Today's Hysterical Political Attack (#1)

Via The Globe and Mail's Twitter feed (@globeandmail) 02Aug2011. Blogged via Blackberry - please forgive thumbos & layout.

"NDP credibility under attack after Turmel's Bloc ties revealed: http://tgam.ca/CjUf"

I have never understood the virulent reactions to politicians who change their minds on any issue. The vitriol comes from both those who stand to gain the most from these attacks (opposition politicians), and those who stand to lose the most (eligible voters) - and none of it makes rational sense. Are we really intolerant of people who expand their knowledge on subjects and alter their viewpoints based on what they've learned? Having a reasonable discussion or debate on an issue can logically lead to both a more cemented point of view, or a shift in belief. Why is the latter considered wrong or weak? From issues of national importance to decisions on dinner, we can all be swayed by an excellent argument or by having a fresh thought illuminated, so why can't our elected officials? Wouldn't we rather have representatives who are willing to listen and change, rather than stick stubbornly to a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel is being attacked for simultaneously, and briefly, being a member of the NDP and Bloc parties. She has repeatedly stated that she was never a supporter of the sovereignty portion of the Bloc's agenda, but her opposition colleagues deny not only her ability to support portions of a political platform and not others, they also claim that she can not "un-become" a separatist.

"Conservatives said her recent ties fuel questions about the NDP's ability to carry out its duties as Official Opposition." This is a statement that ignores the fact that the Bloc is a legal, and until the last election, formidable member of the opposition. It also obscures the fact that all parties are guilty of courting Bloc votes - which at those times don't seem so toxic. The Liberals piped up and said that "Ms. Turmel and the party "have serious questions to answer about her personal views as well as the NDP caucus' position on Quebec sovereignty and the future of our country."" And the party? Are the Liberals now suggesting that every NDP member is, in their hearts, a separatist?

Even if Ms. Turmel had supported a separatist movement at some point (which she denies), can we not allow her to now support a unified Canada? It follows that Conservatives and Liberals don't believe separatist Quebeckers can ever abandon those views - which means they also must believe that all their time spent arguing against separatism is a waste.

But this all raises another issue; the idea that if you support a political party, it requires you to swear fealty to every word of the party platform. Bloc MP Louis Plamondon said, "When you back a party, you back its program." This is obviously a ridiculous statement to make, and is even laughable coming from any of the major parties. The Bloc themselves had abandoned bludgeoning Canada with the sovereignty portion of their platform for several years before the most recent election. When they trotted it out in full force, their base walked away and they suffered a humiliating defeat. So it seems Bloc supporters did not embrace the entire "program" that they were supposed to. Let's now look to the Conservatives, whose leader routinely claim that a vote for them equals full-support of their platform. Perhaps this is something their own MPs and members should be informed of, because the Conservative party has been split between the Reform and Progressive Conservative portions of their amalgamated party ever since their inception. Stephen Harper may support the entirety of the Conservative platform, but his party certainly does not. Liberals have no high ground to stand on either while they are dripping with spectacular public in fighting compounded by the bickering that still exists between the remnants of Team Paul Martin and Team Jean Chrétien.

Now ask yourself, is there a single Federal party platform out there with which you 100% agree with? Before you answer, actually read your chosen party's platform that is posted on their website. If you find that you fully support every single line you read, I would be astounded. I have yet to find a party at any level of government that I agree with on absolutely everything - nor one that I can agree with on even just the major issues. But I can still support one party (or several) over others because it comes closest to what I would like to see. That's democratic life, it's not perfect.

So can Ms. Turmel be a federalist and a Bloc supporter at the same time? Of course she can. No matter what one thinks of the Bloc's separatist agenda, it can't be denied that the party's primary focus is the people they represent. Quebec is one of the most, if not the most, progressive provinces in the country. They have a strong belief in protecting the environment, indigenous rights, preservation of their culture and language, child care, public welfare, work/life balance, gun control, and the list goes on. In these areas, parties like the Liberals and Conservatives, are nowhere near being on the same page. If a federalist Quebecker believes strongly in all of these areas, and doesn't see it reflected in any other party, can he really be faulted for supporting the Bloc when their separatist notions seemed to be waning?

Your priorities may be different, and you may not agree with every voter - but then, you're not supposed to. So I ask, can we at least have a civil and reasonable conversation about it?

Harper Wants to Take Away Canadians' Choices at the Polls

For someone who relentlessly attacks Ignatieff for allegedly being too American (channelling the Birthers to our South no doubt), Harper sure does act mightily un-Canadian.

From Harper's insistence on fixed-election dates modelled on the American 4-year cycle that helps foster US style continuous campaigning, to his refusal to acknowledge that he is not a President, but an MP with little more special status or power than every other MP sitting in Parliament, he has shown time and again his disdain for the Canadian electoral system.

One of Harper's favourite things to do is ignore grey areas. He acts as the uneducated do and pushes to frame all issues as black/white, left/right, with us/against us. This man condescends at every turn, and believes in only two extreme political perspectives: all the way Left, or all the way Right. This again is indicative of his preference to ignore Canadian approaches and in this case embrace the American two party system of Democrat or Republican.

In Canada we have a more robust and nuanced approach to the issues affecting many vastly differing areas of the country. We have seen many major parties come and go, succeed to play on, or merge with others to survive or up their odds. Canadians appreciate a variety of opinions and champion the many legitimate choices we have at the polls. This however, is something that our current Prime Minister seems to reject with gusto. The most recent evidence is a statement made today regarding the inclusion of Green Party leader Elizabeth May in the televised leaders debate. During the last election, Harper moved to exclude the May by threatening to boycott the debate if she was invited to participate. A classy move supporting democracy it was not. This year Harper has gone further, stating that he would be interested in a debate that included only himself and Liberal leader Ignatieff because really, the election is between them, and voters have only two choices.

I don't know about you, but I certainly can't even consider supporting a person who would be as condescending, hateful, exclusionary, and disrespectful as this. And I certainly won't allow us to throw away our multi-party system without a fight. Only a madman bent on power like Harper could.

The quote, as reported by the CBC (http://bit.ly/hR223Q):

« Ce sont les réseaux de télévision qui prendront cette décision [la participation ou non de Mme May]. De notre côté, a précisé M. Harper, je suis ouvert à plusieurs formes de débat, un débat traditionnel qui comprend tout le monde, ou un débat entre moi et Michael Ignatieff, parce qu'en fin de compte, les élections sont à propos de moi et M. Ignatieff. Les électeurs n'ont qu'un choix entre nous deux. »