|
Future PM of Canada (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ShadoWolf |
| The above three posts confuse "(policy) bias" with "partisanship." The former is to be expected, but the later is unconscionable. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
"Good public policy is not a politics of propaganda and national self-delusion. It is an attempt to match our national self-image and our capabilities as a people. The present government is struggling to close the gap between pretending to be a good international citizen and failing to fund our foreign aid commitments; pretending to be a peacekeeper and failing to fund our defence establishment; pretending to be green and failing to fund our investment in environmental sustainability.
It is as if we conquered the deficit in the 1990s, at the price of starving those areas of core responsibility - foreign and defence policy - that are essential to the maintenance of federal authority at home and abroad. The government is now putting this right, and it is to be hoped that, pressures of minority government notwithstanding, they will stay the course.
A strong foreign policy is essential to the maintenance of national unity at home, just as a strong federal government at home is critical to our influence abroad.
If we are committed to a "responsibility to protect" strangers from genocide and ethnic cleansing, and fail to fund, equip and deploy a combat capable military, it is not just our foreign partners who will start to think we are a joke. Our fellow citizens will lose confidence in their country."
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/...5_ignatieff.htm
***
Well, there's something Ignatieff is saying |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Here's someone (Ignatieff) who's a scholar and a journalist...not a businessman. Maybe the change needed to restore faith in the Liberal Party. |
Sounds like a disaster if you ask me.
The primary role of the gov't is to ensure the economy is running at such a pace that it fulfilles the gov't tax-revenue requirements and provides a quality standard of living for citizens. Running a country is a business; the gov't is the country's largest company.
Last thing I'd want is a "scholar" (unless he's an economics scholar, which Ignatieff is not) running Canada.
I want a business-person, an economist, an accountant or the like running Canada. |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ Why? The PM doesn't actually DO everything.
We have a competent (IMHO) finance minsiter (make that entire minstries) devoted to running the country, from an economic standpoint.
Do you think George Bush personally sets the entire economic policy for the U.S.?
come on...a leader leads...and ensures, with the help of competent advisors, who to have on board to actually RUN the country. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
The above three posts confuse "(policy) bias" with "partisanship." The former is to be expected, but the later is unconscionable. |
then you ought to be equally upset at the supposed right-wing "partisanship" of the National Post, or the "partisanship: of any other outlet, as you are with supposed left-wing "partisanship" of the CBC and Toronto Star.
but natually, not identifying as left-wing, you just point out your perceived difficiencies with the latter.
that's a double standard, no? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
The primary role of the gov't is to ensure the economy is running at such a pace that it fulfilles the gov't tax-revenue requirements and provides a quality standard of living for citizens. Running a country is a business; the gov't is the country's largest company.
|
That is one view. Others believe that the government exists to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves. Others believe that the government should only involve themselves in international trade and matters of security. Some believe that government should control all means of production for the exclusive benefit of the citizens. Still others believe that the only role of government is to provide for the safety and security of the individual. Taxation, in almost all ideological structures is simply a means to fulfill the amorphious "role of government". Clearly you are more of a Hobbsian thinker (as were the fathers of our constitution.... well the BNA act part of it). Not all believe as you do (like Jayx1.... he's a follower of Locke all the way). Regardless, the point I seek to make is that the type of person who should lead depends on what you believe the role of government to be. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
^^^ Why? The PM doesn't actually DO everything.
We have a competent (IMHO) finance minsiter (make that entire minstries) devoted to running the country, from an economic standpoint.
Do you think George Bush personally sets the entire economic policy for the U.S.?
come on...a leader leads...and ensures, with the help of competent advisors, who to have on board to actually RUN the country. |
The leader sets the ideological tone of the policies that are to be developed under their carriage. Subsequently, the manner in which a leader perceives the world is very important and often indicative of the direction they will take the country. This, however, is only how leadership works presently..... perhaps we'd be better off if we sought leaders who would be able to disern the will of the people, refine it, and enact it. I, for one, yearn for such a leader. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
...
The media today is more in line with the centre of the modern political spectrum. Now, to those who are slow to change this would seem as though the media were still leftward leaning. The unfortunate truth for those on the right is that society as a whole is leftward leaning compared to 90 years ago. Since the centre of the political spectrum is defined by the ideological stand point of the majority of those that comprise the political culture the media is not leftward leaning by current standards. |
interesting point.
Is political idealogy that relative? (I'm asking, I don't know).
What I'm asking is that if the majority of those who comprise the political culture eventually sway way to the right (*shudder*)...does that really make them the new "centre" or is it a case of it just being a point in time where most people are "right-wing"?
I can see that relativism from an idealogical standpoint...but in terms of actual policy, such as spending let's say, is it still relative to the majority how we define "left" and "right"? |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The leader sets the ideological tone of the policies that are to be developed under their carriage. Subsequently, the manner in which a leader perceives the world is very important and often indicative of the direction they will take the country. This, however, is only how leadership works presently..... perhaps we'd be better off if we sought leaders who would be able to disern the will of the people, refine it, and enact it. I, for one, yearn for such a leader. |
which is exactly why I fail to see how an academic is unfit to lead...we are simply talking about theoretical knowledge vs. practical application. In the case of a businessman or lawyer, it could be argued that an academic actually understands the political sphere more than they do.
Before an engineer designs something, someone has to conceptualize it...ideally, that person has some practical knowledge that allows them to pre-determine that their idea is actually feasible, but they don't have to BE an engineer...just have engineers on hand to properly advise them along the way.
to the point...Ignatieff is hardly a political n00b...and he doesn't have to be a businessman or lawyer (why does being a lawyer make you a good leader anyway?) to be an effective PM. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| ^Better question would be would you rather have the scientist leading the project and engineer supporting the scientist or the engineer leading and the scientist supporting? |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
then you ought to be equally upset at the supposed right-wing "partisanship" of the National Post, or the "partisanship: of any other outlet, as you are with supposed left-wing "partisanship" of the CBC and Toronto Star.
but natually, not identifying as left-wing, you just point out your perceived difficiencies with the latter.
that's a double standard, no? |
Until Andrew Coyne or Terence Corcoran (National Post columnists) are appointed to be Governor General or appointed to the Senate by a Conservative Prime Minister (not likely), you have no case.
The media and the Party have become entwined in this country like we've never seen before since Pravda in the USSR.
The Lieberals court the media through appointments (CTV reporter in Martin's staff, two GGs in a row from the CBC, Toronto Star editor running for Lieberals, etc.), accolades (select journalists given the Order of Canada), and inside scoops (TorStar's Jim Traver's sneak peak into the Gomery report, etc.). (In fairness, a former news presenter is running for the CPC.) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
interesting point.
Is political idealogy that relative? (I'm asking, I don't know).
What I'm asking is that if the majority of those who comprise the political culture eventually sway way to the right (*shudder*)...does that really make them the new "centre" or is it a case of it just being a point in time where most people are "right-wing"?
I can see that relativism from an idealogical standpoint...but in terms of actual policy, such as spending let's say, is it still relative to the majority how we define "left" and "right"? |
Ideology does not change (okay it does but very little). The spectrum itself is relative. 100 years ago liberalism (classic, not what we think of today as liberalism.... think more libertarian by today's standards) was the prevailing ideology in the US (so much so that they stole "life liberty and the persuit of property" [they changed to liberty] from John Locke) and was the centre of their spectrum. At that time what we today refer to as socializm would have been the far left and classic conservatism (think the present Canadian Liberal party) would have been the near left. Today the US has moved toward the left so that the prevailing ideology is conservatism (democrates), liberalism is slightly right (Republicans), and the Libertarians are far right.
Canada's prevailing ideology has always been classical conservatism (so much so that we stole a quote from Hobbes to put in the preamble to constitution "peace, order, and good government" was the origional quote..... we changed good to responsible). 100 years ago socializm was far left and liberalism was far right. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives 100 years ago would have been and still are classical conservative parties. Our spectrum has shifted leftward over time so that the prevailing ideology lies somewhere between socialism and conservatism with the NDP marking the near left and the Liberals (who have also shifted left) represent the centre. It is hard to place the Conservatives as they have yet to produce a clear policy platform. Clearly they are right wing but just where on that wing remains to be seen. The former PCs were a conservative party on the near right, whereas the Reform were a liberal party on the middle to far right (but certainly not extreme). The Conservatives being a combination of the two will fall somewhere between. |
|
|
|
|
