The Globe and Mail: Martin comes out swinging in Quebec
Right on, Paul
"We will not plunge Quebeckers and other Canadians back into the unity battles and language struggles of old," Mr. Martin said. "We find ourselves with a separatist leader like Gilles Duceppe who is afraid to speak of separatism during an election campaign. Then we have the two supposed national leaders in Stephen Harper and Jack Layton who would open old wounds and fan the flames of division. We don't need to go down that road and we don't want to go down that road."
I feel the same way about the divisive issues that the Reformer Conservatives would raise again in Ottawa if they ever got into power -- the charter, abortion rights, gay rights, women's rights, bilingualism, multiculturalism, environmental protection, social services, higher education funding, Aboriginal funding, would all swirl down the drain.
Ontario may not believe me -- but Ontario doesn't know Reform like we know them here in the West. And Reform is who the Conservatives ARE -- Joe Clark was right, he knows them.
Don't ever think, Ontario, that you're just sending your own premier a little message by voting Conservative this time, and that the Conservatives will hold back. They will swagger into Ottawa and act as though they have a mandate to do anything they want. And don't think that it really won't make any difference to Canadian policies if the Conservatives are in power -- if you thought the Bush neocons were bad for ideological rigidity, just wait until you see Reform in action.
Here is the 2003 Reform website from BC. Quotations from its platform and principles:
Special interest groups should provide their own financing and have no access to public funding . . Reform BC supports the elimination of the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms” in its entirety, and the return of the common law . . . Transfer payments would be in reverse. The federal government would no longer control the decision-making process regarding the amount returned to the provinces. Instead, provinces would decide the amount to contribute to the federal government in return for federal services . . . Provincial governments should be given exclusive jurisdiction over consumption taxes, including GST revenues. We need to implement a comprehensive, fair and simple single rate (flat) tax . . . Decreasing the government sector wage bill by at least 15 percent through a variety of measures, including staff reductions, privatization initiatives, wage policies, “no-strike” public sector labour policies, increased efficiency and program cuts . . . Marketing boards should be eliminated and replaced by voluntary cooperatives if warranted by the nature of the market or product . . . Reform BC supports greater choice in education through the introduction of a voucher system within both a public and private school system . . . the terms of employment for public sector employees should exclude the right to strike . . . Canada is not officially a bilingual country. It is bilingual only in the House of Commons. Reform BC believes official bilingualism is inappropriate in British Columbia . . . The introduction of a “Three Strikes and You’re Out” policy. Under this policy, anyone who has been convicted three times of an indictable offence would automatically receive a sentence of a minimum of 20 years, with no possibility for parole . . . A provincial (or preferably, national) referendum on the reinstatement of capital punishment . . . We will assert and defend provincial regulatory jurisdiction over firearms, to the exclusion of federal regulatory jurisdiction . . . Members of the judiciary should be subject to recall . . . Reform BC supports the abolition of the Human Rights Commission . . . The Reform BC supports the abolition of parole and parole boards, since the justice system already makes adequate provision for time off for good behaviour . . . Canada was built on a foundation guided by fundamental values and principles which supported the value and dignity of the individual and the importance of the family unit. The Party defines “family” as individuals related by blood, marriage or adoption, and defines “marriage” as the legal union of two people of the opposite sex. . .
Here is the Reform 1993 campaign platform -- their policy on bilingualism hasn't changed.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Friday, May 28, 2004
Bilmon is back, with a vengence
Billmon
The Whiskey Bar is open again, with a brilliant post describing the totality of US failure in Iraq.
So this is what failure looks like -- and, realistically, it's much too late to look to the UN or NATO or our Arab "allies" to save us from the consequences of the administration's folly. Strategic failure on such a grand scale is obviously going to have huge repercussions, not just in Iraq, not just in the Middle East, and not just for the war against Al Qaeda. Much more than 9/11, a U.S. defeat in Iraq . . . has at least the potential to change, if not everything, then lots of things -- from the U.S. political balance of power, to the future of NATO, to the health of the global economy. Old debates -- about the limits of U.S. power and the consequences of U.S. decline -- may be resurrected. America's attractiveness as a destination for foreign investment -- the main prop beneath our current prosperity -- could be undermined. But the ultimate consequences of the Iraq fiasco are really almost impossible to predict. In other words, while we may not be looking into the abyss (to borrow Gen. Hoar's phrase) we are certainly peering out over a dark and fog-covered landscape. Still, we do what we can. So over the next few weeks, I'm going to . . .focus on these unknowns -- Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, so to speak. The most critical of these, of course, is Iraq itself, and the U.S. position in the Middle East (the most immediate casualty of Shrub's boneheaded play). This sucking chest wound - and what, if anything might be done to heal it - should be the topic of my next post.
Rock on, Bilmon.
When John Kerry is elected, he is going to face a hell of a mess. Here are the first steps as I see them. Regardless of who is in control of Congress, Kerry can:
1. Apologize to the world for America's 9.ll hysteria.
2. Close Gitmo and every other CIA and Homeland Security secret prison in America and around the world. Tell the military and the CIA to put up or shut up -- if they can charge people, do so. If they cannot, let them go home.
3. Host a summit of world leaders and the foreign service staff to announce a new era in international relations and security cooperation.
4. Put Gore in charge of Homeland Security with a mandate to focus on all of the clear and present dangers which that department has avoided. Require the CIA and the FBI to brief him every single day.
5, Send Clinton to the Middle East, with mandate and money for a Palestinian homeland. Then send him to North Korea to make a deal.
The Whiskey Bar is open again, with a brilliant post describing the totality of US failure in Iraq.
So this is what failure looks like -- and, realistically, it's much too late to look to the UN or NATO or our Arab "allies" to save us from the consequences of the administration's folly. Strategic failure on such a grand scale is obviously going to have huge repercussions, not just in Iraq, not just in the Middle East, and not just for the war against Al Qaeda. Much more than 9/11, a U.S. defeat in Iraq . . . has at least the potential to change, if not everything, then lots of things -- from the U.S. political balance of power, to the future of NATO, to the health of the global economy. Old debates -- about the limits of U.S. power and the consequences of U.S. decline -- may be resurrected. America's attractiveness as a destination for foreign investment -- the main prop beneath our current prosperity -- could be undermined. But the ultimate consequences of the Iraq fiasco are really almost impossible to predict. In other words, while we may not be looking into the abyss (to borrow Gen. Hoar's phrase) we are certainly peering out over a dark and fog-covered landscape. Still, we do what we can. So over the next few weeks, I'm going to . . .focus on these unknowns -- Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, so to speak. The most critical of these, of course, is Iraq itself, and the U.S. position in the Middle East (the most immediate casualty of Shrub's boneheaded play). This sucking chest wound - and what, if anything might be done to heal it - should be the topic of my next post.
Rock on, Bilmon.
When John Kerry is elected, he is going to face a hell of a mess. Here are the first steps as I see them. Regardless of who is in control of Congress, Kerry can:
1. Apologize to the world for America's 9.ll hysteria.
2. Close Gitmo and every other CIA and Homeland Security secret prison in America and around the world. Tell the military and the CIA to put up or shut up -- if they can charge people, do so. If they cannot, let them go home.
3. Host a summit of world leaders and the foreign service staff to announce a new era in international relations and security cooperation.
4. Put Gore in charge of Homeland Security with a mandate to focus on all of the clear and present dangers which that department has avoided. Require the CIA and the FBI to brief him every single day.
5, Send Clinton to the Middle East, with mandate and money for a Palestinian homeland. Then send him to North Korea to make a deal.
Arar error
POGGE has a great post exploring some of the issues around the Arar enquiry and why assertions of the people's right NOT to know should be an election issue. POGGE refers to a Globe and Mail article which quotes government lawyers on the party line: other countries will not want to swap secrets if they think their information (will) . . . be disseminated for general consumption by the Canadian public.
I think one reason governments don't want to reveal intelligence is that, unlike James Bond, we're not finding airliners hidden under a sheet in the ocean, or getting tapes of Blofield's meetings with SPECTRE. In reality, I think our intelligence sources in the radical community are often pretty poor, and their data is sketchy and uncertain and open to interpretation or to willful abuse, basically wishful thinking. The Iraq WMD "intelligence", for example, if it has been publicized, would have been demonstrated as inflated before the war even started, because the various agencies would have realized that their multiple sources were not multiple at all, just multiple copies of a single source, and that much of their so-called data was based on fraud. (And when the US refused to share the details with Chretien's government, Chretien, to his everlasting credit, smelled a rat and kept our boys out of that morass.)
In the Arar case, what has come out so far indicates that they were just so convinced that Canada is a hotbed of terrorism and so eager to find a terrorist that they were suspicious of Arar because he associated with other people of whom they were also suspicious -- sort of presumed guilt by association. If indeed they lacked any actual evidence against him, then they inflated their own activities to impress the Americans -- a phone call, perhaps, where someone said Yes, we've had him under suveillance, we have our suspicions about him, he seems untrustworthy, we've been watching him and he's part of the loop -- not realizing the new American Gitmo-inspired hands-free policy would throw him to the Syrian wolves without a second thought or any follow-up review of actual evidence. And perhaps this is the secret they don't want to discuss in open court.
I think one reason governments don't want to reveal intelligence is that, unlike James Bond, we're not finding airliners hidden under a sheet in the ocean, or getting tapes of Blofield's meetings with SPECTRE. In reality, I think our intelligence sources in the radical community are often pretty poor, and their data is sketchy and uncertain and open to interpretation or to willful abuse, basically wishful thinking. The Iraq WMD "intelligence", for example, if it has been publicized, would have been demonstrated as inflated before the war even started, because the various agencies would have realized that their multiple sources were not multiple at all, just multiple copies of a single source, and that much of their so-called data was based on fraud. (And when the US refused to share the details with Chretien's government, Chretien, to his everlasting credit, smelled a rat and kept our boys out of that morass.)
In the Arar case, what has come out so far indicates that they were just so convinced that Canada is a hotbed of terrorism and so eager to find a terrorist that they were suspicious of Arar because he associated with other people of whom they were also suspicious -- sort of presumed guilt by association. If indeed they lacked any actual evidence against him, then they inflated their own activities to impress the Americans -- a phone call, perhaps, where someone said Yes, we've had him under suveillance, we have our suspicions about him, he seems untrustworthy, we've been watching him and he's part of the loop -- not realizing the new American Gitmo-inspired hands-free policy would throw him to the Syrian wolves without a second thought or any follow-up review of actual evidence. And perhaps this is the secret they don't want to discuss in open court.
What does Layton think he is doing?
Layton widens attack on Paul Martin to include two provincial premiers
Is Jack Layton actually a nutcase, or does he just play one on TV?
Jack Layton refused to repent Thursday for the attack he launched on Paul Martin from a church pulpit, instead adding two provincial politicians to his list of sinners who put poor people on the streets. Layton added fuel to the political firestorm he's ignited by saying former Ontario premier Mike Harris shares some of the blame with Prime Minister Martin for increasing homelessness in Ontario. Layton then went further, saying Quebec Premier Jean Charest is heading down the same path with cuts to social housing.
Well, I suppose our premier, Lorne Calvert, is safe, being NDP himself, though he's not exactly overspending on social services these days. But Ralph Klein better watch out, and Gordon Campbell, and . . . come to think of it, they're probably ALL killers according to Layton, frittering away public money on all that health care stuff and highways and education and environmental protection and economic development and First Nations reserves and foreign aid, when they could have been building houses.
Is Jack Layton actually a nutcase, or does he just play one on TV?
Jack Layton refused to repent Thursday for the attack he launched on Paul Martin from a church pulpit, instead adding two provincial politicians to his list of sinners who put poor people on the streets. Layton added fuel to the political firestorm he's ignited by saying former Ontario premier Mike Harris shares some of the blame with Prime Minister Martin for increasing homelessness in Ontario. Layton then went further, saying Quebec Premier Jean Charest is heading down the same path with cuts to social housing.
Well, I suppose our premier, Lorne Calvert, is safe, being NDP himself, though he's not exactly overspending on social services these days. But Ralph Klein better watch out, and Gordon Campbell, and . . . come to think of it, they're probably ALL killers according to Layton, frittering away public money on all that health care stuff and highways and education and environmental protection and economic development and First Nations reserves and foreign aid, when they could have been building houses.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Apres moi, le deluge
Conservative language critic resigns but not before his message got sent -- and just listen to Harper's so-called position:
Although Mr. Harper said he does not envision changes at this time, he laid out his own philosophy that communities where French is spoken first are best equipped to keep the language alive. "We have to provide minority service where language warrants, but I think obviously we do it in a way that makes sure that strong communities stay strong."He said his party would make changes to the bilingualism policy in the country only if there was a wide consensus in his own caucus and among parliamentarians.
So what the heck does that mean? I think it means that, if Harper is elected, all the old-line unilingual Reform/Social Credit types from BC and Alberta will be flooding into Ottawa, and we'll start hearing the 30-year-old "lets get the French off the cornflake boxes" crap again.
Although Mr. Harper said he does not envision changes at this time, he laid out his own philosophy that communities where French is spoken first are best equipped to keep the language alive. "We have to provide minority service where language warrants, but I think obviously we do it in a way that makes sure that strong communities stay strong."He said his party would make changes to the bilingualism policy in the country only if there was a wide consensus in his own caucus and among parliamentarians.
So what the heck does that mean? I think it means that, if Harper is elected, all the old-line unilingual Reform/Social Credit types from BC and Alberta will be flooding into Ottawa, and we'll start hearing the 30-year-old "lets get the French off the cornflake boxes" crap again.
Thanks, Alfonso
The Globe and Mail - Gagliano sues Martin and Martin says "thanks!" Regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, there isn't a single Canadian who thinks Martin was wrong to fire Gagliano (or maybe there is one, but even Jean Chretien will have the brains to shut up about it.)
Feeling a draft?
Hackworth's column about the exodus of people from the Army states that "Unless so-called Army short tours in the badlands of Iraq and Afghanistan become manageable based on the number of troops available – right now the Army is trying to do the work of 14 divisions with 10 under-strength, active-duty divisions – we’ll see a mass exodus from the Green Machine and the inevitable return of the draft."
Well, of course there will be a return of the draft in the US --does anyone doubt it? They're just waiting until after the election. It's quite clear that the US armed forces are in serious trouble because they are badly understaffed for the missions they are involved in around the world even now -- and don't forget the thousands injured in Iraq, too.
If Bush is elected, the draft will be back by next spring. If Kerry is elected, there will still be tremendous pressure from the military to bring in a draft, at least for some specialities. I'm not sure whether he would do this or not.
And then Canada will get the draft dodgers again, which would be OK -- having met several over the years, they were pretty good immigrants to have, hardworking, productive, etc, so I have no doubt they will be again.
Well, of course there will be a return of the draft in the US --does anyone doubt it? They're just waiting until after the election. It's quite clear that the US armed forces are in serious trouble because they are badly understaffed for the missions they are involved in around the world even now -- and don't forget the thousands injured in Iraq, too.
If Bush is elected, the draft will be back by next spring. If Kerry is elected, there will still be tremendous pressure from the military to bring in a draft, at least for some specialities. I'm not sure whether he would do this or not.
And then Canada will get the draft dodgers again, which would be OK -- having met several over the years, they were pretty good immigrants to have, hardworking, productive, etc, so I have no doubt they will be again.
Another year for the beef ban
Opening the border to beef? Ain't gonna happen. This story Ranchers in U.S. fight for beef ban is not good news. I think we can forget about live cattle or even beef products crossing the border, likely until next spring -- the US beef growers are happy with the way things are now, and the packers don't have enough clout to fight both them and the consumers union. The Canadian cattle industry has had their own 9.11, and they can talk all they like about an integrated market, it isn't integrated any more. If we want to sell our beef products, we are just going to have to test every single animal before its meat is used. I know, I know, its a complete waste of money, but that's the way it is. And there's not ever going to be a US market for our older cattle now.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Today's dumb and dumberer watch
Lots of dumb stuff on the campaign trail today --
First, we see the end of the NDP in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver for sure, and likely vast swaths of rural Canada too -- doesn't Layton realize that, with real estate as high as it is in those cities, an inheritance tax on "any parent-to-child wealth transfers that amount to more than $1-million" will hit thousands of people with a house, a pension plan and some insurance? And he can say what he likes about farm land not being affected -- so if a farmer sells his land to a housing developer, and then dies, what are the chances that his estate would still be considered as farmland?
Then there is Harper, promising Atlantic Canada to end the clawback for oil and gas revenues. This may make the East Coast happy, but what will Ontario and Quebec and Alberta think, which is where the funds will come from?
And finally there is Martin, who is going to deal with high gas prices, yes sir! He's going to "really ask" OPEC to increase production at the G-8 in Georgia. Yes, that will do it, Paul!
First, we see the end of the NDP in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver for sure, and likely vast swaths of rural Canada too -- doesn't Layton realize that, with real estate as high as it is in those cities, an inheritance tax on "any parent-to-child wealth transfers that amount to more than $1-million" will hit thousands of people with a house, a pension plan and some insurance? And he can say what he likes about farm land not being affected -- so if a farmer sells his land to a housing developer, and then dies, what are the chances that his estate would still be considered as farmland?
Then there is Harper, promising Atlantic Canada to end the clawback for oil and gas revenues. This may make the East Coast happy, but what will Ontario and Quebec and Alberta think, which is where the funds will come from?
And finally there is Martin, who is going to deal with high gas prices, yes sir! He's going to "really ask" OPEC to increase production at the G-8 in Georgia. Yes, that will do it, Paul!
RBI
Thanks to POGGE for the link to this post about Al Gore's speech today -- Explananda: Al Gore at NYU
I'm so glad some of the high-profile Democrats are speaking out now -- Kennedy, of course, and Pelosi last week, now Gore this week. Though it is important for Kerry to get better known in America, Liberal Oasis noted some time ago that they had to stop letting Kerry carry all the water in attacking Bush, and being the only one subject to the RNC attacks in return. At least some other democrats are standing up to the plate now and swinging, even occasionally taking a hit for the team. Carrying on the baseball analogy, it sounds like Gore at least got an RBI out of this speech.
Gore talked in particular about how Bush and his administration had let Americans down by their lawless approach. And finally, finally!, Gore has pinpointed what I always considered to be the creepiest, most shocking line ever spoken by a political leader, from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address - President Bush set the tone for our attitude for suspects in his State of the Union address. He noted that more than 3,000 "suspected terrorists" had been arrested in many countries and then he added, "and many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our allies."
I'm so glad some of the high-profile Democrats are speaking out now -- Kennedy, of course, and Pelosi last week, now Gore this week. Though it is important for Kerry to get better known in America, Liberal Oasis noted some time ago that they had to stop letting Kerry carry all the water in attacking Bush, and being the only one subject to the RNC attacks in return. At least some other democrats are standing up to the plate now and swinging, even occasionally taking a hit for the team. Carrying on the baseball analogy, it sounds like Gore at least got an RBI out of this speech.
Gore talked in particular about how Bush and his administration had let Americans down by their lawless approach. And finally, finally!, Gore has pinpointed what I always considered to be the creepiest, most shocking line ever spoken by a political leader, from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address - President Bush set the tone for our attitude for suspects in his State of the Union address. He noted that more than 3,000 "suspected terrorists" had been arrested in many countries and then he added, "and many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our allies."
Youth - wasted once again on the young
The Globe and Mail: Few answers as to why young people disengaged
You know, this kind of story appears in the first week of every single election campaign, federal provincial municipal. Its because reporters don't have much else to write about, because no polls have yet been done and the platforms are just getting filled out.
But I do get tired of reading about those poor, poor 20-somethings, who are just so, so bored with politics. First, who ever gave them the impression that politics should be roses roses all the way, rave on Paul, rock on Stephen? It takes some work to read over all the platforms and consider candidate qualifications and find out where your polling station is and actually go and vote -- its not supposed to be fun, fun, fun.
And my, Im' getting grumpy already, aren't I?
That said, I must also say that MuchMusic does a terrific job of covering elections -- during the last federal election, my husband and I agreed that they had done a better job than just about any other network in covering caididates, issues, voting patterns, etc. etc. , sock puppet and all, particularly on election night.
You know, this kind of story appears in the first week of every single election campaign, federal provincial municipal. Its because reporters don't have much else to write about, because no polls have yet been done and the platforms are just getting filled out.
But I do get tired of reading about those poor, poor 20-somethings, who are just so, so bored with politics. First, who ever gave them the impression that politics should be roses roses all the way, rave on Paul, rock on Stephen? It takes some work to read over all the platforms and consider candidate qualifications and find out where your polling station is and actually go and vote -- its not supposed to be fun, fun, fun.
And my, Im' getting grumpy already, aren't I?
That said, I must also say that MuchMusic does a terrific job of covering elections -- during the last federal election, my husband and I agreed that they had done a better job than just about any other network in covering caididates, issues, voting patterns, etc. etc. , sock puppet and all, particularly on election night.
The press conference
So here's the transcript of the big press conference -- it isn't even on the Washington Post website but I found the transcript on CNN.
And how is the FBI going to respond to all this chatter, this horrendous terror threat. They're going to INTERVIEW PEOPLE -- yes, the seven so-called terrorists listed at the prese conference can quake in their boots - might as well give up. As was noted at the conference, Tom Ridge wasn't there, just Ashcroft and Mueller. The reason for Ridge's absence, apparently, was so that he wouldn't have to answer any questions about why the threat level is not being raised.
QUESTION: If there's credible intelligence suggesting the United States is going to be attacked between now -- there is a plan to attack the United States between now and the election, why not raise the threat level?
ASHCROFT: We believe that the kind of activities that are engendered in this task force kind of information which is developed. (sic - and no, I don't understand it either) And the Homeland Security Council, led by Secretary Ridge, would make such a decision, and for me to try to speak for them at this time would be inappropriate.
And how is the FBI going to respond to all this chatter, this horrendous terror threat. They're going to INTERVIEW PEOPLE -- yes, the seven so-called terrorists listed at the prese conference can quake in their boots - might as well give up. As was noted at the conference, Tom Ridge wasn't there, just Ashcroft and Mueller. The reason for Ridge's absence, apparently, was so that he wouldn't have to answer any questions about why the threat level is not being raised.
QUESTION: If there's credible intelligence suggesting the United States is going to be attacked between now -- there is a plan to attack the United States between now and the election, why not raise the threat level?
ASHCROFT: We believe that the kind of activities that are engendered in this task force kind of information which is developed. (sic - and no, I don't understand it either) And the Homeland Security Council, led by Secretary Ridge, would make such a decision, and for me to try to speak for them at this time would be inappropriate.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
The sky falls yet again
U.S. Warns Of Al Qaeda Threat This Summer Once again, a bunch of unnameable officials are saying that everyone had better watch out. Why does this remind me of the children's song -- they're here, they're there, they're everywhere. So beware!
And note the timing -- key graf: ". . . al Qaeda operatives are pleased with the change in government resulting from the March 11 terrorist bombings in Spain and may want to affect elections in the United State . . . " Yeah, sure. The terrorists want you to vote for Kerry but good Americans won't be fooled, they'll vote for Bush just to show those terrorists who's boss. And Bush will keep you safe -- he's focusing on terror again now, didn't you know.
And note the timing -- key graf: ". . . al Qaeda operatives are pleased with the change in government resulting from the March 11 terrorist bombings in Spain and may want to affect elections in the United State . . . " Yeah, sure. The terrorists want you to vote for Kerry but good Americans won't be fooled, they'll vote for Bush just to show those terrorists who's boss. And Bush will keep you safe -- he's focusing on terror again now, didn't you know.
Mea culpa from the NYT
From the Editors: The Times and Iraq "We consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business. And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight." Well, its about time.
It is so difficult to be sultan!
Thanks to Atrios for this quote from a Washington Post story on how the Republicans are falling apart For Republicans, a House (And Senate) Divided
"It's extremely difficult to govern when you control all three branches of government." (attributed to Speaker Hastert's spokesman John Feehery)
Reminded me of the great quote in The Wind and The Lion, when the sultan complains to the American ambassador - "It is so difficult to be sultan! You Americans do not understand."
Ah, yes, the burden of command, the lonliness of leadership, when you don't have any excuses for not being able to get things done, other than your own lack of ideas and competence. Its terrible when you cannot blame anything on anybody.
This is a problem that parliamentary systems do not have, because the Prime Minister, by definition, has to have the support of a majority of parliament. Therefore no politician can complain about government paralysis, and there are no excuses for a government not to get its legislative agenda through. It requires the Prime Minister to exert firm control over the Cabinet ministers who are bringing forward legislation, so that a coherent and achievable legislative agenda can be enacted -- in other words, in a parliamentary system the government COULD do just about anything it wants, but this doesn't mean it WILL do it all. There will still be lots and lots of things that aren't high enough priority, or are too controversial, or are too complicated to enact, or that it cannot afford to pay for. Prime ministers must ruthlessly limit what their cabinet ministers want to do and must force ministers to focus on government priorities, or they don't last very long.
In the American system, when voters frequently elect one party to the governorship or the presidency and the other party to the House or Senate, governing requires he skills of horse trading and deal making, taking another political party's good idea and getting your own party to support it, advancing your own party's good ideas by doing quid quo pros with the other guys -- these skills are seen by American politicians as the normal way of governing.
When one party faces the ususual situation of having actual control of the government and legislative agenda, like the Republicans do now, it requires a different type of governing style, one which can balance and reconcile competing interests and present a unified legislative program which meets the needs of the public and which coordinates with the tax and revenue policies through which it is financed. These are skills that many American politicians have never developed -- particularly, I dare say, today's national Republicans, who spent the last decade focusing on a narrow and rigidly ideological right-wing agenda that is unpopular, expensive, and inadequate to meet the problems faced by the Americans today. Thus we see the President introducing scattershot legislation (drug benefits, education reform) and making scattershot policy announcements (Mars, immigration, etc) with no followthrough, while the house and senate Republicans make speeches in committees about how torturing Iraqis really isn't so bad.
"It's extremely difficult to govern when you control all three branches of government." (attributed to Speaker Hastert's spokesman John Feehery)
Reminded me of the great quote in The Wind and The Lion, when the sultan complains to the American ambassador - "It is so difficult to be sultan! You Americans do not understand."
Ah, yes, the burden of command, the lonliness of leadership, when you don't have any excuses for not being able to get things done, other than your own lack of ideas and competence. Its terrible when you cannot blame anything on anybody.
This is a problem that parliamentary systems do not have, because the Prime Minister, by definition, has to have the support of a majority of parliament. Therefore no politician can complain about government paralysis, and there are no excuses for a government not to get its legislative agenda through. It requires the Prime Minister to exert firm control over the Cabinet ministers who are bringing forward legislation, so that a coherent and achievable legislative agenda can be enacted -- in other words, in a parliamentary system the government COULD do just about anything it wants, but this doesn't mean it WILL do it all. There will still be lots and lots of things that aren't high enough priority, or are too controversial, or are too complicated to enact, or that it cannot afford to pay for. Prime ministers must ruthlessly limit what their cabinet ministers want to do and must force ministers to focus on government priorities, or they don't last very long.
In the American system, when voters frequently elect one party to the governorship or the presidency and the other party to the House or Senate, governing requires he skills of horse trading and deal making, taking another political party's good idea and getting your own party to support it, advancing your own party's good ideas by doing quid quo pros with the other guys -- these skills are seen by American politicians as the normal way of governing.
When one party faces the ususual situation of having actual control of the government and legislative agenda, like the Republicans do now, it requires a different type of governing style, one which can balance and reconcile competing interests and present a unified legislative program which meets the needs of the public and which coordinates with the tax and revenue policies through which it is financed. These are skills that many American politicians have never developed -- particularly, I dare say, today's national Republicans, who spent the last decade focusing on a narrow and rigidly ideological right-wing agenda that is unpopular, expensive, and inadequate to meet the problems faced by the Americans today. Thus we see the President introducing scattershot legislation (drug benefits, education reform) and making scattershot policy announcements (Mars, immigration, etc) with no followthrough, while the house and senate Republicans make speeches in committees about how torturing Iraqis really isn't so bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)