Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Bored Media

Coyne posts on the CPC's abandoning of principles. Not the first time he's written about it. I keep wondering when someone is going to tap him on the shoulder and let him know that it's a minority government.

Now, this isn't the good Liberal way of talking about the situation. As you can see from the comments it's alot of "Yeah! Coyne is right! The Conservatives are unprincipled!" But I still cling to the hidden agenda. I know it's there because I know the politicians, because I know where they come from, because I know their supporters. A minority situation forces governments to abandon their princples, for the life of me I can't figure out why this confuses Coyne so much.

However, let's assume for a second that he is right and that the CPC isn't ideologically sound. Why do pundits believe that politics exists to entertain them? Because that's the impression you get from Coyne's article, that elections in Canada are stupid because they don't result in massive swings from communism to anarchy. It's such an absolutely bizarre point. Elections in Canada produce exactly what Canadians want, a middle-of-the-road set of policies that at least presents the illusion of good governance. They get the last part wrong regularly, and have it horribly wrong right now, but eventually it corrects itself and the other guys get a shot.

Does anyone really believe that the American model of highly charged ideology is what we should be after? How can the media look with envy at the swing from Obama to Tea Party in the United States and suggest that it's a better way of doing business?

3 comments:

  1. Does anyone really believe that the American model of highly charged ideology is what we should be after?

    No, but during a minority situation people from all parties are engaged in constant election campaigning. Voters do eventually get tired of that, so the parties engage them in the only way they know how so they don't get bored, and thus this is where we are at now. It is clear now more than ever that a majority government is the only way out of this morass. Who should have one is a matter for an lengthy debate, but either way, it is the only way out so people can concentrate on governing or opposing more in-line with who they are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When reading Coyne, remember he supported Dion and the Green Shift, vigorously.

    Coyne does not have a finger on the pulse of Canadians, he thinks himself the driver of the democracy hearse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have always maintained that the government is a steward as opposed to a test tube in which we can experiment with any populist ideology of the moment. It should be telling that 'challenging the status quo' is near universal in invocation across political constituencies. I scratch my head how putative and self-avowed Conservatives have no problem appealing to that anti-establishment rhetoric. After all, it leaves little for them to claim exactly what institutional and cultural foundations they are trying to preserve. It becomes even less convincing when there are attempts to revise Canadian history in hopes of convincing people that liberalism was far more prevalent in the Dominion that the differences between our cousins to the south are negligible.


    I think it is not far to say that in this post literate world, there is little by way of historical memory, and the demagogues who crown themselves as the kings of history are only trying to endear themselves to ideas outside of those cultivated in their own country. Coyne is not as notorious as say the students of Frasier Institute and Von Mises school who like to sermonize about the 'myth' of the communitarian features of post Confederation government. Nonetheless, he and Wells would complain ad nauseum how Canadian identity is indeterminate because we largely form it as counter to the American identity. Then, it an instant, they would turn around and unabashedly extoll the virtues of emulating the same governance and political structures of down south.

    Take our Senate, for example. The prime feature of the Senate as being a holder of institutional memory is not even discussed tangentially in the debate of its reform. It is as if though such things are mere inconveniences. Every time I hear some older person lament about the lack of 'identity' of sense of history of younger Canadians, especially first generation Canadians, I usually respond by asking them if they can name more than 7 Fathers of Confederation. That tends to end the tirade fairly quickly.

    ReplyDelete