tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post113857545090554546..comments2023-08-03T07:33:41.442-07:00Comments on Idealistic Pragmatist: Explaining the LiberalsIdealistic Pragmatisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138812228863382212006-02-01T09:43:00.000-07:002006-02-01T09:43:00.000-07:00Josh,I have my preferences on how I'd ideally like...Josh,<BR/><BR/>I have my preferences on how I'd ideally like the Canadian political landscape to look, too, but that takes a very strong back seat to the fact that no single party should be seen as the "natural governing party." I'm not interested in seeing the Liberals--or any other party--completely demolished, just demoted from that bloated status.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138807692291662602006-02-01T08:28:00.000-07:002006-02-01T08:28:00.000-07:00Oh, certainly. What I'd like to see is a three-par...Oh, certainly. What I'd like to see is a three-party system with the Conservatives and NDP as contendors for power, like here in Nova Scotia. The Liberals, meanwhile, after going so long with no more principles that the pursuit of power, fade away as a declining third force. In NS, the NDP is dominant in Halifax, the Conservatives in the rural mainland, and the Liberals in declining Cape Breton.JGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00273619697804064873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138771031822706472006-01-31T22:17:00.000-07:002006-01-31T22:17:00.000-07:00Josh,Yes, "one-party state" is an exaggeration. M...Josh,<BR/><BR/>Yes, "one-party state" is an exaggeration. My point, however, as I already stated in response to another comment, is that as long as we have a one-party <I>culture</I>, we might as well have a one-party state.<BR/><BR/>And honestly, I don't care if the Liberals got that way by their lack of ideology or because of their dealings with Quebec or by being the best cha-cha dancers. If Canadians expect that having a Liberal government is just "the way of things"--that it's just inevitable no matter what they do or how badly they screw up--then that's not a healthy situation for either the country or the Liberal party. Surely you can see that?Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138758216872657872006-01-31T18:43:00.000-07:002006-01-31T18:43:00.000-07:00No, "national governing party" simply refers to th...No, "national governing party" simply refers to the fact that the Liberals have governed federally for most of the past seven decades, interrupted only by three Tory majorities and three short minorities (not including the present one). The "one-party state" argument is misleading at best. The Liberal Party has been <B>dominant</B> since the Depression, but it hasn't ruled without interruption, nor has it routinely governed in most provinces. They've been sucessfully primarily because they haven't been overly ideological, generally following the winds of popular opinion, and effectively co-opting or adapting some of the policies of significant opponents (eg. the CCF in 1945 and Reform in the mid-90s). <BR/><BR/>Interestingly, in this past election, the Liberals obtained their lowest share of the vote in Quebec since <B>1867</B>, which doesn't exactly bode well for them.JGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00273619697804064873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138738035058828532006-01-31T13:07:00.000-07:002006-01-31T13:07:00.000-07:00pyesetz,I really don't think being the dominant me...pyesetz,<BR/><BR/>I <I>really</I> don't think being the dominant member in a coalition government is what Canadians tend to mean when they call the Liberals the "natural governing party." If that <I>is</I> what they mean, though, then by all means, bring it on!<BR/><BR/>Good luck with your permanent residence application, by the way! Despite all my criticisms, I wouldn't want to be living anywhere else. What country are you living in now?Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138737404622154402006-01-31T12:56:00.000-07:002006-01-31T12:56:00.000-07:00I left out the effect of prop rep, which seems lik...I left out the effect of prop rep, which seems like a great idea for countering voter apathy. The Liberal's 40% makes them the "natural governing party" in the sense of naturally being the dominant member of a coalition government. Certainly it does not grant them a mandate for a majority government on their own.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand the "one-party state" in Canada, not having lived there (my app for permanent residence is still pending). But it may be similar to what the US will have in 2008, with a judiciary and bureaucracy stuffed with Republican appointees who block the moves of the new Democratic president and Congress. If that goes on long enough, people will start to expect that such is the way American government works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138736556237506922006-01-31T12:42:00.000-07:002006-01-31T12:42:00.000-07:00late,Apology accepted, and thanks.Centrist politic...late,<BR/><BR/>Apology accepted, and thanks.<BR/><BR/>Centrist politics would almost certainly prevail under PR as well, actually, but it would arise in a different fashion. Rather than making one party responsible for twisting itself into a pretzel to make itself fit Canadian centrist views, it would involve different parties compromising with each other and coming up with solutions together. It would be a far more creative politics, with ideas arising from multiple points on the political spectrum before going through the Centrism Generator. And it would also be more consensus-driven. Centrism would still triumph--as it should, in a country like Canada--but it would be a far better situation all around.<BR/><BR/>anonymous,<BR/><BR/>My goodness. Keep that up, and I won't be able to fit my head through my office door! Thanks.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138727342148470522006-01-31T10:09:00.000-07:002006-01-31T10:09:00.000-07:00Bravo. You've expressed the beautiful vibrancy of ...Bravo. You've expressed the beautiful vibrancy of Canadian politics (politics can never be said to be beautiful, I suppose, but in the broader sense, Canadians can) in a way that shows a real, perceptive appreciation of the value, and the flaws, of our system. And you did it better than I could have. You make *me* proud to be Canadian, and hopeful for the future of this country, and I was born here. <BR/><BR/>Maybe one day, voting NDP in Alberta will have a real effect in Parliament. <BR/><BR/>So, belatedly then, welcome to Canada! I'm glad you're here. And though I'm not living there any longer, watch over that Edmonton-Strath riding, ok?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138642320416689452006-01-30T10:32:00.000-07:002006-01-30T10:32:00.000-07:00pyesetz,You're certainly right that a minority gov...pyesetz,<BR/><BR/>You're certainly right that a minority government isn't a one-party state--I'll give you that. I'm glad for it, too. It's not a terribly stable situation, though, either. It's very hard to argue that Canada would be better off with a string of minority governments than it would be with actual stable majority coalitions. A minority government is the best we can do under the current system, but it's absolutely not the best we can do.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying, though, which is that if we have a one-party <I>culture</I>, it's the closest thing you can get to a one-party state within a democracy. If most Canadians think it's inevitable that the Liberals will have a majority government sometime within the next couple of years, and all they have to do to achieve that is pick a new leader, come up with a few new ideas, and prove they're not corrupt thugs, then that has an effect on everything from the economy to feelings of political disenfranchisement. It's not good for the country--or, for that matter, for the Liberal Party. I would love to see the Liberals dig themselves out of the culture they're in and become contributing members of the Canadian political scene again, but that achievement will be hollow if we're just going to start the whole cycle all over again.<BR/><BR/>As for your comment about how 40% of the vote <I>should</I> enable the Liberals to be the natural governing party ... well, that just makes me shake my head. 40% of the vote for one party would mean that 60% of Canadians <I>voted against them</I>. Where's the mandate in that? Where's the justification for the sort of free rein that comes with a single-party majority government, much less achievement of "natural governing party" status?Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138641207484417182006-01-30T10:13:00.000-07:002006-01-30T10:13:00.000-07:00I think your jump from "natural governing party" t...I think your jump from "natural governing party" to "one-party" state is rather extreme, as is the "sick sick political culture" comment (but then extremism in the defence of liberty, etc.)<BR/><BR/>A minority government is hardly a one-party state. To call the US a one-party state is an exaggeration (yes, the Democrats are completely shut out of all decision-making, but they are not silenced). Burma is a one-party state: the government denies that opposing parties have any right to exist.<BR/><BR/>If 40% of Canadians have political positions that match the Liberals, then it is and should be the natural governing party. Some have argued that Republicans are the natural governing party of the United States and have been since the Civil War. When they get too corrupt, the Democrats get a chance for one term, then things go back to normal with Republicans getting multiple terms in a row (Roosevelt was a gigantic exception). Canadians are just more comfortable with their similar situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138641061768235322006-01-30T10:11:00.000-07:002006-01-30T10:11:00.000-07:00Leons,The Americans I've been talking to are aware...Leons,<BR/><BR/>The Americans I've been talking to are aware that the NDP is a Canadian anomaly, and don't tend to compare them with the U.S. Greens. If anything, they compare the U.S. Greens with the Canadian Greens, which is probably equally inaccurate, though for different reasons.<BR/><BR/>herbinator,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what point you're making--of course my post is from my own perspective. All I'm saying is that that's a perspective formed by someone who's lived in many different countries, and that fact affects the way I see Canada.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138640738061615212006-01-30T10:05:00.000-07:002006-01-30T10:05:00.000-07:00"international perspective"?You always reveal more..."international perspective"?<BR/>You always reveal more about you than about us.Art Hornbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103351963477702828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138639072562320402006-01-30T09:37:00.000-07:002006-01-30T09:37:00.000-07:00Your commenters illustrate my point. You argue tha...Your commenters illustrate my point. You argue that the very idea of a "natural governing party" is intrinsically undemocratic. They explain why the Liberals occupy this role, never addressing your actual position. The point is: most Canadians just don't get it. What can we do, though, except to keep trying?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138638896183384452006-01-30T09:34:00.000-07:002006-01-30T09:34:00.000-07:00IP, the thing you need to bear in mind is that Ont...IP, the thing you need to bear in mind is that Ontario was essentially founded by those Americans who were willing to leave their homes, property, and friends, rather than kick out King George III. We have a tradition of going to great lengths in order to be mistreated by the powers that be, and many people certainly believe in government by divine right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138614566834120352006-01-30T02:49:00.000-07:002006-01-30T02:49:00.000-07:00late,I never said 'conspiracy'. If you look closel...late,<BR/><BR/>I never said 'conspiracy'. If you look closely, I think you'll find I said 'skewed voting system'. Or do you think those "majorities" the Liberals won before the last government actually represented most Canadians? "Natural governing" doesn't belong to anyone at all in Canada, not even the centre. And "good governing," <I>actual</I> good governing, would need to mean more than one party working together in order to get anywhere close to being truly representative. The system lies.<BR/><BR/>Ian,<BR/><BR/>Being the "third party" in a system where the NDP actually received 18% of the seats for 18% of the vote would be an entirely fair and reasonable place for the party to be. And then they wouldn't have to give up their soul for the privilege, either. Remember, I'm looking at this from an international perspective, not through the lens of Canada's ridiculous voting system.<BR/><BR/>As for why I think hugging the centre and obliterating the Liberals would be a bad move not just for Canada but for the NDP, well, I've talked about that <A HREF="http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2005/11/third-way-blues.html" REL="nofollow">before</A>.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138606066954213822006-01-30T00:27:00.000-07:002006-01-30T00:27:00.000-07:00What a very odd thing to say IP. If the NDP repla...What a very odd thing to say IP. If the NDP replaces the Liberals as the main center left party after "obliterating" them it will because more people voted for them. In which case they will represent the beliefs of more Canadians than the Liberals.<BR/><BR/>Imagine that.<BR/><BR/>Yet another NDP supporter who wants to be the thrid party forever.<BR/><BR/>IanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1138592799616660112006-01-29T20:46:00.000-07:002006-01-29T20:46:00.000-07:00The Liberals have also been the natural governing ...The Liberals have also been the natural governing party since Laurier, because they have been the only ones capable of building ongoing federalist bridges to Quebec. The French-English partnership is one of the fundamental pillars of the country, since before Confederation.<BR/><BR/>No other national party has been able to build those bridges. The Tories under MacDonald occupied that position, but after he executed Riel, the Liberals inherited it.<BR/><BR/>Borden alienated Quebec with a vehement approach to conscription during WWII (King finessed it in WWII, and was on record as opposing the draft in WWI). Deif carried Quebec, but he never felt comfortable with Roman Catholics and his alliance with Dupleseis fell apart. Mulroney put together a coalition with Quebec nationalists, not federalists, and this also fell apart. Will Harper be able to succeed permanently where so many Tories have failed? I wonder.<BR/><BR/>I don't think you can explain why the Liberals are the natural governing party without the Quebec dimension.Simon Polehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10732536379885911792noreply@blogger.com