated Canada, "the" public can't be expected to be informed on most topics.  Our system of trickle down economics and advertising based democracy has led us to a point where Canadians feel politicians are not working in their interests.  Pushed down economically, depressed by the aftermath of the pandemic, homelessness, drug problems, wars.. 

The natural cycle is for them to blame the government and throw them out. This is happening now.

Then it will be on the conservatives to try to turn it around. Maybe they can, after all their leader has a degree in economics. 

But I see the problems facing us as rather huge. Politics and rhetoric are not going to fix them. Others disagree and think that a few tweaks, and getting rid of Trudeau's face will fix things. Maybe it will work, or maybe the natural economic cycle will work in our favor.

If that doesn't happen, then we could be in big trouble. And by that I mean we would need to upend the status quo to get through it, which is always very risky. I'm talking about historic change to our system.  Who knows what form that would take.

 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think the level of support in the US, from the so-called donors, and the basic idea of creating a good business environment are very different activities.  There's no Canadian equivalent to the NRA helping Bernie Sanders defeat a Republican in 1990.  But I'll bet Canadians don't appreciate that their representatives are not as beholden to business.

....

2. Big picture: even in highly educated Canada, "the" public can't be expected to be informed on most topics.  Our system of trickle down economics and advertising based democracy has led us to a point where Canadians feel politicians are not working in their interests.  Pushed down economically, depressed by the aftermath of the pandemic, homelessness, drug problems, wars.. 

The natural cycle is for them to blame the government and throw them out. This is happening now.

 

3.  But I see the problems facing us as rather huge. Politics and rhetoric are not going to fix them. Others disagree and think that a few tweaks, and getting rid of Trudeau's face will fix things. Maybe it will work, or maybe the natural economic cycle will work in our favor.

If that doesn't happen, then we could be in big trouble. And by that I mean we would need to upend the status quo to get through it, which is always very risky. I'm talking about historic change to our system.  Who knows what form that would take.

1.  Are you sure about this?

2.  Do you think our politicians are working in our best interests?  Do you think they're corrupted by money?  How much do you think policy has to do with our problems?

3.  The status quo isn't working.  The politicians should be working in the interests of the masses and the country and nobody else.  That's not happening.  Our democracy isn't working.  Policy can fix a lot of this, new laws and regulations and oversight and accountability on politicians and parties.

[Michael Hardner]

46 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  Are you sure about this?

2.  Do you think our politicians are working in our best interests?  Do you think they're corrupted by money?  How much do you think policy has to do with our problems?

3.  The status quo isn't working.  The politicians should be working in the interests of the masses and the country and nobody else.  That's not happening. 

4. Our democracy isn't working. 

5. Policy can fix a lot of this, new laws and regulations and oversight and accountability on politicians and parties.

1. Not 100% but I don't think people realize the differences.
2. Are they or do they THINK they are ?  I think they are working inside their ideologies and assumptions to solve common challenges as they think they can.  
3. There's no single interest there.  It's about trade-offs  This is what I refer to when I talk about 'trickle down'.  Many examples there.
4.  That's a very broad statement.  Churchill's quote comes to mind  “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried"  But still, there are some that haven't been tried and maybe democracy that is beholden to a distracted and intellectually lazy public ISN'T the best ?
5.  I was going to ask you what laws, but then you know I would only potshot whatever you came up with so I'll shrug agreement on this one.

My idea: make government services more autonomous and create online communities to monitor and give feedback onto their policies.

Edited April 11 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Pork is a thing in the US system.

Like Wokism? Maybe we should call it porkism. It seems pretty versatile...

We are the Pork, resistance is futile.

May the Pork be with you.

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not 100% but I don't think people realize the differences.
2. Are they or do they THINK they are ?  I think they are working inside their ideologies and assumptions to solve common challenges as they think they can.  
3. There's no single interest there.  It's about trade-offs  This is what I refer to when I talk about 'trickle down'.  Many examples there.
4.  That's a very broad statement.  Churchill's quote comes to mind  “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried"  But still, there are some that haven't been tried and maybe democracy that is beholden to a distracted and intellectually lazy public ISN'T the best ?
5.  I was going to ask you what laws, but then you know I would only potshot whatever you came up with so I'll shrug agreement on this one.

My idea: make government services more autonomous and create online communities to monitor and give feedback onto their policies.

1.  Or the similarities.  All these political finance rules in place and yet Doug Ford gives green belt access to developers, Trudeau Foundation accept a massive donation from some Chinese rich person, Trudeau gets free vacations from the Aga Khan, Morneau has WE Charity links, and countless other "leakages" that aren't noticed by the public or ever reported.

This is awesome, Parliament's worst-kept secrets:

2.  Only sometimes.  Their primary job is to get re-elected, which takes a lot of money and most don't care where they get it from.  We're seeing that the Liberal Party doesn't have a real issue with a foreign government that means the country harm interfering in our elections if it benefits them.  Time to get a little more cynical.

3.  This is vague, I don't understand it.

4.  The masses aren't the problem here, you have it completely backwards.  Democracy controlled by corrupt individuals is the issue.  Our democracy is dysfunctional, not enough oversight and regulation and accountability, its allowed to be too crooked and thus doesn't serve the people's interests enough.  The current government is performing poorly and they're also unpopular with the public, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are.  I trust the judgement of the collective public more than that of politicians because the interests of the public are the same as mine and everyone else.

5.  My idea:  more referenda on policy.  Greatly expand the auditor general's office.

Edited April 12 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  Or the similarities.  All these political finance rules in place and yet Doug Ford gives green belt access to developers, Trudeau Foundation accept a massive donation from some Chinese rich person, Trudeau gets free vacations from the Aga Khan, Morneau has WE Charity links, and countless other "leakages" that aren't noticed by the public or ever reported.

This is awesome, Parliament's worst-kept secrets:

2.  Only sometimes.  Their primary job is to get re-elected, which takes a lot of money and most don't care where they get it from.  We're seeing that the Liberal Party doesn't have a real issue with a foreign government that means the country harm interfering in our elections if it benefits them.  Time to get a little more cynical.

3.  This is vague, I don't understand it.

4.  The masses aren't the problem here, you have it completely backwards.  Democracy controlled by corrupt individuals is the issue.  Our democracy is dysfunctional, not enough oversight and regulation and accountability, its allowed to be too crooked and thus doesn't serve the people's interests enough.  The current government is performing poorly and they're also unpopular with the public, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are.  I trust the judgement of the collective public more than that of politicians because the interests of the public are the same as mine and everyone else.

5.  My idea:  more referenda on policy.  Greatly expand the auditor general's office.

1. No, I think the similarities are there and you basically will never get rid of those as long as you have representative democracy. And I think the similarities explain why people have similar feelings in Canada and the US.

2.  I don't buy this idea that China was helping the Liberals, China was helping China.  Of course there's a tension between a party self-interest and the nation's self-interest. The best way to address that is maximum information, education to the voter. They seem to be able to ignore flaws in government if they see other strengths. So there's trade-offs on both sides.... Voters know that parties are trying to get elected. 

3. You say that the government should be working on behalf of the masses. There's no single interest that the masses agree on, in most case. Farmers, oil producers, office workers, the disabled, Albertans, there is no single interest there.  The masses cannot be represented that way.  The thing that they all have in common is that they mostly vote based on the state of the economy, and that ideology is linked to trickle down. So helping business is seen as helping the country, generally. 

4. I do trust the public, I don't think they're stupid. But as I said the problems are of a scale that no one footer can figure out what's going on. The idea that pilfering, and little scandals are at the core of our problem is what I disagree with.  Your clip is about an opposition leader grandstanding over somebody losing their truck.  Do you see that as evidence that Trudeau did something wrong? I sure don't. In fact, I see the whole problem of that ticking up time in question period as evidence of our archaic system. 

5. I agree with the auditor General idea, also restructuring management to allow for Less top-down control in the ministries.  Also more transparency, which is why I said we should break services out from direct parliamentary control. That's also archaic. None of these people are managers. 

As for referenda, there's such a thing as too much public consultation.  If you want to make policies changeable on 50% plus one votes, it'll be a problem if you want to make long-term plans like adapting for climate change. Change. Support for such things changes frequently.

[blackbird]

On 4/10/2024 at 10:29 PM, eyeball said:

Why is saving Ukraine contingent on closing the border with Mexico? That what I don't understand.

I think I know what the Republican's reasoning on that is although I think it is a mistake.

They know the Dems are strong on supporting Ukraine, but weak on stopping the millions of illegal migrants from crossing the border into the U.S.  So the Republicans are using it as a tool to try to force the Dems into closing the border before they will support the Ukraine.  There is no real connection between the two issues except politics.  There is only one Democratic Party in power in the White House and Republicans are using whatever tool they think they can to try to get the border shut down.

The problem with the Republicans using that is it may hurt the west by giving an advantage to Putin and Russia in the war in the Ukraine.  I would not do that if I were an American.  I would 100% support the Ukraine.  If Ukraine goes down, what country is next?