On December 13, 2002, Mr.David Ahenakew, the then Chair of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Senate, spoke at a conference in Saskatoon. The conference was organized to deal with a controversial issue regarding the provision of medical services to First Nations people and the requirement that recipients sign consent forms.
For whatever reason, Mr. Ahenakew used the occasion of his presentation to slander Jews. He accused Jews of creating the Second World War. After his presentation, Mr. Ahenakew was interviewed by a newspaper reporter. In his exchange with the reporter, Mr. Ahenakew elaborated on his views of the Jews. According to Mr. Ahenakew "the Jews damn near owned all of Germany". That is why six million of them were "fried" by Hitler. He approved of this Holocaust, because "the Jews owned the goddamn world" and how else would you "get rid of a disease like that that's gonna take over, that's gonna dominate, that gonna everything..". Jews "owned the banks, they owned the factories, they owned everything." Mr. Ahenakew attributed some of his opinions to the Germans who told him these things when he was over in Germany. But "Of course I believe them", he said. He summed up his feelings in a nut shell - "to hell with the Jews, I can't stand them and that's it."
As a result of these statements, Mr. Ahenakew was charged with wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group contrary to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. He was found guilty at trial - see 2005 SKPC 76. This conviction was set aside however by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench (2006 SKQB 272) due to errors of law made by the trial judge with respect to his failure to consider some of the evidence and a new trial was ordered.
The new trial was held on November 24, 2008 and judgment was rendered on February 23, 2009. The accused David Ahenakew was acquitted of the charge of wilfully promoting hate. The essence of the decision was that although the defendant's words did promote hatred against an identifiable group, namely, members of the Jewish faith, the intent necessary to satisfy the strict requirements of the Criminal Code provision was absent. In acquitting the defendant, Judge W.K. Tucker stated that the statements made by Mr. Ahenakew about the Jewish people "were revolting, disgusting, and untrue". See 2009 SKPC 10, paragraph 43.
I will leave to others who are more familiar with the jurisprudence surrounding section 319(2) of the Criminal Code the task of commenting on the correctness of Judge Tucker's decision. My concern is with whether hateful speech should be criminalized at all.
I frankly do not give a fig about David Ahenakew. He is an ignorant, pathetic bigot. He would presumably continue to hold his hate filled opinions about Jewish people, and "goddamn immigrants, you know, East Indians, Pakistanis, Afghanistan, and whites and so forth", whether he were acquitted or convicted of the charge brought against him.
Although there is a certain satisfaction in seeing bigots being punished for their hate mongering, it comes at a substantial cost. There is the cost to freedom of speech. My default position is clear - freedom of speech is a fundamental value that must be protected. Of course, free speech is not absolute. There are limits. For example, when speech promotes or results in violence, when it is purposively dishonest and defrauds individuals, or when it defames the reputation of individuals in the absence of justification, it must be restricted. Speech which "wilfully promotes hatred" but falls short of promoting or causing violence, does not cross the line. Hateful speech is after all only the external manifestation of hate filled people. Preventing people from expressing their hatred, does not rid them of this hatred. It merely prevents them from expressing it.
I would of course prefer it if individuals did not harbour hateful prejudices about me or others. However, if they do, I want to know about it, especially if these people might end up in positions of responsibility or influence where their hateful views can have a real impact. Take David Ahenakew, for example. He was a respected person in his community, a political leader, and a recipient of the highest civilian decoration in Canada, the Order of Canada. He achieved all of this despite the fact that he hated Jews and thought Hitler had a good reason to exterminate six million of them. Had he not made the mistake of publicly expressing these prejudices, his importance and influence would have continued. It is only because he demonstrated how ignorant and bigoted he is, that he was stripped of his honour and respectability.
I must admit that my views on criminalizing hate speech are subject to one important caveat. I am assuming that while a law which criminalizes hateful speech might lead to silencing the views of people like David Ahenakew, it will not lead to less hate. The haters will continue to hate, but will use more discretion in publicly exposing themselves. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that silencing hate filled people will have a significantly positive influence on reducing prejudice in our society, then I would be prepared to factor that in. The burden of proof, however, will be high and the evidence will have to be convincing.
It has been almost 7 years since David Ahenakew spoke in Saskatoon. The matter has resulted in acquittal. Was anything gained by the criminal prosecution? What will those who pay little attention to the legal niceties take away from the judgment? Is criminalizing hate speech the right way to go? I don't think so, but I am prepared to be convinced to the contrary.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Obama's Afghanistan Prisoner Detainee Policy
In case any of you missed it, news that the Obama administration has decided to continue the Bush administration's detainee policy in Afghanistan has not gone over very well with human rights groups. According to the various reports, more than 600 prisoners are being kept without the right to trial in the Bagram prison in Afghanistan. The prison is, in fact, being expanded to accomodate many more detainees, who likely will come from Guantanamo.
The decision to deny prisoners in Afghanistan any right to access the US legal system to challenge their detentions, seems, according to some analysts, to run contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that to hold prisoners in Guantanamo Bay without access to the U.S. legal system is unconstitutional. Thus the decision by President Obama to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay in a year is rendered totally meaningless if the prisoners there are simply transferred to Afghanistan, where they will even have fewer rights. There are several stories about this issue on the web - see The Raw Story at http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_continues_Bush_policy_at_Afghan_0221.html for one of these.
This to me is another example of the disconnect between the rhetoric and reality of the Obama administration, and the continued refusal of many Obama supporters to acknowledge it. Sean Penn's Oscar acceptance speech is yet another example. Mr. Penn was at the same time able to condemn those protesting gay marriage as promoters of hate while praising Americans for electing President Obama - a person who also opposes gay marriage. For the record, I support gay marriage. I also support the rights of detainees, whether held in the US, Guantanamo Bay, or Afghanistan, to be accorded their constitutional due process rights.If the candidate whom I supported for President took the opposite point of view on these fundamental issues of human rights, I would not hesitate to call him on it. I hope the Obama supporters will eventually do the same thing.
The decision to deny prisoners in Afghanistan any right to access the US legal system to challenge their detentions, seems, according to some analysts, to run contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that to hold prisoners in Guantanamo Bay without access to the U.S. legal system is unconstitutional. Thus the decision by President Obama to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay in a year is rendered totally meaningless if the prisoners there are simply transferred to Afghanistan, where they will even have fewer rights. There are several stories about this issue on the web - see The Raw Story at http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_continues_Bush_policy_at_Afghan_0221.html for one of these.
This to me is another example of the disconnect between the rhetoric and reality of the Obama administration, and the continued refusal of many Obama supporters to acknowledge it. Sean Penn's Oscar acceptance speech is yet another example. Mr. Penn was at the same time able to condemn those protesting gay marriage as promoters of hate while praising Americans for electing President Obama - a person who also opposes gay marriage. For the record, I support gay marriage. I also support the rights of detainees, whether held in the US, Guantanamo Bay, or Afghanistan, to be accorded their constitutional due process rights.If the candidate whom I supported for President took the opposite point of view on these fundamental issues of human rights, I would not hesitate to call him on it. I hope the Obama supporters will eventually do the same thing.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Idea of Barack Obama
President Obama's chief attraction to his followers was never his curriculum vitae. He was the attraction. It was his charm, looks, rhetorical skills, youth, coolness, background, ethnicity, and "newness". These were the characteristics which captivated his supporters and allowed Obama to beat the formidable Clintons and a great American hero, John McCain. This was and still remains a classic case of the cult of the personality.
Although Barack Obama had been associated with a lot of impressive things in his 46 years, for example, he was educated at Ivy League schools, held the top position at the Harvard Law Review, taught at one of North America's best law schools, and was a U.S. Senator, he had little in the way of concrete achievements to show. It was not a history of accomplishment which propelled Barack Obama to the top job in the world. Barack Obama created a movement, which was centered around one idea only - the idea of Barack Obama.
Almost everything that Team Obama did in the campaign and still does, now that Obama is President, seems designed to keep the movement alive. The symbols and gimmickry are front and center. During the primary and election campaigns, for example, we saw the premature Obama "presidential" seal, the "Obama is the change we can believe in" slogan, the Democratic nomination acceptance speech in the Denver Bronco's fooball stadium replete with Roman pillars, and the speech in front of 200,000 people at the Victory Column in Berlin's central park. Having won the election, we saw the Grant Park acceptance speech, the over the top inauguration, the signing of the Stimulus Bill not in Washington but in Denver, the jacketless President in the oval office, the Super Bowl party, and the hip informality where everyone is a "guy", and Air Force One is a "nifty ride". There are the commemorative fake coins, collector's plates, and mountains of T-shirts with Obama's face plastered on them.
All of this wouldn't be so bad if it didn't have consequences. After all, times are tough, the Iraq war soured Americans, people hated George Bush and needed someone they could believe in. But when bread and circuses overtake rational thought, there is a problem.
The fact that Obama's popularity is based on personality and not on performance or policy can be illustrated in a number of ways. Obama's path to the White House and his performance so far is littered with broken promises. The most egregious broken campaign promise was the one relating to the public financing of campaigns. Although Obama stated that he believed in public financing and would sit down with John McCain to work out this matter, he did not do so. Rather he collected hundreds of millions of dollars in private campaign donations, and swamped the campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and later John McCain with his storehouses full of money. Keeping up with Obama's spending on advertisements became impossible for both of his opponents.
Transparency of government, and the ability of Americans to see Congress at work and to view prospective legislation before it is passed is probably the most serious broken promise for Obama as President. The Stimulus Bill, a 1000 plus page document, incorporating $800 billion dollars in spending was drafted in secret, behind closed doors, and passed without any chance for Americans, and probably most members of Congress, to digest or even read. This was the "mother of all bills". No matter how many bills are posted on line in the future, they will never make up for the lack of transparency that accompanied this in-camera monster.
Bipartisanship is another casualty of Obama's first month in office. Obama was the President who would work across the aisle, end the divisiveness in Washington, and bring the country together. This as we have all seen has not happened. Democrats voted for the Bill, Republicans voted against it, and the recriminations have been flying back and forth ever since. Why did bipartisanship fail? My take on it is that bipartisanship did not work because for President Obama bipartisanship means growing the movement, by bringing more people on board. It does not mean allowing the converts and new comers to change any of the rules of the game. Bipartisanship meant that the Republicans could come to the table with their stimulus ideas, as long as they left their "phony ideas" and "failed policies" of the past behind. We saw this again with the withdrawal of Republican Senator Judd Gregg for Commerce Secretary. Gregg could come on board as long as he did not act like a Republican. And to make sure he did not, responsibility for the census was taken from the department he was to head and put under the control of the White House.
The problem is that when a politician is judged based on personality and not on performance, broken promises and poor performance do not matter. People do not like the politician for what he says he will do and then judge him on whether he actually does it, but because of the representations of himself, the symbolism, which he has worked hard to create. Political accountability goes out the window. It was the personality that attracted the followers in the first place and the personality does not change.
A manifestation of this is found in polling which shows that while Barack Obama's personal approval rating remains high, support for the Stimulus Bill lags far behind. According to a story in the Dallas Morning News of February 16, only 38% of those polled in a Rasmussen poll think the massive spending bill will help the economy, while 29% say it will hurt, and 24% say it will have little effect. In addition, those in Congress who voted against the Bill seem to be more favourably viewed by voters than those who voted for it. Obama's own popularity rating, however, is above 60%. How can this be? The Stimulus Bill, which is owned by Barack Obama, is much less popular than Obama himself. Again, it is the cult of the personality. It is not what Obama does which his supporters care about, since the movement is about Obama.
How much longer this disconnect between Obama the personality and Obama the policy maker will go on is the big question. For the sake of political accountabilty and rational policy making, I hope it does not go on for too much longer.
Although Barack Obama had been associated with a lot of impressive things in his 46 years, for example, he was educated at Ivy League schools, held the top position at the Harvard Law Review, taught at one of North America's best law schools, and was a U.S. Senator, he had little in the way of concrete achievements to show. It was not a history of accomplishment which propelled Barack Obama to the top job in the world. Barack Obama created a movement, which was centered around one idea only - the idea of Barack Obama.
Almost everything that Team Obama did in the campaign and still does, now that Obama is President, seems designed to keep the movement alive. The symbols and gimmickry are front and center. During the primary and election campaigns, for example, we saw the premature Obama "presidential" seal, the "Obama is the change we can believe in" slogan, the Democratic nomination acceptance speech in the Denver Bronco's fooball stadium replete with Roman pillars, and the speech in front of 200,000 people at the Victory Column in Berlin's central park. Having won the election, we saw the Grant Park acceptance speech, the over the top inauguration, the signing of the Stimulus Bill not in Washington but in Denver, the jacketless President in the oval office, the Super Bowl party, and the hip informality where everyone is a "guy", and Air Force One is a "nifty ride". There are the commemorative fake coins, collector's plates, and mountains of T-shirts with Obama's face plastered on them.
All of this wouldn't be so bad if it didn't have consequences. After all, times are tough, the Iraq war soured Americans, people hated George Bush and needed someone they could believe in. But when bread and circuses overtake rational thought, there is a problem.
The fact that Obama's popularity is based on personality and not on performance or policy can be illustrated in a number of ways. Obama's path to the White House and his performance so far is littered with broken promises. The most egregious broken campaign promise was the one relating to the public financing of campaigns. Although Obama stated that he believed in public financing and would sit down with John McCain to work out this matter, he did not do so. Rather he collected hundreds of millions of dollars in private campaign donations, and swamped the campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and later John McCain with his storehouses full of money. Keeping up with Obama's spending on advertisements became impossible for both of his opponents.
Transparency of government, and the ability of Americans to see Congress at work and to view prospective legislation before it is passed is probably the most serious broken promise for Obama as President. The Stimulus Bill, a 1000 plus page document, incorporating $800 billion dollars in spending was drafted in secret, behind closed doors, and passed without any chance for Americans, and probably most members of Congress, to digest or even read. This was the "mother of all bills". No matter how many bills are posted on line in the future, they will never make up for the lack of transparency that accompanied this in-camera monster.
Bipartisanship is another casualty of Obama's first month in office. Obama was the President who would work across the aisle, end the divisiveness in Washington, and bring the country together. This as we have all seen has not happened. Democrats voted for the Bill, Republicans voted against it, and the recriminations have been flying back and forth ever since. Why did bipartisanship fail? My take on it is that bipartisanship did not work because for President Obama bipartisanship means growing the movement, by bringing more people on board. It does not mean allowing the converts and new comers to change any of the rules of the game. Bipartisanship meant that the Republicans could come to the table with their stimulus ideas, as long as they left their "phony ideas" and "failed policies" of the past behind. We saw this again with the withdrawal of Republican Senator Judd Gregg for Commerce Secretary. Gregg could come on board as long as he did not act like a Republican. And to make sure he did not, responsibility for the census was taken from the department he was to head and put under the control of the White House.
The problem is that when a politician is judged based on personality and not on performance, broken promises and poor performance do not matter. People do not like the politician for what he says he will do and then judge him on whether he actually does it, but because of the representations of himself, the symbolism, which he has worked hard to create. Political accountability goes out the window. It was the personality that attracted the followers in the first place and the personality does not change.
A manifestation of this is found in polling which shows that while Barack Obama's personal approval rating remains high, support for the Stimulus Bill lags far behind. According to a story in the Dallas Morning News of February 16, only 38% of those polled in a Rasmussen poll think the massive spending bill will help the economy, while 29% say it will hurt, and 24% say it will have little effect. In addition, those in Congress who voted against the Bill seem to be more favourably viewed by voters than those who voted for it. Obama's own popularity rating, however, is above 60%. How can this be? The Stimulus Bill, which is owned by Barack Obama, is much less popular than Obama himself. Again, it is the cult of the personality. It is not what Obama does which his supporters care about, since the movement is about Obama.
How much longer this disconnect between Obama the personality and Obama the policy maker will go on is the big question. For the sake of political accountabilty and rational policy making, I hope it does not go on for too much longer.
Monday, February 16, 2009
The 2009 Battle of the Plains of Abraham
250 years ago, on September 13, 1759, the British Army and Navy, under the command of General James Wolfe defeated the French Army, commanded by Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm. The battle took place on the Plains of Abraham, a plateau outside the walls of Quebec City. It lasted only an hour. Both commanders died as a result of wounds suffered in the fighting. The battle was an important one for the two foreign colonial powers, eventually leading to the British gaining France's possessions in eastern North America. [ Source: "Battle of the Plains of Abraham", Wikipedia]. The colonies became British instead of French.
250 years later, and over 140 years since the birth of the Dominion of Canada, there are some who apparently are still having difficulty coping with France's defeat on the Plains of Abraham. A small group of Quebec separatists, known as "Le Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois", were outraged when they learned that the National Battlefields Commission, a Federalist body set up in 1908 to "highlight and preserve" the Plains of Abraham as a major historical park and tourist attraction in Quebec, planned to stage a re-enactment of the battle to commemorate its 250th anniversary. According to the group's leader, Patrick Bourgeois, the re-enactment would be disrespectful to "Quebecers and our ancestors" and if proceeded with would result in protests and civil disobedience. According to reports, the group's website promised tourists a visit "they would not forget for a very long time" if the re-enactment went ahead. Faced with this pressure and threats, the National Battlefields Commission has decided to back down and cancel or modify the re-enactment program.
That a small group of diehard separatists raised such a fuss over the planned re-enactment is neither surprising nor upsetting. That is after all their raison d'etre -to get hot and bothered over everything that has anything to do with the Federal government. That the major Quebec and Federal separatist parties - the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois - supported the "resistance fighters'" opposition to the re-enactment is more disturbing. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham apparently has been re-enacted three times before, without incident. But it was the Federal government's involvement in this program which was the problem this time around. This was "federalist propaganda" (to what end I am not sure), and was "disrepectful".
It was also disheartening to see that the tactic of threats has worked. The fact that the insulted separatists were prepared to risk Quebec City's most valuable resource - its tourist industry - to illustrate the depth of their hurt feelings demonstrates the bankruptcy of thought in Quebec's separatist movement.
The separatist leader, Patrick Bourgeois, stated that the re-enactment "showed disrespect for Quebecers and our ancestors". Exactly to which Quebecers was Mr. Bourgeois referring? The demographics of Quebec indicate that only about 30% of Quebecers indicated in a recent census (see Wikipedia: Demographics of Quebec) that their ethnic origin was French, compared to the 68% who identified themselves as Canadians. Quebec is a population of immigrants; with hundreds of thousands of Quebecers coming to settle there from all parts of the world. My family for example came to Quebec at the beginning of the 20th century, coming there not from France but from Eastern Europe. The notion that the re-enactment of a battle between two foreign colonial powers that took place 250 years ago disrepects the "ancestors" of today's Quebecers, demonstrates the same type of zenophobia and chauvinism of exclusion which Premier Jacques Parizeau became infamous for when he blamed the defeat of the referendum on separation on money and the "ethnic vote".
Ironically while the Quebec separatists were defending the honour of the French army by trying to prevent the re-enactment of its defeat on the Plains of Abraham, the leader of today's France, President Nicolas Sarkozy, was being skewered by those same separatists for comments he made about Quebec and Canada. During a visit by Quebec's premier, Jean Charest, to Paris, Sarkozy stated he preferred a united Canada. The leaders of both of the separatist parties who were so outraged over the insult to Quebecers and their ancestors posed by the re-enactment of the 1759 Battle, now accused the President of France of denigrating Quebecers and their movement by his ignorant statements. So it looks like Quebecers are being insulted and disrespected by both sides - by a Federal agency for tarnishing the reputation of 18th century France and by the President of 21st century France.
Details as to what will take place on the Plains of Abraham in 2009 will be released on Tuesday. It is unclear as I write what the Commission has in mind. Perhaps this time around, Montcalm will win - we will see. I will let you know.
250 years later, and over 140 years since the birth of the Dominion of Canada, there are some who apparently are still having difficulty coping with France's defeat on the Plains of Abraham. A small group of Quebec separatists, known as "Le Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois", were outraged when they learned that the National Battlefields Commission, a Federalist body set up in 1908 to "highlight and preserve" the Plains of Abraham as a major historical park and tourist attraction in Quebec, planned to stage a re-enactment of the battle to commemorate its 250th anniversary. According to the group's leader, Patrick Bourgeois, the re-enactment would be disrespectful to "Quebecers and our ancestors" and if proceeded with would result in protests and civil disobedience. According to reports, the group's website promised tourists a visit "they would not forget for a very long time" if the re-enactment went ahead. Faced with this pressure and threats, the National Battlefields Commission has decided to back down and cancel or modify the re-enactment program.
That a small group of diehard separatists raised such a fuss over the planned re-enactment is neither surprising nor upsetting. That is after all their raison d'etre -to get hot and bothered over everything that has anything to do with the Federal government. That the major Quebec and Federal separatist parties - the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois - supported the "resistance fighters'" opposition to the re-enactment is more disturbing. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham apparently has been re-enacted three times before, without incident. But it was the Federal government's involvement in this program which was the problem this time around. This was "federalist propaganda" (to what end I am not sure), and was "disrepectful".
It was also disheartening to see that the tactic of threats has worked. The fact that the insulted separatists were prepared to risk Quebec City's most valuable resource - its tourist industry - to illustrate the depth of their hurt feelings demonstrates the bankruptcy of thought in Quebec's separatist movement.
The separatist leader, Patrick Bourgeois, stated that the re-enactment "showed disrespect for Quebecers and our ancestors". Exactly to which Quebecers was Mr. Bourgeois referring? The demographics of Quebec indicate that only about 30% of Quebecers indicated in a recent census (see Wikipedia: Demographics of Quebec) that their ethnic origin was French, compared to the 68% who identified themselves as Canadians. Quebec is a population of immigrants; with hundreds of thousands of Quebecers coming to settle there from all parts of the world. My family for example came to Quebec at the beginning of the 20th century, coming there not from France but from Eastern Europe. The notion that the re-enactment of a battle between two foreign colonial powers that took place 250 years ago disrepects the "ancestors" of today's Quebecers, demonstrates the same type of zenophobia and chauvinism of exclusion which Premier Jacques Parizeau became infamous for when he blamed the defeat of the referendum on separation on money and the "ethnic vote".
Ironically while the Quebec separatists were defending the honour of the French army by trying to prevent the re-enactment of its defeat on the Plains of Abraham, the leader of today's France, President Nicolas Sarkozy, was being skewered by those same separatists for comments he made about Quebec and Canada. During a visit by Quebec's premier, Jean Charest, to Paris, Sarkozy stated he preferred a united Canada. The leaders of both of the separatist parties who were so outraged over the insult to Quebecers and their ancestors posed by the re-enactment of the 1759 Battle, now accused the President of France of denigrating Quebecers and their movement by his ignorant statements. So it looks like Quebecers are being insulted and disrespected by both sides - by a Federal agency for tarnishing the reputation of 18th century France and by the President of 21st century France.
Details as to what will take place on the Plains of Abraham in 2009 will be released on Tuesday. It is unclear as I write what the Commission has in mind. Perhaps this time around, Montcalm will win - we will see. I will let you know.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Stimulus Bill Will Be Passed. So Now What?
If you are like me, you must be totally confused. The more I have tried to understand what is going on with the economy, what these "stimulus" bills, "bail outs", and "toxic asset relief programs" are meant to achieve and what they realistically will achieve, the less I have understood the whole thing. Although I wake up every morning to the Business News Network, read the blogs, and listen to the "cable chatter", there is still no clarity. I have no idea whether the steps which are being taken by various governments will work, and have lost complete faith in the experts.
My principal frustration stems from the fact that there are such diametrically opposed views out there concerning the wisdom of the existing strategies and what should be done next. If most of the experts could at least agree on the diagnosis and the treatment for our ailing economies, then I think the rest of us would be able to just suck it up and tough it out. As long as we knew we were on the right track, we would be patient. That does not appear to be the case, however, and the experts are driving me crazy.
Let me illustrate my point by reviewing some of the commentary that appeared on the internet on Thursday, February 12, the day the House and Senate agreed on a compromise bill. Most of this commentary comes from the Realclearpolitics.com web site, which is one of my favorites, since it contains a mix of editorials, blogs, and commentary representing a wide spectrum of opinion.
Conservative opinion is definitely against the current stimulus proposals and bail-out packages. An article by Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation, for example, sums up the Foundation's view of the current stimulus bill provisions. According to the Heritage Foundation, these provisions "would undo the 1996 welfare reforms, explode entitlement spending by a cool quarter trillion dollars, lay the groundwork for the federal government's takeover of our health care system, double Uncle Sams already overbearing role in education, require taxpayers to pick up the bail tab for potentially dangerous felons, allow unemployed Wall Street executives to qualify for Medicaid, and reignite the fires of trade protectionism, thereby risking a global trade war." Ouch! Very ugly. We don't want that, do we?
George Will, who I always regarded as a pretty sensible commentator, has called this whole process "Runaway Stimulus". He laments the speed at which all of this is getting done, noting that "if $789 billion is spent ineffectively or destructively, government does not get to say "oops" and take a mulligan". He points out that according to Gary Wolfram the size of the stimulus - $789 billion - "is just slightly less than all the U.S. currency in circulation, and is larger than the entire federal budget was until 1983". I wonder - that can't be good, can it?
Peter Wehner, from Commentary magazine, argues that by giving the authority to write the stimulus package to Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, President Obama got exactly what one would expect - "a massive spending bill, laden with wasteful and unnecessary programs which have almost nothing to do with stimulating the economy." "This legislation is, in the eyes of many, a monstrosity". Not exactly a ringing endorsement from this commentator.
Andrew Leonard, while complimenting Obama on getting his plan through, agrees that we don't know "whether the plan will work. It may be too small, or too weighted toward tax cuts, or too stuffed with non-stimulative pork". "We really don't know what's going to happen. Even more fun: No actual economist would have designed a stimulus plan along the lines of the crazy mish-mash we've ended up with." Now, that's a confidence builder! Shouldn't someone know what will happen when you spend a trillion dollars?
There are those who think the stimulus bill is a good idea. Charles Ballard, for example, criticizes "the gaggle" of economists who think spending is not the answer - that is "an outrageous claim" argues Ballard. Ballard submits that spending will work, although he does concede that some of the spending in the stimulus bill is questionable.
Jonathan Chait goes even further. He argues that the government should spend like crazy; even "wasteful spending" is great. "If President Obama's stimulus package fails to prevent a depression - and I'm not saying it will - it will be because he didn't waste enough money". "The point of stimulus spending is simply to spend money - on something useful if possible, wasteful if necessary." Chait's only criticism is that Obama "never explained the theoretical basis for his plan. Even moderate journalists and members of Congress don't understand it." Comforting thought - the people voting to spend $800 billion do not understand the basis of their vote.
A Wall Steet Journal story, written by Kelly Evans and Phil Izzo notes that a survey of economists "expressed disappointment with how the package is shaping up. Comments on the package's influence this year say it is "too late", "provides little boost", is "trivial", "too big", "too small", and "a colossal waste of money". Great - they are a big help to us ordinary mortals.
My own personal strategy, which even I admit sounds incredibly stupid and would not recommend, has been to refuse to open up my monthly portfolio statements, since last September. What I don't know can't hurt me - right?
My principal frustration stems from the fact that there are such diametrically opposed views out there concerning the wisdom of the existing strategies and what should be done next. If most of the experts could at least agree on the diagnosis and the treatment for our ailing economies, then I think the rest of us would be able to just suck it up and tough it out. As long as we knew we were on the right track, we would be patient. That does not appear to be the case, however, and the experts are driving me crazy.
Let me illustrate my point by reviewing some of the commentary that appeared on the internet on Thursday, February 12, the day the House and Senate agreed on a compromise bill. Most of this commentary comes from the Realclearpolitics.com web site, which is one of my favorites, since it contains a mix of editorials, blogs, and commentary representing a wide spectrum of opinion.
Conservative opinion is definitely against the current stimulus proposals and bail-out packages. An article by Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation, for example, sums up the Foundation's view of the current stimulus bill provisions. According to the Heritage Foundation, these provisions "would undo the 1996 welfare reforms, explode entitlement spending by a cool quarter trillion dollars, lay the groundwork for the federal government's takeover of our health care system, double Uncle Sams already overbearing role in education, require taxpayers to pick up the bail tab for potentially dangerous felons, allow unemployed Wall Street executives to qualify for Medicaid, and reignite the fires of trade protectionism, thereby risking a global trade war." Ouch! Very ugly. We don't want that, do we?
George Will, who I always regarded as a pretty sensible commentator, has called this whole process "Runaway Stimulus". He laments the speed at which all of this is getting done, noting that "if $789 billion is spent ineffectively or destructively, government does not get to say "oops" and take a mulligan". He points out that according to Gary Wolfram the size of the stimulus - $789 billion - "is just slightly less than all the U.S. currency in circulation, and is larger than the entire federal budget was until 1983". I wonder - that can't be good, can it?
Peter Wehner, from Commentary magazine, argues that by giving the authority to write the stimulus package to Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, President Obama got exactly what one would expect - "a massive spending bill, laden with wasteful and unnecessary programs which have almost nothing to do with stimulating the economy." "This legislation is, in the eyes of many, a monstrosity". Not exactly a ringing endorsement from this commentator.
Andrew Leonard, while complimenting Obama on getting his plan through, agrees that we don't know "whether the plan will work. It may be too small, or too weighted toward tax cuts, or too stuffed with non-stimulative pork". "We really don't know what's going to happen. Even more fun: No actual economist would have designed a stimulus plan along the lines of the crazy mish-mash we've ended up with." Now, that's a confidence builder! Shouldn't someone know what will happen when you spend a trillion dollars?
There are those who think the stimulus bill is a good idea. Charles Ballard, for example, criticizes "the gaggle" of economists who think spending is not the answer - that is "an outrageous claim" argues Ballard. Ballard submits that spending will work, although he does concede that some of the spending in the stimulus bill is questionable.
Jonathan Chait goes even further. He argues that the government should spend like crazy; even "wasteful spending" is great. "If President Obama's stimulus package fails to prevent a depression - and I'm not saying it will - it will be because he didn't waste enough money". "The point of stimulus spending is simply to spend money - on something useful if possible, wasteful if necessary." Chait's only criticism is that Obama "never explained the theoretical basis for his plan. Even moderate journalists and members of Congress don't understand it." Comforting thought - the people voting to spend $800 billion do not understand the basis of their vote.
A Wall Steet Journal story, written by Kelly Evans and Phil Izzo notes that a survey of economists "expressed disappointment with how the package is shaping up. Comments on the package's influence this year say it is "too late", "provides little boost", is "trivial", "too big", "too small", and "a colossal waste of money". Great - they are a big help to us ordinary mortals.
My own personal strategy, which even I admit sounds incredibly stupid and would not recommend, has been to refuse to open up my monthly portfolio statements, since last September. What I don't know can't hurt me - right?
Monday, February 9, 2009
The President's Address: How Did He Do?
In my last posting, I was very critical of President Obama's speech, delivered last week to House Democrats. I found it jingoistic, partisan, glib and patronizing - in a word "non-presidential". I was looking for a lot better from President Obama in his first prime time address to the nation, Monday night. So, how did he do?
First, a compliment. I must admit that it is refreshing to listen to a President who is articulate, intelligent, and thinks so quickly on his feet. I do not think that there is anyone around in Washington who rivals Barack Obama in this respect. There are no malapropisms; the words flow smoothly and in the right order. It is apparent that President Obama loves to speak, to be engaged and even challenged by his audience.
In fact, if there is any criticism to be made of the President's speaking style, is that he loves to speak too much. The answers to questions went on and on. Questions were merely taken as an invitation to repeat whole parts of the speech or of other well rehearsed lines. I cannot imagine that many listeners, other than the obsessive political junkies, lasted through the whole hour.
But now on to substance. There was absolutely nothing new in this address that President Obama has not stated before. One would be hard pressed to isolate one significant sound-bite which represents a new thought or point, not made by the President before. The themes were familiar. The USA is facing catastrophe if something is not done pronto. Doing nothing is not an option. The economic problems were inherited. People must be put back to work. 4,000,000 jobs must be created or at least saved. It will take time. And so on.
One thing which President Obama likes to do is to set up straw men, which he can then proceed to shoot down. For example, he repeats that doing nothing is not an option. But who actually is saying that doing nothing is an option? Opponents of the existing stimulus bill are not saying that the government should be doing nothing to improve the economy. What they are saying is that the government should not be engaged in excessive spending, especially for projects which are not stimulative.
Another one of the President's familiar "selling" points is that he is taking advice on this package from the best economists in the world, some of whom were even advisors in the previous administration. Sorry, but this to me is not that reassuring. You mean the same "experts" who failed to see this train wreck coming are now the people President Obama is counting on to get us out of this mess? That goes for Congress to. Most of the leaders in Congress who are feverishly working on this thing have been around for donkey's years. Their "expertise" got us into this crisis. They were the ones who just a few months ago passed the TARP spending of $700 billion, without providing for accountability or oversight, and who now admit that the money was not used as intended. They were the ones who passed an auto bail-out package to temporarily prop up failing automobile manufacturers, who, for sure, will be back again very soon for more money. Relying on this group is supposed to give the public the confidence that this stimulus bill is a good idea?
President Obama said nothing at all about the "Buy In America" provisions which were in the original House bill and which caused so much consternation for Canadians and Europeans. Not one of the questions asked by the press dealt with this subject. I am not aware of the current fate of that provision or how the matter might ultimately be dealt with when the Senate bill and the House bill are reconciled, as they eventually must be. It is interesting to note, however, that this matter was not of particular interest to anyone in the press conference.
One final observation. President Obama has assured everyone that there is no "pork" in the bill. It has all been removed. This I know will be a relief to all Jewish and Muslim Americans. A kosher stimulus package.
First, a compliment. I must admit that it is refreshing to listen to a President who is articulate, intelligent, and thinks so quickly on his feet. I do not think that there is anyone around in Washington who rivals Barack Obama in this respect. There are no malapropisms; the words flow smoothly and in the right order. It is apparent that President Obama loves to speak, to be engaged and even challenged by his audience.
In fact, if there is any criticism to be made of the President's speaking style, is that he loves to speak too much. The answers to questions went on and on. Questions were merely taken as an invitation to repeat whole parts of the speech or of other well rehearsed lines. I cannot imagine that many listeners, other than the obsessive political junkies, lasted through the whole hour.
But now on to substance. There was absolutely nothing new in this address that President Obama has not stated before. One would be hard pressed to isolate one significant sound-bite which represents a new thought or point, not made by the President before. The themes were familiar. The USA is facing catastrophe if something is not done pronto. Doing nothing is not an option. The economic problems were inherited. People must be put back to work. 4,000,000 jobs must be created or at least saved. It will take time. And so on.
One thing which President Obama likes to do is to set up straw men, which he can then proceed to shoot down. For example, he repeats that doing nothing is not an option. But who actually is saying that doing nothing is an option? Opponents of the existing stimulus bill are not saying that the government should be doing nothing to improve the economy. What they are saying is that the government should not be engaged in excessive spending, especially for projects which are not stimulative.
Another one of the President's familiar "selling" points is that he is taking advice on this package from the best economists in the world, some of whom were even advisors in the previous administration. Sorry, but this to me is not that reassuring. You mean the same "experts" who failed to see this train wreck coming are now the people President Obama is counting on to get us out of this mess? That goes for Congress to. Most of the leaders in Congress who are feverishly working on this thing have been around for donkey's years. Their "expertise" got us into this crisis. They were the ones who just a few months ago passed the TARP spending of $700 billion, without providing for accountability or oversight, and who now admit that the money was not used as intended. They were the ones who passed an auto bail-out package to temporarily prop up failing automobile manufacturers, who, for sure, will be back again very soon for more money. Relying on this group is supposed to give the public the confidence that this stimulus bill is a good idea?
President Obama said nothing at all about the "Buy In America" provisions which were in the original House bill and which caused so much consternation for Canadians and Europeans. Not one of the questions asked by the press dealt with this subject. I am not aware of the current fate of that provision or how the matter might ultimately be dealt with when the Senate bill and the House bill are reconciled, as they eventually must be. It is interesting to note, however, that this matter was not of particular interest to anyone in the press conference.
One final observation. President Obama has assured everyone that there is no "pork" in the bill. It has all been removed. This I know will be a relief to all Jewish and Muslim Americans. A kosher stimulus package.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Fear You Can Believe In
On Monday night, President Obama will be delivering his first prime time speech to Americans. I hope that it is a lot less jingoistic, self-indulgent, partisan, and patronizing than the speech he gave to House Democrats last Thursday night. For those of you who missed it and want to know what the President said, watch the video replay as opposed to merely reading the prepared text. Pumped up by an obviously supportive and partisan audience, and clearly enjoying the moment, the President strayed far from his text. The result was a barn burner of a speech, reminiscent of some of President Obama's early primary campaign speeches. What it lacked however was the gravitas, thoughtfulness and balance one might have expected from the President of a country, which, according to the speaker himself, was on the verge of a "catastrophe". It also ensured that the bipartisanship which President Obama said he would foster in Washington, will never be achieved, if this type of "I won and I am way smarter than you" in your face attitude continues.
According to the President, the American people voted for change. They "didn't vote for the false theories of the past and they didn't vote for the phony arguments, and petty politics". The audience was told that quick action was required; otherwise "an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe." And, if those who are not fully on board with Obama's stimulus package did not yet realize it, the President felt obliged to remind them that "this is not some abstract debate" and that "this is not a game". "It is time to set aside some of the gamesmanship in town and get something done." The audience was told that "quickness" is required. This is not just some "lark". The "cable chatter" was mocked. The audience was reminded that the President "found this deficit when he showed up"; the national debt was "found wrapped in a bow". President Obama openly made fun of his obviously dense critics who he thinks oppose the bill because it is a spending bill and not a stimulus bill. "What do you think a stimulus is?? That's the whole point." He then laughed and repeated "That's the point!". The speech went on in a distinctly partisan way, ending with President Obama's now traditional closing, "I love you, guys".
Okay, the speech was supposed to be a crowd motivator and it certainly was. It was not a speech to the nation, although the Obama team deliberately invited the national media to be there. It contained a lot of rhetoric but was very devoid of substance. Questions arise. For example, what are the "false theories" and "phony arguments" which are being used against this specific stimulus bill? Does all spending stimulate the economy by creating jobs, or is there not bad spending? What about the "Buy in America" clause, which the speech did not mention - is that good for America? Does the President really think that opponents of the present bill do not appreciate the urgency of the situation, think it is a game, do not understand what stimulus is, and do not have the same goals as the President? Who is really playing the gamesmanship card here - President Obama or those who genuinely think this is a bad bill?
The President is urging Congress to act quickly because all of the "experts" agree that unless something is done quickly, catastrophe will result. Doesn't that sound a lot like President Bush and Colin Powell's arguments to Congress that intelligence experts stated that Iraq had WMD and unless Congress acted quickly, authorized the war, and asked no questions, disaster would follow? Wasn't Congress told the same thing about the TARP $350 billion spending package, and the auto bail-out - pass it now because there is no time to lose? Is this going to be the standard Presidential gambit, which has so far worked three times - act quickly or else face disaster?
I hope Monday's speech to the nation will sound a bit more presidential and less like a high school basketball coach's locker room address, or worse yet, a self-absorbed law professor's entertaining but glib lecture.
According to the President, the American people voted for change. They "didn't vote for the false theories of the past and they didn't vote for the phony arguments, and petty politics". The audience was told that quick action was required; otherwise "an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe." And, if those who are not fully on board with Obama's stimulus package did not yet realize it, the President felt obliged to remind them that "this is not some abstract debate" and that "this is not a game". "It is time to set aside some of the gamesmanship in town and get something done." The audience was told that "quickness" is required. This is not just some "lark". The "cable chatter" was mocked. The audience was reminded that the President "found this deficit when he showed up"; the national debt was "found wrapped in a bow". President Obama openly made fun of his obviously dense critics who he thinks oppose the bill because it is a spending bill and not a stimulus bill. "What do you think a stimulus is?? That's the whole point." He then laughed and repeated "That's the point!". The speech went on in a distinctly partisan way, ending with President Obama's now traditional closing, "I love you, guys".
Okay, the speech was supposed to be a crowd motivator and it certainly was. It was not a speech to the nation, although the Obama team deliberately invited the national media to be there. It contained a lot of rhetoric but was very devoid of substance. Questions arise. For example, what are the "false theories" and "phony arguments" which are being used against this specific stimulus bill? Does all spending stimulate the economy by creating jobs, or is there not bad spending? What about the "Buy in America" clause, which the speech did not mention - is that good for America? Does the President really think that opponents of the present bill do not appreciate the urgency of the situation, think it is a game, do not understand what stimulus is, and do not have the same goals as the President? Who is really playing the gamesmanship card here - President Obama or those who genuinely think this is a bad bill?
The President is urging Congress to act quickly because all of the "experts" agree that unless something is done quickly, catastrophe will result. Doesn't that sound a lot like President Bush and Colin Powell's arguments to Congress that intelligence experts stated that Iraq had WMD and unless Congress acted quickly, authorized the war, and asked no questions, disaster would follow? Wasn't Congress told the same thing about the TARP $350 billion spending package, and the auto bail-out - pass it now because there is no time to lose? Is this going to be the standard Presidential gambit, which has so far worked three times - act quickly or else face disaster?
I hope Monday's speech to the nation will sound a bit more presidential and less like a high school basketball coach's locker room address, or worse yet, a self-absorbed law professor's entertaining but glib lecture.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Up-Date 2: Hamas and Rockets
In my posting of January 17, I suggested that Hamas' decision to continue firing rockets into Israel, despite the fact that it was clearly being defeated by Israel militarily, was based to a very large degree on its perception that it was winning the political/propaganda war. The protesting countries, international organizations, academic boycotters, the streets full of leftists, anti-Americans, anti-Westerners, anti-Zionists, anti-Semites, as well as the naive, the ignorant, the uninformed, and the well-meaning became, whether intentionally or not, a cheering section for Hamas. Hamas was more than willing to sacrifice the lives, homes and future of the Palestinian people for its propaganda victory. Success in its goal to isolate Israel and Israelis, and to turn it into a pariah nation, was, in Hamas' mind, worth the enormous costs which the Palestinian people were forced to pay.
The day after my posting, the Israelis declared a unilateral cease fire and in a matter of a few days completely withdrew its forces from Gaza. Despite this, some rocket firing continued and continues to this day, albeit at a much reduced rate. It will only take one rocket, however, to strike a kindergarten and injure or kill innocent Israeli children. Whether it is Hamas or some other group which is firing these rockets is of no matter. Hamas controls Gaza and is responsible for what takes place there. As members of Fatah and suspected "collaborators" have learned well, Hamas has no compunction in dealing murderously with those who oppose it.
It is interesting to note what has happened since the Israelis withdrew. World leaders and organizations continued to condemn Israel. Whether it was the Turkish Prime Minister, who in a dramatic pique of juvenile immaturity, accused Nobel Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres of "knowing very well how to kill" before he stormed off the stage at Davos, a Spanish judge who ordered a probe of war crimes allegedly committed by Israeli Minister Ben-Eliezer in Gaza in 2002, or American university professors who called for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel, the propaganda victory sought to be achieved by Hamas seemed to have been attained. That the goal of the Hamas rocket attacks into Israel was to provoke the devastating Israeli response was admitted by Hamas leaders themselves. A senior Hamas official in Gaza reportedly told a "victory" rally of 5,000 in Gaza that "We thank God when we see our houses bombed and our institutions destroyed..".
It is interesting, however, to note that unlike those in the Western world, who live in safe places far from the scene of battle, and are more than willing to condemn Israel for the carnage in Gaza, there are those in the Arab world who recognize Hamas' role and twisted strategy for what it is. Haaretz reports that President Mubarak of Egypt accused Hamas of responsibility for the shedding of Arab blood, and urged Palestinians to hold Hamas responsible for the sacrifices, the pain and the destruction it had caused the Palestinian people. Al Jazeera reports that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated that "Hamas had put the lives and aspirations of Palestinians at risk by promoting conflict". It quoted Abbas as having said that "they.. have taken risks with the blood of Palestinians, with their fate, and dreams and aspirations for an independent Palestinian state".
So there it is. The fighting has not completely stopped, and can easily flare up again. Instead of isolating and condemning Israel, those who truly want a peaceful resolution of the conflict must be clear in depriving Hamas of any political or public relations gains it wishes to make by provoking the destruction of Gaza. Show the courage of Mubarak and Abbas. Condemn and isolate Hamas, and thereby encourage the peacemakers.
The day after my posting, the Israelis declared a unilateral cease fire and in a matter of a few days completely withdrew its forces from Gaza. Despite this, some rocket firing continued and continues to this day, albeit at a much reduced rate. It will only take one rocket, however, to strike a kindergarten and injure or kill innocent Israeli children. Whether it is Hamas or some other group which is firing these rockets is of no matter. Hamas controls Gaza and is responsible for what takes place there. As members of Fatah and suspected "collaborators" have learned well, Hamas has no compunction in dealing murderously with those who oppose it.
It is interesting to note what has happened since the Israelis withdrew. World leaders and organizations continued to condemn Israel. Whether it was the Turkish Prime Minister, who in a dramatic pique of juvenile immaturity, accused Nobel Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres of "knowing very well how to kill" before he stormed off the stage at Davos, a Spanish judge who ordered a probe of war crimes allegedly committed by Israeli Minister Ben-Eliezer in Gaza in 2002, or American university professors who called for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel, the propaganda victory sought to be achieved by Hamas seemed to have been attained. That the goal of the Hamas rocket attacks into Israel was to provoke the devastating Israeli response was admitted by Hamas leaders themselves. A senior Hamas official in Gaza reportedly told a "victory" rally of 5,000 in Gaza that "We thank God when we see our houses bombed and our institutions destroyed..".
It is interesting, however, to note that unlike those in the Western world, who live in safe places far from the scene of battle, and are more than willing to condemn Israel for the carnage in Gaza, there are those in the Arab world who recognize Hamas' role and twisted strategy for what it is. Haaretz reports that President Mubarak of Egypt accused Hamas of responsibility for the shedding of Arab blood, and urged Palestinians to hold Hamas responsible for the sacrifices, the pain and the destruction it had caused the Palestinian people. Al Jazeera reports that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated that "Hamas had put the lives and aspirations of Palestinians at risk by promoting conflict". It quoted Abbas as having said that "they.. have taken risks with the blood of Palestinians, with their fate, and dreams and aspirations for an independent Palestinian state".
So there it is. The fighting has not completely stopped, and can easily flare up again. Instead of isolating and condemning Israel, those who truly want a peaceful resolution of the conflict must be clear in depriving Hamas of any political or public relations gains it wishes to make by provoking the destruction of Gaza. Show the courage of Mubarak and Abbas. Condemn and isolate Hamas, and thereby encourage the peacemakers.
Ivory Tower Pundit: The First Up-Date
In the time since the Ivory Tower Pundit first started pontificating on December 24, 2008, 16 posts have been published. Readership has steadily increased with a total of almost 1400 page views and nearly 700 visits. The Pundit is grateful to those who have kindly indulged me to date. I hope you keep on visiting.
I thought it might be worthwhile to provide some up-dates on the prior postings. I have always found it frustrating to read about something but not to be told how things actually worked out in the end. So here goes - the first of my up-dates.
Several early postings dealt with Canada's "bizarre" democracy, based of course on the English parliamentary system of government. Of particular interest was the decision by Prime Minister Harper, with the backing of the Governor General, to suspend Parliament so that his government would avoid being defeated by a coalition of opposition parties. During the period of suspension, several interesting things transpired. The Prime Minister appointed 18 friendlies to sit in Canada's Senate. He also appointed a new Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, without any Parliamentary input. The Opposition leader, Stephane Dion, was thrown out of his leadership position by his Liberal Party. He was replaced by Michael Ignatieff, who became leader of the Liberal Party, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and who, if 100 years of Canadian history is to be our guide, will eventually become Prime Minister of Canada. Ignatieff achieved this position by decision of the National Executive of the Liberal Party, without having to have been vetted or chosen by his party's membership after a proper leadership election contest and vote. (Remember Ignatieff ran for leader last time in a true contest - and lost.)
The new year dawned. Parliament resumed. The coalition, which had in December declared that it could not "trust" Prime Minister Harper, and would defeat his government when it brought down its budget, no matter what it contained, collapsed. The budget was passed. All of Michael Ignatieff's Liberals, except for six Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador, voted for it. In another quaint feature of Canadian democracy, Michael Ignatieff "allowed" the six dissenting Members of Parliament to actually represent the interests of those constituents who voted for them, rather than beng forced to tow the party line. He gave them "one free pass"; no punishment this time around. (Compare this to the U.S. Congress, where the elected legislators are much freer to vote as they and their constituents see fit.)
So there it is. The Canadian saga goes out with a whimper. Ignatieff emerges as the big winner. Having achieved what he always wanted - to become the leader of the Party without having to earn it, he is content. All the rest are losers. Stephane Dion was treated abhorrently by his party and tossed out with nary a goodbye or thank you, the leader of the New Democratic Party, Jack Layton, looked as pathetic as usual, having lost his one and only chance to become part of a governing party, and Prime Minister Harper was forced to go begging to the Governor General to save his job.
My prediction - another 18 months or so of Canadian politics as usual, another election, and a probable Liberal party win.
I thought it might be worthwhile to provide some up-dates on the prior postings. I have always found it frustrating to read about something but not to be told how things actually worked out in the end. So here goes - the first of my up-dates.
Several early postings dealt with Canada's "bizarre" democracy, based of course on the English parliamentary system of government. Of particular interest was the decision by Prime Minister Harper, with the backing of the Governor General, to suspend Parliament so that his government would avoid being defeated by a coalition of opposition parties. During the period of suspension, several interesting things transpired. The Prime Minister appointed 18 friendlies to sit in Canada's Senate. He also appointed a new Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, without any Parliamentary input. The Opposition leader, Stephane Dion, was thrown out of his leadership position by his Liberal Party. He was replaced by Michael Ignatieff, who became leader of the Liberal Party, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and who, if 100 years of Canadian history is to be our guide, will eventually become Prime Minister of Canada. Ignatieff achieved this position by decision of the National Executive of the Liberal Party, without having to have been vetted or chosen by his party's membership after a proper leadership election contest and vote. (Remember Ignatieff ran for leader last time in a true contest - and lost.)
The new year dawned. Parliament resumed. The coalition, which had in December declared that it could not "trust" Prime Minister Harper, and would defeat his government when it brought down its budget, no matter what it contained, collapsed. The budget was passed. All of Michael Ignatieff's Liberals, except for six Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador, voted for it. In another quaint feature of Canadian democracy, Michael Ignatieff "allowed" the six dissenting Members of Parliament to actually represent the interests of those constituents who voted for them, rather than beng forced to tow the party line. He gave them "one free pass"; no punishment this time around. (Compare this to the U.S. Congress, where the elected legislators are much freer to vote as they and their constituents see fit.)
So there it is. The Canadian saga goes out with a whimper. Ignatieff emerges as the big winner. Having achieved what he always wanted - to become the leader of the Party without having to earn it, he is content. All the rest are losers. Stephane Dion was treated abhorrently by his party and tossed out with nary a goodbye or thank you, the leader of the New Democratic Party, Jack Layton, looked as pathetic as usual, having lost his one and only chance to become part of a governing party, and Prime Minister Harper was forced to go begging to the Governor General to save his job.
My prediction - another 18 months or so of Canadian politics as usual, another election, and a probable Liberal party win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
