As you may have read already, the Liberals, currently under the leadership of Stephane Dion, will form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc with the intention of usurping the Tory government and making M. Dion the next Prime Minister of Canada. This is almost entirely unprecedented.
Dion, Layton and Duceppe have decided that the Harper government has dropped the ball. The Tories had previously denied the economy was in trouble and now have neglected to introduce a meaningful economic package to help Canadians weather the storm. They have also, through past mismanagement, virtually assured that our government will run its first deficit in more than a decade.
The much-maligned Stephane Dion may have done it again. He looked defeated at the last Liberal leadership convention only to win on the strength of compromise and coalition. Then, in the last election, he looked embarrassed and defeated, but now seems to have again found a way to rise from the ashes. It looks like he will become the next Prime Minister.
Some very intelligent people, most importantly Patrick McIver, have decried this coalition as hypocricy, accused Dion of making a deal with the devil (aka Duceppe), and called the opposition poor losers. McIver says 74% of Canadians told Dion they didn't want him. However, I will remind him of two facts: 1) 64% of Canadians rejected Harper, and 2) only 36% of Canadians chose Harper while 54% of Canadians voted for the coalition parties. Fact is, this would be one of the strongest majorities in Canadian history, and one of the few true majorities (perhaps only, I don't know).
What a most exciting time for politicos like myself!
Update:
It occured to me after first posting this article that I didn't reference Harper's KGB tactics anywhere after the title. The Harper Tories taped a conference call between the NDP and the Bloc in a desperate attempt to save the Harper government. These tactics are frightening and entirely inappropriate in a modern, democratic, free country. Harper sank to a new low, giving Canadians yet another reason to support the coalition.
15 November 2008
President Obama...*Yawn*
A few weeks ago Senator Barack Obama was elected Most Powerful Man in the World. Upon his inauguration he will become the first African-American President in United States history. So what does this mean for the world? It means no more G.W. Bush. Perhaps that means no more unilateralism/bilateralism. Perhaps that means decreased militarism. Perhaps that means more fiscal responsibility. Perhaps it means nothing.
A veteran US campaign analyst noted that Democratic Presidential candidates tend to campaign from the left then (if elected) govern from the centre. Obama campaigned from the left, but, especially considering his staffing choices, seems poised to govern from the centre. Going back through the history of American Presidents, it seems apparent that who is President is less significant than we might assume. Like the two Bushes, Clinton fought in the Middle East. Like the two Bushes, Clinton never created universal health, never fixed the broken banking system, never fixed the broken insurance system, never really governed from the left. So, in my mind, the President of the United States doesn't generally change the course of American history.
Why do American Presidents not matter so much? For a few reasons. The establishment in Washington is too large, too entrenched. For instance, G.W. Bush essentially hired G.H.W. Bush's crew and so far Obama has brought back a number of Clinton's people. More precisely, when G.W. Bush was trying to mount a response to 9/11, he was getting advice from the State Department headed by Colin Powell and the Department of Defense headed by Donald Rumsfeld. On one hand, Powell was pushing for a multilateral response headed by the UN. On the other, Rumsfeld was pushing for a bilateral response headed by the US. Rumsfeld eventually won the battle and Bush will be remembered as the ultimate bilateralist. It was the establishment, not the President, who directed American foreign policy. The bureaucracy is too large, too powerful. Government bureaucracies rely on government funding and changes in government mean potential changes in funding. To combat this reality, bureaucracies have become very similar to interest groups - they campaign for money and, in some cases, for their continued existence. At the end of World War II, the US government dissolved the Office of Strategic Security (OSS). William J. Donovan (creator and Head of the OSS) suggested that President Truman create an office to supply the US government and armed forces with intelligence. Truman agreed and created the CIA. Don't be fooled by the name change, Donovan was campaigning to have his department restored, and he was successful. Truman was President, but it was the bureaucracy that made history by restoring the OSS/creating the CIA. And corporate America is too big and too powerful. Why have universal health care and insurance remained American pipe dreams? Because the corporations behind health care and insurance in America are far too large, rich and powerful. "Money is power."* No President has ever had a chance to create a national health insurance program because every President has relied on insurance company money. President Obama may be the first to have this opportunity considering the current bank and insurance meltdown that has sunk the world into economic recession. Basically, I don't believe life will be considerably different for anyone with Obama as President. And I don't think life would have been considerably different for anyone had John McCain won the election.
That's why I don't tend to follow the American election very closely. That's why it has taken me so long to comment on the election (sorry Anne-Marie!).
On a more positive note, I'm hoping Obama will become one of those rare Presidents who is able to positively shift the course of American (and world) history. Obama is the son of a Kenyan economist, giving him a real connection to the poorest part of the world. Perhaps this bodes well for a continent in dire need of financial and developmental aide. He was against the war in Iraq and has generally been a Dove in the past. This should bode well for world peace. These are the two areas I most believe Obama will change the path taken by G.W. Bush. For all other major areas, including the ones I mentioned above and including environmental policy, don't count on any significant change.
Lets see if I'm right.
*****
* quote taken from Marc "Loafy" Henein
A veteran US campaign analyst noted that Democratic Presidential candidates tend to campaign from the left then (if elected) govern from the centre. Obama campaigned from the left, but, especially considering his staffing choices, seems poised to govern from the centre. Going back through the history of American Presidents, it seems apparent that who is President is less significant than we might assume. Like the two Bushes, Clinton fought in the Middle East. Like the two Bushes, Clinton never created universal health, never fixed the broken banking system, never fixed the broken insurance system, never really governed from the left. So, in my mind, the President of the United States doesn't generally change the course of American history.
Why do American Presidents not matter so much? For a few reasons. The establishment in Washington is too large, too entrenched. For instance, G.W. Bush essentially hired G.H.W. Bush's crew and so far Obama has brought back a number of Clinton's people. More precisely, when G.W. Bush was trying to mount a response to 9/11, he was getting advice from the State Department headed by Colin Powell and the Department of Defense headed by Donald Rumsfeld. On one hand, Powell was pushing for a multilateral response headed by the UN. On the other, Rumsfeld was pushing for a bilateral response headed by the US. Rumsfeld eventually won the battle and Bush will be remembered as the ultimate bilateralist. It was the establishment, not the President, who directed American foreign policy. The bureaucracy is too large, too powerful. Government bureaucracies rely on government funding and changes in government mean potential changes in funding. To combat this reality, bureaucracies have become very similar to interest groups - they campaign for money and, in some cases, for their continued existence. At the end of World War II, the US government dissolved the Office of Strategic Security (OSS). William J. Donovan (creator and Head of the OSS) suggested that President Truman create an office to supply the US government and armed forces with intelligence. Truman agreed and created the CIA. Don't be fooled by the name change, Donovan was campaigning to have his department restored, and he was successful. Truman was President, but it was the bureaucracy that made history by restoring the OSS/creating the CIA. And corporate America is too big and too powerful. Why have universal health care and insurance remained American pipe dreams? Because the corporations behind health care and insurance in America are far too large, rich and powerful. "Money is power."* No President has ever had a chance to create a national health insurance program because every President has relied on insurance company money. President Obama may be the first to have this opportunity considering the current bank and insurance meltdown that has sunk the world into economic recession. Basically, I don't believe life will be considerably different for anyone with Obama as President. And I don't think life would have been considerably different for anyone had John McCain won the election.
That's why I don't tend to follow the American election very closely. That's why it has taken me so long to comment on the election (sorry Anne-Marie!).
On a more positive note, I'm hoping Obama will become one of those rare Presidents who is able to positively shift the course of American (and world) history. Obama is the son of a Kenyan economist, giving him a real connection to the poorest part of the world. Perhaps this bodes well for a continent in dire need of financial and developmental aide. He was against the war in Iraq and has generally been a Dove in the past. This should bode well for world peace. These are the two areas I most believe Obama will change the path taken by G.W. Bush. For all other major areas, including the ones I mentioned above and including environmental policy, don't count on any significant change.
Lets see if I'm right.
*****
* quote taken from Marc "Loafy" Henein
03 November 2008
New Additions
I've slightly tweeked my blog by adding two new features:
The first is at the top right of the page and will keep you up-to-date on what I'm reading. The plan is to give my readers a sense of what is influencing my thoughts while I write. Hopefully, it will have the side-effect of guilting me into being more vigilent in my reading - I don't want to leave a book in my "Currently Reading..." section too long lest I start to look borderline illiterate!
The second addition is further down on the right, and is a poll. Right now the poll asks when the next Canadian federal election will be held. Take a look and have your say! I was the first voter and I voted 2012.
Thanks for reading my blog!
The first is at the top right of the page and will keep you up-to-date on what I'm reading. The plan is to give my readers a sense of what is influencing my thoughts while I write. Hopefully, it will have the side-effect of guilting me into being more vigilent in my reading - I don't want to leave a book in my "Currently Reading..." section too long lest I start to look borderline illiterate!
The second addition is further down on the right, and is a poll. Right now the poll asks when the next Canadian federal election will be held. Take a look and have your say! I was the first voter and I voted 2012.
Thanks for reading my blog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)