Won't Work

Stephen Harper was at it again yesterday, telling a gathering of Ahmaddiya Muslims that they have no better friend than the Conservative Party when it comes to Same-Sex Marriage.

He did this in April as well, at the Vasakhi Nagar Keertan (parade).

He has to understand that when he does this, he comes across as insensitive and prejudiced, which is unfortunate, because I'm sure he mentioned other, more important issues as well. The news reports give the impression that he's a totally insensitive and bigoted white guy who believes that a single issue will sway thousands of "ethnic" votes. Not only does this appear condescending and presumptuous to "ethnic" voters, it also turns away many "white" voters as well.

Now, I'm not intending to join the chorus of bloggers, journalists and commentators who have been pronouncing Harper's political death, manufacturing his inability to connect with voters, or baselessly accusing him of a certain negativity...

I think Stephen Harper is probably the best and most genuinely conservative leader of any Canadian political party in Canadian history. I think he has a real vision for the country and I think he would make a terrific Prime Minister. I will be truly disappointed if he does not become Canada's Prime Minister within the next year.

Let me even expand on that. I'm not even trying to say that he's not yet "ready" for the job. He is MORE than ready for the job. He would make an infinitely better Prime Minister than Paul Martin. Stephen Harper is a smart, strong and decisive leader while Paul Martin is just a weak, weak, and pathetic man. I'm also not suggesting that Stephen Harper is not as "politically smart" as Paul Martin. He is. He's actually smarter in that sense... but he's also the leader of Canada's (current and longstanding) minority party.

He doesn't have as much room for error, especially with a generally hostile media (in the sense that they portray his flaws as far more fatal and irreversible in comparison to Paul Martin) and an opponent that has proven that he'll do whatever he can, in the face of an apatethic electorate, to stay in power...

Speaking to ethnic voters (in my opinion) about SSM is a strategic mistake, bad optics and is generally seen as divisive... as if immigrant voters have different concerns and priorities than "other" Canadians.

Even if he only speaks about it for a relatively short period of time, it really doesn't matter. That's the angle that the media will run with and damage will be done.

Stupidity

I don't share the desire of many Canadian conservatives to move to the United States. I personally don't even look to the United States as much of a model to aspire to. (I used to, but not anymore) To begin with, even when it comes to issues of big government, the "nanny state", personal freedom, and so on, the United States isn't all that different than Canada. Just look at the recent American debate on Social Security. George W. Bush made incredibly reasonable noises about cutting retirement benefits in order to insure the long-term solvency of what is, by any objective measure, an immoral ponzi scheme, and his poll numbers dropped 10 points.

On another front, the Supreme Court (which was mostly appointed by Republican Presidents) recently ruled against basic property rights. Anyways, I'm getting a bit off-topic. The point of this post was to highlight the feature of American society that DOES draw in many Canadian conservatives, and that is a high-level of patriotism and nationalism.

I've oddly grown a bit suspicious of high-levels of patriotism and nationalism over the past few months, and I've come to realize that one of the things I like best about Canada is its sort of anti-nationalism and I would essentially love Canada if that anti-nationalism did not cause the mediocrity and dependency that it breeds. The reason I've grown suspicious is because of the incredibly stupid things that people feel and do because of nationalistic fervor. Irrational emotional stupidity clouds every shred of logic sometimes, which is exactly what happened yesterday when the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment to ban... flag-burning. They're trying to push through a constitutional amendment to limit free speech and quell dissent. They're trying to censor forms of expression that they don't agree with. I can't comprehend a single logical argument in favour of the ban. Why not ban the burning of other "symbols" of America too, like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc.?

It's just really, really, really stupid.

Hey! I liked the 1990s!

I just ran into a post on TKS at National Review Online:

RANDOM THOUGHT ON MICHAEL JACKSON

Word of that the jury had reached verdict broke a bit before bedtime in my time zone.
We watched the cable network reporters talking excitedly without any knowledge of the decision, and the in-studio talking heads speculating madly about the verdict. We saw the helicopter-camera crews track the approach of Michael Jackson's convoy to the courthouse. We stared dumbfoundedly at the insane crowd of seemingly ordinary Californians intensely emotionally invested in the trial of a celebrity.

Did anyone else get the vibe, "Hey, it's the 1990s again!"

Regardless of how conservative Americans may feel about being governed through the immoral reign of Bill Clinton, the 1990s were still a pretty good period.

When celebrity trials get lots of play isn't that a far better indicator of a society's troubles than when terrorism, war, etc. dominate the headlines all the time? Those issues - terrorism, war, etc. aren't really in anyone's control, but it's still nice to see them out of the headlines.

I wrote a post a few months ago, discussing my thoughts about why the 1990s were a great period in history.

The Citizen Politician

The whole Gurmant Grewal fiasco (if you could even call it that) is unfortunate for Gurmant not because of how it brought focus onto how he taped Ujjal and Tim Murphy when they were trying to offer him a job, but because of how it caused a firestorm in the liberal media that put focus on Gurmant's various other shortcomings... if you could even call them that.

When Gurmant Grewal ran for office in 1997, by most judgments, he was overwhelmingly underqualified for the job of an MP. He had never even visited Ottawa prior to being sworn in. He had been a Canadian citizen for only a few years, he had only lived in his community for slightly over 5 years and from what I understand, he had no real experience in public service, at least in Canada. Nina Grewal's qualifications (besides the now famous fact that she exclusively watched CPAC from 1997 to 2004) seem even less impressive than Gurmant's.

I'm not trying to be unneccesarily judgmental about the Grewals, but from what I've seen, they don't really fall into the types of people I'd expect to see in politics (if I was totally naive and innocent, which is what I am). Again, I could be wrong but, it doesn't seem as if they have some overriding passion to work on behalf of their constituents (whom they never really served in any significant capacity before becoming MPs), it doesn't seem as if they have a strong desire for public service nor do they seem strongly ideological. So why are they in politics? The phenomenon of the Grewals is definitely not limited to them alone, but their example simply takes the visionless, idealess politician to the extreme (particularly in reference to Nina). I'm not trying to be harsh, and I'm not the type of person who gets embarrassed by "others" in my (Sikh) community... the simple truth is that the same has been said of countless other politicians. One aide in the relatively visionless and hardly ideological administration of the Senior George Bush said at the time... "Our people don't have agendas, they have mortgages".

And I'm so certain that the extra $150,000 (for a combined salary of approx. $300,000) had like nothing to do with Nina's decision to run in the riding next to Gurmant's. (I'm being completely sarcastic if that wasn't obvious)

I'm not trying to overly judge and question the Grewals' character - I don't think they're "bad" people by any measure, but they're just so ordinary. Like most Canadians, they're not very ideological, like most Canadians, they're just trying to get by and like most Canadians, they're not natural or overly groomed politicians. They just seem like regular people.

And that's potentially a serious flaw in the Canadian system of political parties. With nomination races that are closed to the public and which are manipulated greatly by political party apparatuses, nobodies make their way as candidates (and sometimes as MPs) all the time. If they have a fair bit of money and a small (but determined) organization, it is mind boggingly easy to secure a nomination.

This is good and bad, but mostly bad.

Actually, it isn't good at all. It's all bad. Bad, bad, bad.

In one sense, it makes politics more representative of the populace. However, if any average person can become an MP with enough determination (if he or she was driven for the purpose of obtaining a hefty salary or basking in the minor celebrity that accompanies being a Member of Parliament or for other superficial reasons), it seems less necessary to engage in civic duties prior to jumping into becoming an MP (which is relatively high-up on the scale of public service). If name recognition is not as much a factor in securing party nominations in Canada, the inevitable result is that less-qualified people secure nomination more often than they would in an American-style primary system.

MPs should NOT be just like their citizens. They should be informed. They should be driven by some form of ideology or belief system in relation to the way government should interact with the lives of the citizenry and they should be as much as possible, committed to the service of the constituents that elected them.

The Calgary Grit proposed something like a primary system not so long ago himself, so this isn't an ideological position, but when the Conservatives proposed something similar to this last year, the Liberals called their idea "Orwellian".

Yes - it would be an expansion of the role of the state in monitoring elections - but how is this Orwellian in any possible way? It would ensure that candidates are actually representative of the general Conservative/Liberal/NDP population in their ridings, and not representative of special interests or in an actual Orwellian sense, the judgments of the party machinery. It would make political parties far less powerful, and it would make a fantastic legacy for whoever becomes the next Conservative Prime Minister (whenever that happens). Every other action can be changed fairly easily; cuts in government spending can be instituted back immediately when the Liberals get back into power, but significantly altering the electoral system will empower citizens and likely be altered forever.

Direct vs. Indirect Blame

Over the next few days and maybe weeks, depending on the ramifications of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on "HealthCare", the opposition parties will accuse the Liberals of forcing the Supreme Court to allow private health insurance because of budget cuts during the mid 1990s. They'll say that waiting times got so painful that the Supreme Court had no other alternative but to allow private care when public care wasn't readily available.

I think this is an ok strategy, but this only lays "indirect" blame on the Prime Minister, and as we saw during the June election campaign, when Jack Layton accused Paul Martin of contributing to homelessness (and therefore to deaths because of people living on the streets), no one in the media bought Layton's rationale, and I don't think they really will this time either.

Blame needs to be more "direct".

Why can't the Liberals be blamed for appointing these "activist" judges? (which is in a way what they are even though I welcome the likely consequences of their ruling - shouldn't this issue be decided by the legislatures?)

Out of the 7 justices, 5 were appointed by Chretien and 2 were appointed by Mulroney. (In actuality, McLachlin was elevated to Chief by Chretien, so it's more like 5.5 for Chretien and 1.5 for Mulroney.)

Out of the 4 justices who ruled against the Quebec government, 1 was a justice appointed by Mulroney, 1 was Chief Justice McLachlin who was appointed by both Chretien AND Mulroney, and the other 2 were direct Chretien appointees.

In the United States, President's take both credit and blame for their Supreme Court choices when their legacies are examined (Bush Sr. takes credit for Justice Thomas and blame for Justice Souter, Reagan gets credit for elevating Rehnqvist, nominating Scalia, but a bit of slack for nominating O'Connor and Kennedy - only moderate conservatives).

Why are Prime Ministers totally unaccountable for their Supreme Court choices? I know it's partially because ideology (liberal vs. conservative) does not play as large a role in the Canadian court system, but there should still be SOME political blame (or even credit for that matter) when Supreme Court justices make choices that are either popular or unpopular.

Thank you VERY much!

I've been "tagged" twice in the book blog game, which is unfortunate.

I don't have much to add to what everyone has already said. (translation: I'm horrible at finishing books.)

What I do enjoy usually involves going to Koerner Library at UBC during the breaks between my classes (during the school year) and randomly reading specific chapters in a number of books authored by a wide variety of authors. I think I like reading, but I don't really like reading books in their entirety... although I'm hoping to change that. If I was asked this exact question, this time next year, I'd probably have a much better answer, but let me see what I can do right now:

Number of books I own: I have no idea what this encompasses. I have dozens of textbooks, except that I'm becoming far more selective in what I actually buy when it comes to most of my classes. Most required books for classes are actually a complete waste of money and are absolutely NOT necessary to getting good grades.

Last book I bought: The book was for school, for a class on the American Revolution. I was FORCED to buy the book because I required documents for a term paper on the significance of Thomas Paine as a founding father of the United States and the impact of his work, Common Sense. The paper essentially required me to take the position that America's revolution was not very "revolutionary" at all, and instead they (the Americans) were hoping to revert back to pre-1763 policies (i.e. before the King started being a jerk, but not really an unreasonable jerk if you think about it). Thomas Paine was a radical Liberal at that time, and he was disappointed because the revolution did not meaningfully change American society in order to incorporate blacks and women. He had a bunch of other complaints too - like his rejection of organized religion. He was a pretty interesting guy.

Last book I read: I actually bought and read "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal". It was good... but it needed to focus more directly on the attitude and arrogance that caused the scandals and corruption and less so on the mundane details of the scandals themselves.

Five books that mean a lot to me:

Woah. Five... that's a lot.

1) The Autobiography of Bhai Sahib Bhai Randheer Singh Jee: Bhai Sahib was probably the greatest Sikh of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, I've only read the English version of the book, but I hope to eventually read the Punjabi version as well (even if I have to do it side-by-side with the English version since the language in the Punjabi version might go over my head.) Anyways, Bhai Sahib's experiences in jail are absolutely impressive and totally mind-boggling. Essential reading in order to grasp the character of a Gursikh.

Ummm, I'm basically stumped now. I'll come back and post more books if and when I think of them. Remember: I do read books, I just don't finish them, so I'm not comfortable in saying that a number of good books "mean a lot to me". And also, like I said, I'm only 18. This time, next year, I'll probably have properly read a number of books...

The makeup of the people who vote the same as yourself is irrelevant to what position you should take

(sorry for the awkward-sounding post title)

Paul Wells had an interesting take on France's rejection of the European Union constitution...

In it he states:

Commentators tempted to throw a party in the wake of the French Non will have some 'splainin to do, or, more likely, to avoid: This was overwhelmingly a vote of the French left and extreme right. It was essentially a rejection of capitalism and of Turkey.

The French people didn't toss up their hands and say, "My God, Conrad Black and Mark Steyn were right, we can't have Eurocrats deciding how wide our toilet-paper rolls should be." More than 90% of Communist and Front National voters rejected the treaty. The most parlable of French opinion-leaders and electors — the ones who understand how profoundly France has been betrayed by its own protectionist, corporatist instincts, and who see an open and functional Europe as the best hope of pressuring France into woefully overdue reforms, as it has begun to do in Germany and as it did to Sweden a decade ago — voted Yes to this constitution.

The France that takes to the streets at the merest suggestion that public pensions should not bankrupt the state; the France that still believes its social model is a beacon to the world; the France that wants to stand up to America's armies but is terrified of Poland's plumbers voted No. Tonight's vote is yet another Pyrrhic victory for Old Europe, a bullseye shot in the nation's foot, and it seals France's isolation from a new New Europe whose entrepreneurial spirit is obvious in countries as diverse as Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Poland. A few commentators, notably the centre-right UDF president François Bayrou, said the results underscore "an extraordinarily grave French crisis" that actually has very little to do with European institutions at all. I'll be writing more about this in the week ahead.

At first, I found his argument to be relatively persuasive. It sort of makes sense to support those that actually have capitalist instincts inside France itself. They obviously have a more intimate understanding of what France needs in order to reform itself into a less socialistic and overregulated society.

However... is the cost of transferring sovereignty to a group of seemingly unaccountable and all-powerful politicians in Brussels (headquarters of the EU) really worth it for the reforms that would be forced upon French society? Why not try to fight for less regulation and less government and less of all of the other problems that plague France in France itself, through a truly democratic process instead of hoping for those reforms to be enacted undemocratically through a group of politicians that exist outside of France? Wouldn't the consequences of those forced reforms be even more disastorous than allowing French workers to have actual politicians to hold to account?

Moving onto my broader point (as stated in the title of the post), I think Wells is trying to guilt people (right-wing North Americans I think, to be specific) into his view by tarring them with the same brush as the people in France itself who voted no on the constitution... He cites the fact that most of the people in France who voted against the constitution are socialists and communists... fair enough, but how is that supposed to effect people who are principally opposed to the constitution because it is undemocratic and because it has the potential to be authoratarian in practice? Why should they be shamed by association into supporting or hoping for the passage of the constitution? That doesn't seem fair. That's like someone saying to me "don't support the Conservatives, not because they themselves are racist, but because they have a number of racist supporters... you don't want to vote WITH such people even if your rationales for voting for the Conservatives have to do with democratic and economic principles." Sadly, many people actually follow that way of thinking. They vote for and against political parties and political issues based on the type of people who are voting with or against them instead of evaluating the issue or party itself on the merits.

In France, people who were suspicious of devolving their nation's sovereignty for good and proper reasons might have been alarmed that the majority of the support for their cause came from people diametrically opposed to their basic principles, but in a democracy, that's the way it works. I'm sure those people still sighed a sense of relief at the constitution's failure to pass.