Litmus Tests
I was hearing the term "Litmus Test" quite often today... in reference to the choice that George W. Bush will have to make in the coming weeks when he fills a Supreme Court vacancy. For those of you who don't know what a litmus test is, it's when you judge a person on one specific issue (abortion comes to mind here) and either accept or dismiss them based on that issue instead of evaluating them holistically and in my view at least... fairly.
Most Canadian Prime Ministers have not litmus tested their appointees because there is no real "battle" in the Canadian judiciary over contentious social issues... most Canadian Prime Ministers (who happen to be Liberals) just appoint people with similar views to themselves (thereby holistically judging their judicial philosophy). In America, it's crucially important to understand where a nominee stands on abortion, the separation of church/state and so on.
Anyways... to the point of my post, in the Canadian system of government, in which the executive and legislative branches are combined and not separated, it is usually tradition for the cabinet to vote as a bloc in order to show solidarity when it comes to the government's policies. This practice has some political merits (wanting to show a "united front"), but in reality, it's utterly ridiculous in practice because of how it litmus tests cabinet members on the government's social agenda. In this past parliament, Paul Martin required that all of his cabinet members vote for C-38, the bill legalizing Same-Sex Marriage. This was particularly outrageous because it essentially permanently excluded anyone opposed to Same-Sex Marriage from ever being part of a Liberal cabinet. It sent the message that only people who were in favour of Same-Sex marriage were capable and responsible enough to wield executive power in Canada.
Most Canadians, and even most Members of Parliament aren't very ideological. I'm sure every Liberal MP is capable of rallying around the budgetary and general policy initiatives of the party leadership, regardless of their substance, but when it comes to social issues, many of them do have "principles". And social issues is what's keeping many marginally socially conservative Liberal MPs from wielding any significant power at all (i.e. joining cabinet instead of being a backbench nobody).
The Liberal Party in essence, has a clear litmus test on their MPs if they ever wish to enter into cabinet and some might ask whether the Conservative were any different during the 1980s? The answer is yes. Yes, they were clearly different. Mulroney allowed his cabinet to break solidarity over the death penalty and abortion. There was no social issue litmus test to enter into the cabinets of Mulroney, Campbell or even Clark.
Just to finish off the with standard "If I were Harper" advice, I'd just like to suggest that instead of vaguely talking about how "family is a Canadian value" and talking about SSM in incredibly vague terms over the next 6 months, it would be best if Harper talked about how the Liberals wouldn't allow all of their MPs to vote against SSM, forcing some MP cabinet ministers (like that idiot Volpe) to vote against their beliefs and even forcing actually principled cabinet ministers (like Comuzzi) to resign. Harper should stress the disrespect and condescending attitude that Martin has towards anyone who thinks differently on SSM. The message should essentially be "inclusive"...
"I won't litmus tests my cabinet ministers and I'll form a cabinet that has a diverse viewpoint on contentious social issues"... and he could say that with a completely straight face even while sticking to his view that SSM is not good policy. Harper should keep mentioning words like "inclusion"and "compromise position"... I don't care much for those terms, but I'm pretty sure they'd sound appealing.
Most Canadian Prime Ministers have not litmus tested their appointees because there is no real "battle" in the Canadian judiciary over contentious social issues... most Canadian Prime Ministers (who happen to be Liberals) just appoint people with similar views to themselves (thereby holistically judging their judicial philosophy). In America, it's crucially important to understand where a nominee stands on abortion, the separation of church/state and so on.
Anyways... to the point of my post, in the Canadian system of government, in which the executive and legislative branches are combined and not separated, it is usually tradition for the cabinet to vote as a bloc in order to show solidarity when it comes to the government's policies. This practice has some political merits (wanting to show a "united front"), but in reality, it's utterly ridiculous in practice because of how it litmus tests cabinet members on the government's social agenda. In this past parliament, Paul Martin required that all of his cabinet members vote for C-38, the bill legalizing Same-Sex Marriage. This was particularly outrageous because it essentially permanently excluded anyone opposed to Same-Sex Marriage from ever being part of a Liberal cabinet. It sent the message that only people who were in favour of Same-Sex marriage were capable and responsible enough to wield executive power in Canada.
Most Canadians, and even most Members of Parliament aren't very ideological. I'm sure every Liberal MP is capable of rallying around the budgetary and general policy initiatives of the party leadership, regardless of their substance, but when it comes to social issues, many of them do have "principles". And social issues is what's keeping many marginally socially conservative Liberal MPs from wielding any significant power at all (i.e. joining cabinet instead of being a backbench nobody).
The Liberal Party in essence, has a clear litmus test on their MPs if they ever wish to enter into cabinet and some might ask whether the Conservative were any different during the 1980s? The answer is yes. Yes, they were clearly different. Mulroney allowed his cabinet to break solidarity over the death penalty and abortion. There was no social issue litmus test to enter into the cabinets of Mulroney, Campbell or even Clark.
Just to finish off the with standard "If I were Harper" advice, I'd just like to suggest that instead of vaguely talking about how "family is a Canadian value" and talking about SSM in incredibly vague terms over the next 6 months, it would be best if Harper talked about how the Liberals wouldn't allow all of their MPs to vote against SSM, forcing some MP cabinet ministers (like that idiot Volpe) to vote against their beliefs and even forcing actually principled cabinet ministers (like Comuzzi) to resign. Harper should stress the disrespect and condescending attitude that Martin has towards anyone who thinks differently on SSM. The message should essentially be "inclusive"...
"I won't litmus tests my cabinet ministers and I'll form a cabinet that has a diverse viewpoint on contentious social issues"... and he could say that with a completely straight face even while sticking to his view that SSM is not good policy. Harper should keep mentioning words like "inclusion"and "compromise position"... I don't care much for those terms, but I'm pretty sure they'd sound appealing.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
9:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home