Polarized for different reasons

Normally, the word "polarized" has negative connotations attached to it when the word refers to politics. In actuality, a sense of polarization is a good thing. It's a symptom of disagreement, debate and passion - all good things in a functioning democracy... well usually anyway.

For this post, I'm going to revert back to my annoying tendency to compare and contrast Canadian and American politics. (By the way, normally my comparisons leave a favourable impression on the American side, but I can't stress enough that I still think that Canada is the better country overall. A better country with a lot of negative issues surrounding its government.)

Polarization usually exists for two reasons. Genuine and sincere disagreement, but also because of cheap politics; the desire to draw a distinction with your opponent, in order to advance electoral prospects (which isn't always a bad thing). Usually, and in the best case scenario, it's a healthy mix of the two reasons.

In Canada today, there is little passionate disagreement over things of substance. By this I mean, entitlement reforms (parallels with America: Social Security, Medicaid eventually), passionate debates over the makeup of the federal judiciary, and so on. Yes, in America, much of the disagreement over these debates is caused by short-term political considerations, but at least they disagree on things of SUBSTANCE.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of the whole corruption issue. I'm getting sick of all the posturing. I really don't care about it anymore. I've suspected everything I've heard already for many years now. Maybe not in this exact form, but the jist of it is so completely predictable. I can't believe anyone actually finds it surprising.

I don't want the Conservatives to win because they won't be corrupt (although that's an added bonus of course and something I would expect from them), I want them to win so they could implement evil right-wing economic policies (Hidden Agenda, version Economic, not social).

I think it would be so cool if the federal government just minded its own darn (constitutionally ordained) business. I think it'd be cool if subsidies to economically dependent regions were slashed in favour of a more economically viable policy. I think slashing (I like the word slashing) the bureaucracy would be excellent. And most of all, cutting taxes would be good too.

I want the Conservatives in power for all of those reasons (even though I suspect that they would have a hard time implementing any positive policies properly), not because they angrily (and sometimes unnecessarily) attack the Liberals every day for being crooks.

It would be nice to have Canadian politics polarized over things of substance. Nice, but probably not likely.

In the real world, Canadians might just be too inherently socialistic to vote Conservative unless it involves throwing out a bunch of (seemingly) corrupt politicians.

PS. I use the word seemingly because I don't actually believe that Paul Martin is corrupt. Incompetent, sure, but corrupt - I highly doubt it, and I highly doubt that any of his ministers are that corrupt either. Paul Martin was a multi-multi-millionaire upon joining politics - why would he even NEED to be a crook? The Chretien government though.... that's another story. Watching Paul Martin give an election-night concession speech would bring me no joy. If Jean Chretien would do the same... that's another story too. Too late for that though.