It's no secret that the gulf between the political right and left in Western society is a gaping chasm filled with piranha. The level of virulence in the debate between the two sides rarely reaches levels of calm, reasoned discourse and inevitably any serious interaction between them ends in a rancorous exchange.
It should be no wonder then that the fight over the recent British referendum on whether or not the UK should leave the EU was characterized by loud arguments, physical violence and one political assassination. The increased level of fighting since then has only continued the pre-vote trend.
On the surface, it should have been a no-brainer for the Stay side to win. They had almost every important card in their hand, including economic, politican and trade stability. The Leave side, on the other hand, focused its campaign on the ugly side of matters: immigration and xenophobia. Why did the English and Welsh vote decisively (which is was when you take the Scots and Irish out of the numbers) to leave a system which has served them well for decades?
To understand why this happened you have to look at the tactics used by the right and left in political debates. On the right there is no shortage of vulgarity. One need only look o'er the pond at Donald Trump for the stereotypical approach. The right does not mince words but proceeds to insults, especially those that question their opponents' intelligence. Don't look for complex put downs either. "You're a stupid head" is pretty basic fare in this camp.
On the left, however, the approach is quite different. For the left, disagreement isn't a simple matter of someone not being smart enough to agree with, like it is with the right, although it is part of the system. Instead there is an approach based on morality. You're not stupid if you disagree with them, you are evil. They have many words for evil such as homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny and so on but at the base of it they treat their opponents not just as intellectual inferiors but as moral ones as well with themselves being the arbiters of what is true and righteous in the universe.
We saw this in Canada with the recent Jian Ghomeshi scandal in which a well-known radio broadcaster in Toronto was accused of sexually assaulting several women. The justice system eventually determined that, at least with three of the principle victims, the charges were unwarranted and he was acquitted. The social justice system, on the other hand, had declared him completely guilty as soon as the story broke and then went on to vilify the judge who let him off, the proectuing lawyer for not getting the conviction, the defence lawyer who had dared to defend him despite his "obvious" guilt and any others who questioned whether or not he was guilty. Such people were quickly labelled as women haters and enablers of rapists.
In Britain the referendum campaign ran pretty much along the same lines. For those on the Leave side, people wanting to stay were simpering fools who preferred to have their lives controlled by the bureaucrats in Brussels. There were idiots who didn't want Britain to return to its former glory. But the Stay side? Their opponents were labelled as xenophobes, racists, neo-fascists and the like. It wasn't about seeing things differently or not understanding how great the EU has been for the UK, it was a campaign to legitimize their opponent's right to a differing opinion. What's more, it didn't matter how mild the concerns were on the Leave side. If you weren't on Stay you were Sauron's handmaiden.
That is what ultimately backfired on the Stay side. Yes, there is a hard core of the British population that is living in denial. This group really believes that Britain has mattered as a world power since the end of the Second World War when it really hasn't. They really believe that, unfettered by EU constraints, Great Britain shall be great again. They want all them yucky foreign types out so there's no competition for jobs. Britain for the British, eh guv'nor?
There is also a large, more moderate population that has legitimate concerns with the current arrangements Britain has with the EU. They worry that uncontrolled immigration will cause economic upheaval. They worry about the increasing role Brussels has in regulating their lives. They wonder why un-elected Europeans seem to have more and more control over the government that they actually vote for.
But when they express these concerns, the Left responds in monolithic fashion. "I want all 'em grubby types out!" and "I'm worry about a sudden expansion of the population and how our economy will handle it" are met with equally vehement cries of "Racist!" So resentment builds and then, given the chance, it expresses itself as it did in the referendum.
The response of the left to the results is also instructive as to its condescension for its opponents. One smarmy left wing talk show host after another has gone on record condemning the results. Never mind that in democracy the golden rule is that the electorate never makes a mistake. For the left, the electorate only gets it right when they win. Otherwise the people are indeed wrong. Don't think that large numbers of folks in the moderate middle weren't thinking this in the ballot booth.
In short, the left's delusions of moral superiority have pushed the UK to the edge of an abyss and, in their lack of insight, they now stand poised to push it off the cliff.
Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart
BUY THIS BOOK! Now available on Amazon! IT WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE COMPLETE!
Showing posts with label Left wing politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Left wing politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Sunday, 21 February 2016
The Kind Face of Evil
It is an accomplishment of the leftist liberal media industry in North America and Europe that most people, when asked what political forces was the most murderous in history, will usually point to 20th century Fascism. It's an accomplishment because while it is generally accepted, it's also untrue.
In fact, if you tally the numbers in terms of ruined lives and mass murders, communism and its softer face, socialism, far outperformed the Fascists in terms of scale of depravity and length of time as an influential force. It is the never ending sympathy of the leftists who influence our cultural and historical awareness for those murderers that has created a society where the word "Nazi!" is an unforgiveable insult while "Soviet!" hardly raises a hair.
And so, enter Bernie Sanders. The senator who would be president is an unrepentant socialist, full of ideas that have repeatedly sunk economies and ruined societies. He swears allegiance to the political philosophy that, in its more extreme form, slaughtered tens of millions from the purges of the USSR to the Great Leap Forward in China and down to the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And for those who think that comparing him to some of the worst murderers in history is a bit extreme, then take a step back and try to remember why Greece was in the news so much. Hint, it wasn't over tourism.
What is Bernie's secret? Well first there's the endless soft indoctrination of the media. Donald Trump is being touted as a soft fascist and this angle is used to constantly vilify him. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is a soft communist and this makes him the people's hero.
There's also the legacy of the welfare state and its role in creating an entire underclass of people who think that they're entitled to a decent living simply by fact of having been born. They have been raised on the "The rich are the source of all your problems" mantra and readily flock to anyone who promises them more entitlements. Free college education! Free healthcare! Eat the rich to get the money for it!
And now Bernie, whose current religious affiliation is very much in question, is being called out for not being more "Jewish". Despite being the first Jew in American politics to accomplish what he has, he isn't waving the tribe's flag and there are those who are getting concerned about this.
Well should this be a surprise? After all, for the non-observant Judaism is very much an ethnic definition, possibly a religious one but not a national one by any means. Bernie is an American first, and really an American socialist first. His Jewishness might manifest in his eating borscht once or twice a year but not in a more meaningful way and if he is ever forced to mention it, it'll include some reference to social justice or another form of liberal bafflegab.
All this is secondary to his open political antagonism to Israel. Like a good liberal socialist, when given the choice between rooting for a democratic country where women and gays have full rights and a terrorist state where women are second class citizens and gays are illegal, he chooses the latter every time because according to socialists, you always support the perceived underdog even if that dog despises every liberal value you hold.
It should therefore not be a surprise that Bernie doesn't mention his Jewishness. It's not a factor to him. Only implementing the destruction of the American economy holds religious value for him.
In fact, if you tally the numbers in terms of ruined lives and mass murders, communism and its softer face, socialism, far outperformed the Fascists in terms of scale of depravity and length of time as an influential force. It is the never ending sympathy of the leftists who influence our cultural and historical awareness for those murderers that has created a society where the word "Nazi!" is an unforgiveable insult while "Soviet!" hardly raises a hair.
And so, enter Bernie Sanders. The senator who would be president is an unrepentant socialist, full of ideas that have repeatedly sunk economies and ruined societies. He swears allegiance to the political philosophy that, in its more extreme form, slaughtered tens of millions from the purges of the USSR to the Great Leap Forward in China and down to the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. And for those who think that comparing him to some of the worst murderers in history is a bit extreme, then take a step back and try to remember why Greece was in the news so much. Hint, it wasn't over tourism.
What is Bernie's secret? Well first there's the endless soft indoctrination of the media. Donald Trump is being touted as a soft fascist and this angle is used to constantly vilify him. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is a soft communist and this makes him the people's hero.
There's also the legacy of the welfare state and its role in creating an entire underclass of people who think that they're entitled to a decent living simply by fact of having been born. They have been raised on the "The rich are the source of all your problems" mantra and readily flock to anyone who promises them more entitlements. Free college education! Free healthcare! Eat the rich to get the money for it!
And now Bernie, whose current religious affiliation is very much in question, is being called out for not being more "Jewish". Despite being the first Jew in American politics to accomplish what he has, he isn't waving the tribe's flag and there are those who are getting concerned about this.
Well should this be a surprise? After all, for the non-observant Judaism is very much an ethnic definition, possibly a religious one but not a national one by any means. Bernie is an American first, and really an American socialist first. His Jewishness might manifest in his eating borscht once or twice a year but not in a more meaningful way and if he is ever forced to mention it, it'll include some reference to social justice or another form of liberal bafflegab.
All this is secondary to his open political antagonism to Israel. Like a good liberal socialist, when given the choice between rooting for a democratic country where women and gays have full rights and a terrorist state where women are second class citizens and gays are illegal, he chooses the latter every time because according to socialists, you always support the perceived underdog even if that dog despises every liberal value you hold.
It should therefore not be a surprise that Bernie doesn't mention his Jewishness. It's not a factor to him. Only implementing the destruction of the American economy holds religious value for him.
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
The Trump Card
It sometimes seems that the election campaign in the US for president never seems to end. With the Republican debates in full swing and the first primary in Iowa not so far away it's been interesting to watch, as a Canadian, the field in both parties and how various races are shaping up.
On the Democrat side there seems to be a foregone conclusion that it's Hillary Clinton's turn to run for president with Bernie Sanders in the running as a form of comic relief and diversion for the granola-eating wing of the party. In theory the Democrats should be in fine form. They've held the White House for the past seven years and are awash in money. It's interesting to note that despite this there are only two real candidates seriously running.
On the Republican side things are much more concerning. The party that gave us Ronald Reagan seems to not have been able to produce a genuinely towering figure since the end of his presidency. This time out is no exception. You have the usual bunch that seem to run every time with their limited ideas and token expressions but no one with an amazing vision to inspire the party and the nation.
And then there's Donald Trump.
I've avoided writing about him until now because frankly I think he's already gotten far more attention than he deserves but people have been asking me, "Lord Ironheart, what are your thoughts on the Donald?" So here they are:
Donald Trump is a Democrat plant.
Yes, you read that right. The current front-runner in the polls for the Republican nomination is really a Democrat in RINO clothing. Let me explain.
Let's say you're the Democratic leadership. You've got a small field of candidates which plays well for party unity but doesn't excite the voting public. Your lead candidate is a person who acts like she's entitled to be the next president and that actually running for the job is a necessary annoyance. She has poor public charisma to all but her most loyal supporters, her husband still overshadows her in every public appearance and the word "shrew" still crosses most people's minds whenever she opens her mouth.
Up against her you have a genuine socialist who's got a whole bunch of crazy ideas (as socialists always do) that, if implemented, would destroy America's economy in the name of "social justice". He's got the far left wing of the party, the section that's most likely to show up for things like primaries, all energized because they finally have a candidate openly campaigning on things they've always dreamed of. The vast majority of Americans, however, are turned off by people who say "Hey, let's be more like Greece and Spain!" with their 30-40% unemployment and frequent brushes with national bankrupty.
With a bunch like this, the Republicans could run a lacklustre candidate and still have a serious shot in 2016. What to do?
Enter Donald Trump.
Now, just like the Democrats have a left wing that is verifiably stupid, the Republicans have a right wing which is equally off the grid. These are the folks who still think Whites and Blacks shouldn't go to the same high schools or use the same water fountains. They're still miffed that Chrisianity isn't the official state religion or that women are allowed to work in "real" jobs and they hate immigrants from countries other that northern and western Europe.
Just like the radical fringe on the Democrat side, these folks are very politically active. They'll show up at any rally, always make it out to vote in whatever primary there is and campaign noisily. Like the Democrat fringe, they represent the worst of their party and are a turn off to potential middle of the road voters. Unlike the Democrats, however, they are far scarier and social unacceptable.
Imagine, if you will, the leadership of the Democratic party sitting with the Donald and telling him that since he has the ego and the money they want him to run for president... for the other side. They want him to be his blustering arrogant best, say all the worst things that will bring out the Republican radicals hooting and whistling. Be insulting, aggravating, and insufferable! It'll just turn those nutjobs on.
What's in it for them? Donald Trump as a Republican candidate is a sure fire way to ensure that Hillary Clintons wins in 2016. The Republican fringe will vote for him, sure, but the rest will be too disgusted and either vote Democrat or sit the election out. The entire Democratic party rallies around Hillary in the meantime, especially after Trump has made multiple misgynistic comments about her.
What are the clues that this is indeed the strategy? Consider that Donald Trump, for all his antisocial behaviour, is a successful and intelligent man. Yes, he likes being the centre of attention but what he's doing now goes far beyond logic or sense. He has turned himself into a stereotype and brought out the worst element of the Republican party while making it seem like they are the typical representatives of that group.
And if the Republicans don't let him run as their candidate or he doesn't win the primaries? He's already threatened to run as an independent and guess which party he siphons votes off of?
If he wins (hah!) he benefits. If he loses, he takes the GOP down to yet another defeat. What could make more sense?
On the Democrat side there seems to be a foregone conclusion that it's Hillary Clinton's turn to run for president with Bernie Sanders in the running as a form of comic relief and diversion for the granola-eating wing of the party. In theory the Democrats should be in fine form. They've held the White House for the past seven years and are awash in money. It's interesting to note that despite this there are only two real candidates seriously running.
On the Republican side things are much more concerning. The party that gave us Ronald Reagan seems to not have been able to produce a genuinely towering figure since the end of his presidency. This time out is no exception. You have the usual bunch that seem to run every time with their limited ideas and token expressions but no one with an amazing vision to inspire the party and the nation.
And then there's Donald Trump.
I've avoided writing about him until now because frankly I think he's already gotten far more attention than he deserves but people have been asking me, "Lord Ironheart, what are your thoughts on the Donald?" So here they are:
Donald Trump is a Democrat plant.
Yes, you read that right. The current front-runner in the polls for the Republican nomination is really a Democrat in RINO clothing. Let me explain.
Let's say you're the Democratic leadership. You've got a small field of candidates which plays well for party unity but doesn't excite the voting public. Your lead candidate is a person who acts like she's entitled to be the next president and that actually running for the job is a necessary annoyance. She has poor public charisma to all but her most loyal supporters, her husband still overshadows her in every public appearance and the word "shrew" still crosses most people's minds whenever she opens her mouth.
Up against her you have a genuine socialist who's got a whole bunch of crazy ideas (as socialists always do) that, if implemented, would destroy America's economy in the name of "social justice". He's got the far left wing of the party, the section that's most likely to show up for things like primaries, all energized because they finally have a candidate openly campaigning on things they've always dreamed of. The vast majority of Americans, however, are turned off by people who say "Hey, let's be more like Greece and Spain!" with their 30-40% unemployment and frequent brushes with national bankrupty.
With a bunch like this, the Republicans could run a lacklustre candidate and still have a serious shot in 2016. What to do?
Enter Donald Trump.
Now, just like the Democrats have a left wing that is verifiably stupid, the Republicans have a right wing which is equally off the grid. These are the folks who still think Whites and Blacks shouldn't go to the same high schools or use the same water fountains. They're still miffed that Chrisianity isn't the official state religion or that women are allowed to work in "real" jobs and they hate immigrants from countries other that northern and western Europe.
Just like the radical fringe on the Democrat side, these folks are very politically active. They'll show up at any rally, always make it out to vote in whatever primary there is and campaign noisily. Like the Democrat fringe, they represent the worst of their party and are a turn off to potential middle of the road voters. Unlike the Democrats, however, they are far scarier and social unacceptable.
Imagine, if you will, the leadership of the Democratic party sitting with the Donald and telling him that since he has the ego and the money they want him to run for president... for the other side. They want him to be his blustering arrogant best, say all the worst things that will bring out the Republican radicals hooting and whistling. Be insulting, aggravating, and insufferable! It'll just turn those nutjobs on.
What's in it for them? Donald Trump as a Republican candidate is a sure fire way to ensure that Hillary Clintons wins in 2016. The Republican fringe will vote for him, sure, but the rest will be too disgusted and either vote Democrat or sit the election out. The entire Democratic party rallies around Hillary in the meantime, especially after Trump has made multiple misgynistic comments about her.
What are the clues that this is indeed the strategy? Consider that Donald Trump, for all his antisocial behaviour, is a successful and intelligent man. Yes, he likes being the centre of attention but what he's doing now goes far beyond logic or sense. He has turned himself into a stereotype and brought out the worst element of the Republican party while making it seem like they are the typical representatives of that group.
And if the Republicans don't let him run as their candidate or he doesn't win the primaries? He's already threatened to run as an independent and guess which party he siphons votes off of?
If he wins (hah!) he benefits. If he loses, he takes the GOP down to yet another defeat. What could make more sense?
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Weep For The Future
For those who follow the news up in the Great White North these are actually tumultuous times out here in the tundra. In la belle province of Quebec university students have been rioting in the streets for several weeks over proposed tuition increases that the government wants to push through on them.
A little background: Quebec maintains the lowest tuition rates for post-secondary education throughout Canada, mostly as a result of the Rest of Canada (RoC) sending it money in exchange for the "privilege" of having the French live amongst us. Despite this endless suckling at the federal teat, the universities there are still tight when it comes to budgetary demands and so the provincial government decided to raise tuition an average of less than $1 a day for the next few years. Yes, less than it costs those students to buy coffee each morning before class.
Except that they haven't been in class. Rather they've been out on the street protesting. It's not only that they are violently against increase in tuition but they are now against any tuition whatsover. And when I say "rioting" I mean rioting. These are not peaceful demonstrations. What's more, the students have taken their "strike" position quite seriously, calling those students who want to continue to go to class "scabs" and physically blocking them from entering their schools.
In the face of this the response of the provincial government has been, well, wimpy. Pleas for calm have gone ignored. After meeting with the leaders of rioters the education minister resigned when she learned that the students' version of negotiations meant "Give us everything we demand unconditionally". Yesterday police finally broke up a blockage of rioters with tear gas in order to allow students to return to class only to have the teachers at that particular school announce that they couldn't teach for the next few days due to the psychological trauma those actions had caused them! This is not suprising given the general leftist tilt that Quebec has always suffered from. Apparently even the head of the teachers' union has expressed sympathy for the rioters and their goals.
This, for me, is the difference between the right and left sides of the political spectrum nowadays. Consider the two extremes in the United States. First came The Tea Party, a libertarian right wing political group dissatisfied with the elction of BH Obama and his socialist ideals to the presidency. After initial demonstrations which were almost never violent the movement got down to work, joined the Republican party and got members elected to office at various levels of government.
Then came the left wing equivalent, the Occupy Wall Street movement. They too started with demonstrations but unlike the Tea Party they quickly settled into a daily pattern, sitting on public land (thereby denying the tax paying citizens of the area, supposedly the folks they were there to demonstrate for, use of that land), smoking drugs and demanding all sorts of things that no mature economy could provide. And then when it got cold they went home. No joining the Democrats. No running for public office.
They were, after all, casualties of the nanny state in which people forget how to do things for themselves or how to seize initiative and instead sit back and whinge until the government does it all for them. Not for the OWS protestors are annoying things like elections and democracy. They would much rather stamp their feet, make their demands and then stare incredulously when society does jump to attention in order to satisfy their whims.
As bad as OWS was, the Quebec experience is far worse. What we are witnessing in Quebec is the end of what the welfare state does to a generation that never heard the word "non" (they're French, eh?) said to them. Until now they have shouted and received what they were shouting for. It is not a far stretch to saty that they understand that the government is constrained not by ideology but by financial reality, one they have no comprehension of. Why not riot if eventually their demands will be met without any compromise?
These are the future leaders of Quebec. And in the US, the OWS protestors would like to think they are the future leaders of society in the United States, the kind that walks into the corner office without having had to work their way up from the mail room. If these are our future leaders, then I weep for that future.
A little background: Quebec maintains the lowest tuition rates for post-secondary education throughout Canada, mostly as a result of the Rest of Canada (RoC) sending it money in exchange for the "privilege" of having the French live amongst us. Despite this endless suckling at the federal teat, the universities there are still tight when it comes to budgetary demands and so the provincial government decided to raise tuition an average of less than $1 a day for the next few years. Yes, less than it costs those students to buy coffee each morning before class.
Except that they haven't been in class. Rather they've been out on the street protesting. It's not only that they are violently against increase in tuition but they are now against any tuition whatsover. And when I say "rioting" I mean rioting. These are not peaceful demonstrations. What's more, the students have taken their "strike" position quite seriously, calling those students who want to continue to go to class "scabs" and physically blocking them from entering their schools.
In the face of this the response of the provincial government has been, well, wimpy. Pleas for calm have gone ignored. After meeting with the leaders of rioters the education minister resigned when she learned that the students' version of negotiations meant "Give us everything we demand unconditionally". Yesterday police finally broke up a blockage of rioters with tear gas in order to allow students to return to class only to have the teachers at that particular school announce that they couldn't teach for the next few days due to the psychological trauma those actions had caused them! This is not suprising given the general leftist tilt that Quebec has always suffered from. Apparently even the head of the teachers' union has expressed sympathy for the rioters and their goals.
This, for me, is the difference between the right and left sides of the political spectrum nowadays. Consider the two extremes in the United States. First came The Tea Party, a libertarian right wing political group dissatisfied with the elction of BH Obama and his socialist ideals to the presidency. After initial demonstrations which were almost never violent the movement got down to work, joined the Republican party and got members elected to office at various levels of government.
Then came the left wing equivalent, the Occupy Wall Street movement. They too started with demonstrations but unlike the Tea Party they quickly settled into a daily pattern, sitting on public land (thereby denying the tax paying citizens of the area, supposedly the folks they were there to demonstrate for, use of that land), smoking drugs and demanding all sorts of things that no mature economy could provide. And then when it got cold they went home. No joining the Democrats. No running for public office.
They were, after all, casualties of the nanny state in which people forget how to do things for themselves or how to seize initiative and instead sit back and whinge until the government does it all for them. Not for the OWS protestors are annoying things like elections and democracy. They would much rather stamp their feet, make their demands and then stare incredulously when society does jump to attention in order to satisfy their whims.
As bad as OWS was, the Quebec experience is far worse. What we are witnessing in Quebec is the end of what the welfare state does to a generation that never heard the word "non" (they're French, eh?) said to them. Until now they have shouted and received what they were shouting for. It is not a far stretch to saty that they understand that the government is constrained not by ideology but by financial reality, one they have no comprehension of. Why not riot if eventually their demands will be met without any compromise?
These are the future leaders of Quebec. And in the US, the OWS protestors would like to think they are the future leaders of society in the United States, the kind that walks into the corner office without having had to work their way up from the mail room. If these are our future leaders, then I weep for that future.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
The Rights of The Right
One thing I've always noted in Hollywood movies is that left-wing leaders and governments are portrayed as benevolent and freedom-loving while right-wing governments are seen as controlling and dictatorial. What fascinates me about this is how this is the opposite of real life.
One live example of this is the current political debate going on in the United States. On the right the Republicans are having one of the most boring nomination campaigns in history but the presence of Ron Paul and his strong libertarianism as well as the (waning) influence of the Tea Party is forcing the candidates to discuss such issues as individual freedom and the role of government in the lives of its citizens.
On the left, however, no such discussion is happening. Actually, it's quite the opposite. Two current themes are coming out of that side: (1) The government is right to expand its role into people's lives, especially in health care and (2) if you disagree with lefist views and values you are wrong and stupid.
Not of a different opinion. Not reaching a different conclusion. Wrong and stupid.
Now one can certainly appreciate the value of such an attitude. For one thing it saves you from having to actually defend your positions in any debate. Why go through the bother of having to develop an intelligent base for your position when you can simply slag the other side and declare its opinion null and void simply because it disagrees with yours?
What the definition of "legitimate scientist"? One who believes in global warming. If you don't, it doesn't matter how much information you have to back up your position. You can't be legitimate because legitimate scientists support global warming. Therefore your opinion doesn't count and it can be states that all legitimate scientists agree that global warming is a man-made phenomenon which will ultimately destroy all life on the planet.
Want to talk about abortion, possible on regulating it or restricting it so it doesn't act as a form of birth control? You hate women. You think they can't think for themselves. You're a evil person who wants women to die of septic shock from the complications of backstreet abortions. You couldn't possibly be reasonable because the definition of reasonable is "believes in abortion without restriction".
Consider the left's response to the rise of Rick Santorum in the Republican nomination race. Now, I'm not a big fan of Santorum. From what I've seen of the pathetic field of candidates I think that Mitt Romney is the most presidential and I base that on his haircut more than anything else. Frankly I think Newt Gingrich might do a good job of it but he looks like a troll. No Oval Office for him.
But it's the reaction to Rick Santorum that I find fascinating. It's visceral and hateful more than anything. Here's a guy who, unlike Romney and Gingrich, is offering a socially conservative platform. He's standing on things like restricting abortion, the role of religion in the public square and so on. And the left has been driven into a frenzy. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, two men whose jobs exist simply so the right can be made fun of, can't stop attacking him. The press is having a field day. "I can't believe he thinks that" and "I hope he doesn't win" seem to be the most popular things to say about him.
What happened to the democratic process? If Rick Santorum's view disagree with your then don't vote for him but is the left suggesting through their rhetoric that he has no right to those views at all? Is democracy for them a competition between left and lefter because other views are simply not allowed?
Perhaps the difference between the left and the right is best seen in the difference between the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. The latter organized, spread and then worked to put its representatives into office so they could influence the course of government. They didn't expect to change America by shouting but by proving their ideas in the political marketplace. The former hung out in parks, whinged and engaged in public vandalism and then went home when the weather turned cold. They had no interest in engaging in politics because they didn't think they should have to turn to something as banal as the democratic process in order to force their ideas down other people's throats.
Another great example is the recent statement of Justin Trudeau's up here in Canada. For America readers, Trudeau is the son of the most snobbish, arrogant and self-centered prime minister Canada ever had. For Pierre Eliot Trudeau others were inferior creatures designed to be remade in his image of what the average docile Canadian should be. It is no wonder that his son recently stated that if Canada, under its current (nominally) right wing government continued its crusade to change the country then he would consider supporting the separation of Quebec since la belle province would be the only "right thinking" place left.
Again, take a step back. The current government has said nothing about regulating abortion (currently completely unregulated up here) or curtailing homosexual marriage rights (currently available across the country). That didn't stop Trudeau from accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of imminently revoking eligibility for both. The lack of evidence of any actual attempts means nothing to him since Harper is clearly opposed to both and that's enough for him.
A final example is Canadian scientist-celebrity David Suzuki's musings recently that any politician opposed to accepting global warming as "fact" should be put in jail. Not voted out of office by the electorate. Not debated in a public forum. Jail. Why debate when your opponent is so obviously wrong? Why trust the election process when the people might make the wrong choice (ie. not yours)?
It is ironic that the leftist attitude that disdains any contradicting opinion to its own is ultimately what disqualifies them from being able to have intelligent debates. Perhaps in the future someone will arise from that side of the spectrum that is capable of articulating left wing positions intelligently but it doesn't seem to be the case now.
One live example of this is the current political debate going on in the United States. On the right the Republicans are having one of the most boring nomination campaigns in history but the presence of Ron Paul and his strong libertarianism as well as the (waning) influence of the Tea Party is forcing the candidates to discuss such issues as individual freedom and the role of government in the lives of its citizens.
On the left, however, no such discussion is happening. Actually, it's quite the opposite. Two current themes are coming out of that side: (1) The government is right to expand its role into people's lives, especially in health care and (2) if you disagree with lefist views and values you are wrong and stupid.
Not of a different opinion. Not reaching a different conclusion. Wrong and stupid.
Now one can certainly appreciate the value of such an attitude. For one thing it saves you from having to actually defend your positions in any debate. Why go through the bother of having to develop an intelligent base for your position when you can simply slag the other side and declare its opinion null and void simply because it disagrees with yours?
What the definition of "legitimate scientist"? One who believes in global warming. If you don't, it doesn't matter how much information you have to back up your position. You can't be legitimate because legitimate scientists support global warming. Therefore your opinion doesn't count and it can be states that all legitimate scientists agree that global warming is a man-made phenomenon which will ultimately destroy all life on the planet.
Want to talk about abortion, possible on regulating it or restricting it so it doesn't act as a form of birth control? You hate women. You think they can't think for themselves. You're a evil person who wants women to die of septic shock from the complications of backstreet abortions. You couldn't possibly be reasonable because the definition of reasonable is "believes in abortion without restriction".
Consider the left's response to the rise of Rick Santorum in the Republican nomination race. Now, I'm not a big fan of Santorum. From what I've seen of the pathetic field of candidates I think that Mitt Romney is the most presidential and I base that on his haircut more than anything else. Frankly I think Newt Gingrich might do a good job of it but he looks like a troll. No Oval Office for him.
But it's the reaction to Rick Santorum that I find fascinating. It's visceral and hateful more than anything. Here's a guy who, unlike Romney and Gingrich, is offering a socially conservative platform. He's standing on things like restricting abortion, the role of religion in the public square and so on. And the left has been driven into a frenzy. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, two men whose jobs exist simply so the right can be made fun of, can't stop attacking him. The press is having a field day. "I can't believe he thinks that" and "I hope he doesn't win" seem to be the most popular things to say about him.
What happened to the democratic process? If Rick Santorum's view disagree with your then don't vote for him but is the left suggesting through their rhetoric that he has no right to those views at all? Is democracy for them a competition between left and lefter because other views are simply not allowed?
Perhaps the difference between the left and the right is best seen in the difference between the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. The latter organized, spread and then worked to put its representatives into office so they could influence the course of government. They didn't expect to change America by shouting but by proving their ideas in the political marketplace. The former hung out in parks, whinged and engaged in public vandalism and then went home when the weather turned cold. They had no interest in engaging in politics because they didn't think they should have to turn to something as banal as the democratic process in order to force their ideas down other people's throats.
Another great example is the recent statement of Justin Trudeau's up here in Canada. For America readers, Trudeau is the son of the most snobbish, arrogant and self-centered prime minister Canada ever had. For Pierre Eliot Trudeau others were inferior creatures designed to be remade in his image of what the average docile Canadian should be. It is no wonder that his son recently stated that if Canada, under its current (nominally) right wing government continued its crusade to change the country then he would consider supporting the separation of Quebec since la belle province would be the only "right thinking" place left.
Again, take a step back. The current government has said nothing about regulating abortion (currently completely unregulated up here) or curtailing homosexual marriage rights (currently available across the country). That didn't stop Trudeau from accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of imminently revoking eligibility for both. The lack of evidence of any actual attempts means nothing to him since Harper is clearly opposed to both and that's enough for him.
A final example is Canadian scientist-celebrity David Suzuki's musings recently that any politician opposed to accepting global warming as "fact" should be put in jail. Not voted out of office by the electorate. Not debated in a public forum. Jail. Why debate when your opponent is so obviously wrong? Why trust the election process when the people might make the wrong choice (ie. not yours)?
It is ironic that the leftist attitude that disdains any contradicting opinion to its own is ultimately what disqualifies them from being able to have intelligent debates. Perhaps in the future someone will arise from that side of the spectrum that is capable of articulating left wing positions intelligently but it doesn't seem to be the case now.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Evil In Pious Garb
One of the fun things to do is watch the difference in post-mortems after an election between the Left and the Right. The Right inevitably draws out the knives and starts stabbing their own. The leader, or his assistants, or that guy who brought us the coffee at that last rally, someone has to be to blame. We're awful. If we weren't awful we'd have won. And so on.
In contrast, the Left adopts an attitude of bewilderment, follow by denial and ending in arrogance. At first there is disbelief that they didn't win the election. How could that be? They were clearly the obvious choice for voters except those who were too stupid to understand that so how could they have lost? Then there is a denial that the correct procedure was followed. Perhaps the results are wrong, or perhaps the right people didn't get out in time to vote. We did get the majority of votes but our stupid electoral system denied us the prize. Had things gone properly they'd have won, goshdarnit. Finally the true fact of the Left comes out: the people made a mistake. They didn't vote for us and that was wrong. Therefore the results don't count, we're really the winners and if the actual new government doesn't do as we say then they're bad, bad people for ignoring what the people really did vote for.
How else to explain Ms.Brigette DePape's idiotic protest during the new Conservative government's throne speech a couple of days ago? Other than a refusal to accept the results of the recent election because they didn't go according to her lefists views, what else is there to explain it?
Now, a brief primer for our America readers who might not be that familiar with parliamentary democracy. (Both of you pay attention!) In Canada we have a multi-party system dominated by four main parties (well one used to me, now it's awfully minor) and dozens of small, single-issue parties or others with grand dreams. When we vote in a general election we don't vote for a leader or a party but for candidates for the parties in our riding. There may be as many as a dozen people running for the riding's seat in parliament and the rule is simple: most votes wins.
Now there is an obviously problem with this system, called "first past the post". In a competitive riding a person could win the seat with only 30% of the popular vote. Nationally it takes 38-40% of the popular vote to get enough seats for a majority. In this last election the Conservative party under Stephen Harper achieved just that. What it means is that even though there is a majority government, it was elected by a minority of voters.
Now it is quite obvious to thinking people that this phenomenon will happen to both Left and Right. in 1990 the socialist New Democrats won the provincial Ontario election with 38% of the popular vote, for example. Jean Chretien's Liberals ruled Canada with a majority for 10 years but never cracked the 40% mark.
However, for the Left (remember I said "thinking people" so they're automatically excluded) there is quite a difference between when their side wins with 40% and when the Right does the same thing.
For example, during the dark days of Bob Rae's NDP government in Ontario protests against his fiscally and socially insane policies were dismissed with the statement "We're a majority government, we're doing what the people want". When Mike Harris and his Conservatives reduced the NDP to rump status in their 1995 electoral drubbing by getting 40% of the vote (2% more than the NDP had achieved), those same Leftists set out to deny legitimacy to the new government by insisting that since 60% of people hadn't voted for them they had no right to implement their agenda!
Ms. DePape, who if she hasn't experimented with hallucinogenic drugs should save her money since she's already in such a state, is clearly cut from this cloth. Look at the contents of her "press release", timed to come out during her protest:
Even as she was in custody, Ms. DePape immediately issued a press release, referring to herself as Brigette Marcelle, in which she said she had realized that working in Parliament wouldn't help her "stop Harper's agenda."
"This country needs a Canadian version of an Arab Spring," she wrote, "a flowering of popular movements that demonstrate that real power to change things lies not with Harper but in the hands of the people, when we act together in our streets, neighbourhoods and workplaces."
In a brief phone interview with the National Post after she was released from Hill security, Ms. DePape said she planned the protest because "I think that youth need to engage in creative acts of civil disobedience." She said she objected to the Conservative government's policies and that Canada needs "green jobs and a transition to a green economy."
Our version of an Arab spring? Of course, since Stephen Harper is ruling against the wishes of 60% of Canadians so he is clearly an unelected dictator willing to shoot his own people to maintain his place in power. That's why civil disobedience is necessary, obviously. As this piece notes:
DePape called for a “Canadian version of an Arab Spring.” That’s right, we should all take to the streets and demand free and fair elections — you know, like the one we had on May 2. Now you’d think that a college student would know that we enjoy the freedom and system of government that thousands of Arabs are fighting, and dying, to achieve. But she somehow thinks that our first-past-the-post system invalidates the entire democratic process. I suppose we should expect contradictions like this from someone who professes to support democracy, but took a job in the unelected Senate.
“Harper’s agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation,” reads a press release issued shortly after the incident. “We have to stop him from wasting billions on fighter jets, military bases, and corporate tax cuts while cutting social programs and destroying the climate. Most people in this country know what we need are green jobs, better medicare, and a healthy environment for future generations.”
Her press release claims that the Harper government is wasting money on the military. Now there’s certainly a case to be made that a country like the United States is spending way too much on its military and that these unnecessary wars and expenditures are costing lives and bankrupting the country. But the left has done a terrible job of importing this argument into Canada. We need to maintain a military force that is sufficient to protect our borders and fulfil our international obligations.
Ms. DePape is also against corporate tax cuts. Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do. When corporations have to pay more taxes, they offset the cost in one of two ways: Either by raising the price of the goods and service they sell (you know, the stuff we buy), or by reducing expenses. And reducing expenses is usually accomplished by moving jobs to jurisdictions that are more competitive.
But I don’t want to misrepresent her, as she’s not against jobs altogether. She wants everybody to have a “green job.” Do you think she knows what a green job is? It’s a code word for jobs that are created, and supported, by the government, rather than the market. Private jobs are created when companies provide goods and services that people actually want. The government steps in to create jobs when companies are producing things that people don’t want.
DePape’s future is one where our military cannot defend our borders, there are fewer jobs, and a massive debt to pay off. Her idea of democracy discounts any result that is contrary to her viewpoint. Does she think that’s what Arabs are fighting and dying for?
Please.
Ms. Depape, and those who think like her, deserve to be held in the highest contempt. People like her believe strongly in the "One vote, one person, one time and we'll fix the ballot box to make sure the correct results comes out" theory of democracy. They're all for freedom of expression as long as you express what they're thinking; freedom of belief as long as you believe what they do and they're the first to bring out the police in jackboots if you disagree with them.
The only thing more pathetic that Ms. DePape's little display (which helps those of us who think that the voting age is already way too low and that it's actually a good thing that most people under 25 don't show up on election day) is the milquetoast response of the Senators. Instead of strongly condemning this affront to the democratic system they supposedly support the best they could come out with was "But she's really a very nice young woman!"
Again, oh please.
Democracy is served best when the losing side recognizes that it is out of sync with the will of "the people" and decides to adjust its platform to better appeal to the masses, not when it arrogantly assumes the people should do what it says and treats the winning side like some of the worst scum humanity has to offer. In such a case the losing side, like Ms. DePape should look in the mirror: they look just like that scum.
In contrast, the Left adopts an attitude of bewilderment, follow by denial and ending in arrogance. At first there is disbelief that they didn't win the election. How could that be? They were clearly the obvious choice for voters except those who were too stupid to understand that so how could they have lost? Then there is a denial that the correct procedure was followed. Perhaps the results are wrong, or perhaps the right people didn't get out in time to vote. We did get the majority of votes but our stupid electoral system denied us the prize. Had things gone properly they'd have won, goshdarnit. Finally the true fact of the Left comes out: the people made a mistake. They didn't vote for us and that was wrong. Therefore the results don't count, we're really the winners and if the actual new government doesn't do as we say then they're bad, bad people for ignoring what the people really did vote for.
How else to explain Ms.Brigette DePape's idiotic protest during the new Conservative government's throne speech a couple of days ago? Other than a refusal to accept the results of the recent election because they didn't go according to her lefists views, what else is there to explain it?
Now, a brief primer for our America readers who might not be that familiar with parliamentary democracy. (Both of you pay attention!) In Canada we have a multi-party system dominated by four main parties (well one used to me, now it's awfully minor) and dozens of small, single-issue parties or others with grand dreams. When we vote in a general election we don't vote for a leader or a party but for candidates for the parties in our riding. There may be as many as a dozen people running for the riding's seat in parliament and the rule is simple: most votes wins.
Now there is an obviously problem with this system, called "first past the post". In a competitive riding a person could win the seat with only 30% of the popular vote. Nationally it takes 38-40% of the popular vote to get enough seats for a majority. In this last election the Conservative party under Stephen Harper achieved just that. What it means is that even though there is a majority government, it was elected by a minority of voters.
Now it is quite obvious to thinking people that this phenomenon will happen to both Left and Right. in 1990 the socialist New Democrats won the provincial Ontario election with 38% of the popular vote, for example. Jean Chretien's Liberals ruled Canada with a majority for 10 years but never cracked the 40% mark.
However, for the Left (remember I said "thinking people" so they're automatically excluded) there is quite a difference between when their side wins with 40% and when the Right does the same thing.
For example, during the dark days of Bob Rae's NDP government in Ontario protests against his fiscally and socially insane policies were dismissed with the statement "We're a majority government, we're doing what the people want". When Mike Harris and his Conservatives reduced the NDP to rump status in their 1995 electoral drubbing by getting 40% of the vote (2% more than the NDP had achieved), those same Leftists set out to deny legitimacy to the new government by insisting that since 60% of people hadn't voted for them they had no right to implement their agenda!
Ms. DePape, who if she hasn't experimented with hallucinogenic drugs should save her money since she's already in such a state, is clearly cut from this cloth. Look at the contents of her "press release", timed to come out during her protest:
Even as she was in custody, Ms. DePape immediately issued a press release, referring to herself as Brigette Marcelle, in which she said she had realized that working in Parliament wouldn't help her "stop Harper's agenda."
"This country needs a Canadian version of an Arab Spring," she wrote, "a flowering of popular movements that demonstrate that real power to change things lies not with Harper but in the hands of the people, when we act together in our streets, neighbourhoods and workplaces."
In a brief phone interview with the National Post after she was released from Hill security, Ms. DePape said she planned the protest because "I think that youth need to engage in creative acts of civil disobedience." She said she objected to the Conservative government's policies and that Canada needs "green jobs and a transition to a green economy."
Our version of an Arab spring? Of course, since Stephen Harper is ruling against the wishes of 60% of Canadians so he is clearly an unelected dictator willing to shoot his own people to maintain his place in power. That's why civil disobedience is necessary, obviously. As this piece notes:
DePape called for a “Canadian version of an Arab Spring.” That’s right, we should all take to the streets and demand free and fair elections — you know, like the one we had on May 2. Now you’d think that a college student would know that we enjoy the freedom and system of government that thousands of Arabs are fighting, and dying, to achieve. But she somehow thinks that our first-past-the-post system invalidates the entire democratic process. I suppose we should expect contradictions like this from someone who professes to support democracy, but took a job in the unelected Senate.
“Harper’s agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation,” reads a press release issued shortly after the incident. “We have to stop him from wasting billions on fighter jets, military bases, and corporate tax cuts while cutting social programs and destroying the climate. Most people in this country know what we need are green jobs, better medicare, and a healthy environment for future generations.”
Her press release claims that the Harper government is wasting money on the military. Now there’s certainly a case to be made that a country like the United States is spending way too much on its military and that these unnecessary wars and expenditures are costing lives and bankrupting the country. But the left has done a terrible job of importing this argument into Canada. We need to maintain a military force that is sufficient to protect our borders and fulfil our international obligations.
Ms. DePape is also against corporate tax cuts. Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do. When corporations have to pay more taxes, they offset the cost in one of two ways: Either by raising the price of the goods and service they sell (you know, the stuff we buy), or by reducing expenses. And reducing expenses is usually accomplished by moving jobs to jurisdictions that are more competitive.
But I don’t want to misrepresent her, as she’s not against jobs altogether. She wants everybody to have a “green job.” Do you think she knows what a green job is? It’s a code word for jobs that are created, and supported, by the government, rather than the market. Private jobs are created when companies provide goods and services that people actually want. The government steps in to create jobs when companies are producing things that people don’t want.
DePape’s future is one where our military cannot defend our borders, there are fewer jobs, and a massive debt to pay off. Her idea of democracy discounts any result that is contrary to her viewpoint. Does she think that’s what Arabs are fighting and dying for?
Please.
Ms. Depape, and those who think like her, deserve to be held in the highest contempt. People like her believe strongly in the "One vote, one person, one time and we'll fix the ballot box to make sure the correct results comes out" theory of democracy. They're all for freedom of expression as long as you express what they're thinking; freedom of belief as long as you believe what they do and they're the first to bring out the police in jackboots if you disagree with them.
The only thing more pathetic that Ms. DePape's little display (which helps those of us who think that the voting age is already way too low and that it's actually a good thing that most people under 25 don't show up on election day) is the milquetoast response of the Senators. Instead of strongly condemning this affront to the democratic system they supposedly support the best they could come out with was "But she's really a very nice young woman!"
Again, oh please.
Democracy is served best when the losing side recognizes that it is out of sync with the will of "the people" and decides to adjust its platform to better appeal to the masses, not when it arrogantly assumes the people should do what it says and treats the winning side like some of the worst scum humanity has to offer. In such a case the losing side, like Ms. DePape should look in the mirror: they look just like that scum.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Profound Ignorance
By now the fallout from the recent Helen Thomas scandal is starting to settle. For those of you who haven't yet heard, Ms. Thomas is a senior journalist in Washington For decades she has covered presidential press conferences and sat in the front row, enjoying a status as the "dean" of the press corp. As a traditional leftist she has naturally been anti-Israel and never shy about showing her bias but recently remarks she made regarding Israel showed up in a video that went viral over the Internet and brought an end to her career. In short, she told a rabbi who was interviewing her that Israeli Jews should go "home" back to Germany, Poland, America or wherever they came from.
Many articles have focused on the obvious, like how you can't expect six million people to simply pack up and leave a country because a group of terrorists want the land they're on. Others have sagely noted that the reason so many Jews left Poland and Germany in the first place was because they were chased out by the Holocaust and post-war pogroms. All of these views miss the point.
The point is that Helen Thomas simply does not know where Jews come from. We come from Israel. We were, in the words of British Prime Minster Benjanim Disraeli, serving as priests in Solomon's Temple when the northern Europeans were running around dressed in animal hide loin clothes and hunting their supper with primitive tools. What is more, despite explusion after explusion, there was never a time in history from the moment our ancestors crossed the Yarden River that there has been no Jewish presence in Israel. We do not speak in our prayers of "going" to Israel but "returning" to it for a good reason. If we were in Poland and Germany it was because that was where the tides of time and misfortune washed us up, not because we originated there and then decided to leave.
What's more, has Ms. Thomas not heard of Sephardi Jews? Is she a double racist, assuming that all Jews are of European ancestry simply because the liberal Democrat syncophants she rubs shoulders with generally tend to be? Should she not have also mentioned Morocco, Iraq and Iran in her little diatribe?
However, he real Jew-hating element of this episode remains underreported. Ms. Thomas, we are told, has retired from her profession as a result of her comments and for the lefist media this is considered fitting punishment. No human rights tribunal trial, no constant pillorying. She called it quits, and now let's leave her alone.
Could one imagine the left's reaction if a Fox new reporter had said something similar and been allowed to retirn? Could you imagine the outrage against the network? How dare you let him slip into the night untouched? Fire him! Blacklist him!
This is the subtle Jew-hating of the left. Ms Thomas will collect her pension, her career will remain one long success unsullied by the words "and then she was fired" in personal history and when no one is listening she'll tell her friends she was right and they'll nod but remind her not to say it in public.
Many articles have focused on the obvious, like how you can't expect six million people to simply pack up and leave a country because a group of terrorists want the land they're on. Others have sagely noted that the reason so many Jews left Poland and Germany in the first place was because they were chased out by the Holocaust and post-war pogroms. All of these views miss the point.
The point is that Helen Thomas simply does not know where Jews come from. We come from Israel. We were, in the words of British Prime Minster Benjanim Disraeli, serving as priests in Solomon's Temple when the northern Europeans were running around dressed in animal hide loin clothes and hunting their supper with primitive tools. What is more, despite explusion after explusion, there was never a time in history from the moment our ancestors crossed the Yarden River that there has been no Jewish presence in Israel. We do not speak in our prayers of "going" to Israel but "returning" to it for a good reason. If we were in Poland and Germany it was because that was where the tides of time and misfortune washed us up, not because we originated there and then decided to leave.
What's more, has Ms. Thomas not heard of Sephardi Jews? Is she a double racist, assuming that all Jews are of European ancestry simply because the liberal Democrat syncophants she rubs shoulders with generally tend to be? Should she not have also mentioned Morocco, Iraq and Iran in her little diatribe?
However, he real Jew-hating element of this episode remains underreported. Ms. Thomas, we are told, has retired from her profession as a result of her comments and for the lefist media this is considered fitting punishment. No human rights tribunal trial, no constant pillorying. She called it quits, and now let's leave her alone.
Could one imagine the left's reaction if a Fox new reporter had said something similar and been allowed to retirn? Could you imagine the outrage against the network? How dare you let him slip into the night untouched? Fire him! Blacklist him!
This is the subtle Jew-hating of the left. Ms Thomas will collect her pension, her career will remain one long success unsullied by the words "and then she was fired" in personal history and when no one is listening she'll tell her friends she was right and they'll nod but remind her not to say it in public.
Monday, 25 January 2010
Singular Worldview
Years ago a prime minister of Canada, seeking to create a historical legacy for himself, sought to bring Quebec into the Canadian constitution. As only historic fanatics seem to recall nowadays, when Pierre Trudeau patriated Canada's constitution from Britain in 1981, the province of Quebec refused to sign unless a clause was inserted identifying them as a superior form of life, language and culture. In one of the few good decisions Trudeau made during his tenure (retiring was the other), he refused and had the constitution signed without French approval. The subsequent prime minister, Brian Mulroney, hungry for a legacy other than "2nd most hated prime minister in Canadian history" (curiously, no. 1 at the time was Pierre Trudeau) sought to remodel the constitution so that Quebec would sign on. His first attempt, the Meech Lake accord, was torpedoed by a single native member of the legislature in Manitoba who refused to give unanimous assent to his province's approval of the deal. The second, the Charlottetown Accord, was sunk after Mulroney was forced to put it to a popular referendum and Canadians across the country, including Quebec, rejected it 60-40.
One could understand the government's disappointment with the failure of Meech Lake. After all, the national parliament and the legislatures of all the other provinces had approved it. One vote in one legislature sank what seemed to be the will of the people. But with the rejection of Charlottetown by the people themselves there should have been no question as to what Canada, as a democracy, wanted in terms of special accomodation for the enfants terribles of Canada.
This is not how some saw it though. In a classic remark, Joe Clark, a former prime minister himself and then a senior minister in Mulroney's government was asked what he thought about the referendum's result. His answer? "I think the people made a mistake."
Whoa, hang on. The people made a mistake? Listen, there are lots of cynical comments one can make about democracy. One can ask about the wisdom of leaving the choosing of the government to people who still buy Toronto Maple Leaf tickets and merchanise. One might note such pithy sayings as "People always get the government they deserve". But to say the people made a mistake? In a democracy, the electorate does not make a mistake. It chooses the government it wants irrespective of what elistist politicians think it should desire.
This comment has always stuck with me as an example of the difference between left wing and right wing reactions to political defeat. For the right wing, there is always self-condemnation. After John McCain was defeated by BH Obama, the Republicans began bashing themselves in a thrashing attempt to discover where they had gone wrong.
The left wing, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand the concept of defeat. If they are rejected by the electorate, their first assumption is that a tremendous mistake has occured. Was there gerrymandering of districts? Possible ballot box stuffing? Perhaps the electorate was high on pot (ironically it's the left wing that wants to legalize that). But the thought "No, the people rejected our agenda" simply does not occur to them.
Inevitably after a defeat, the left comes up with its signature belief: "The people weren't choosing the right wing. They really wanted to elect us but we've become arrogant so they wanted to punish us. Well, message received. Now can we go back into power?"
This singular worldview, "Democracy only works when we win" isn't confined to politics. Rights activists on the left also limit their interest in defending the oppressed to chic causes. As this article in YNet notes:
Yehuda Glick, one of the most prominent rightist activists in the struggle for equalizing the rights of Jews and Arabs on Temple Mount, indeed expressed his protest. He distributed a very harsh condemnation of Elad’s arrest among rightist activists. By doing so, Glick adhered to the democratic principle whereby even if one does not agree to anything another person says, one would nonetheless fight for the other person’s right to speak up.
Yet does the Association for Civil Rights in Israel also adhere to this principle? Not at all. On most days, it does not offer legal and moral assistance to citizens who do not share its worldview on the matters of peace and territories....
In fact, these associations barely made a sound when the rule of law abused rightist protestors during the period of the Gush Katif uprooting operation. Shamefully enough, these groups endorsed the uprooting operation, thereby making their current struggle in Sheikh Jarrah seem ridiculous.
It is up to thinking people to speak out and remind so-called rights activities that not just those people with politically correct views or ethnic/gender backgrounds are entitled to enjoy support. A right for one is a right for all and until the left realizes this, they must be called out on it. They are just as discriminatory and biased as their opponents they accuse of similar crimes.
One could understand the government's disappointment with the failure of Meech Lake. After all, the national parliament and the legislatures of all the other provinces had approved it. One vote in one legislature sank what seemed to be the will of the people. But with the rejection of Charlottetown by the people themselves there should have been no question as to what Canada, as a democracy, wanted in terms of special accomodation for the enfants terribles of Canada.
This is not how some saw it though. In a classic remark, Joe Clark, a former prime minister himself and then a senior minister in Mulroney's government was asked what he thought about the referendum's result. His answer? "I think the people made a mistake."
Whoa, hang on. The people made a mistake? Listen, there are lots of cynical comments one can make about democracy. One can ask about the wisdom of leaving the choosing of the government to people who still buy Toronto Maple Leaf tickets and merchanise. One might note such pithy sayings as "People always get the government they deserve". But to say the people made a mistake? In a democracy, the electorate does not make a mistake. It chooses the government it wants irrespective of what elistist politicians think it should desire.
This comment has always stuck with me as an example of the difference between left wing and right wing reactions to political defeat. For the right wing, there is always self-condemnation. After John McCain was defeated by BH Obama, the Republicans began bashing themselves in a thrashing attempt to discover where they had gone wrong.
The left wing, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand the concept of defeat. If they are rejected by the electorate, their first assumption is that a tremendous mistake has occured. Was there gerrymandering of districts? Possible ballot box stuffing? Perhaps the electorate was high on pot (ironically it's the left wing that wants to legalize that). But the thought "No, the people rejected our agenda" simply does not occur to them.
Inevitably after a defeat, the left comes up with its signature belief: "The people weren't choosing the right wing. They really wanted to elect us but we've become arrogant so they wanted to punish us. Well, message received. Now can we go back into power?"
This singular worldview, "Democracy only works when we win" isn't confined to politics. Rights activists on the left also limit their interest in defending the oppressed to chic causes. As this article in YNet notes:
Yehuda Glick, one of the most prominent rightist activists in the struggle for equalizing the rights of Jews and Arabs on Temple Mount, indeed expressed his protest. He distributed a very harsh condemnation of Elad’s arrest among rightist activists. By doing so, Glick adhered to the democratic principle whereby even if one does not agree to anything another person says, one would nonetheless fight for the other person’s right to speak up.
Yet does the Association for Civil Rights in Israel also adhere to this principle? Not at all. On most days, it does not offer legal and moral assistance to citizens who do not share its worldview on the matters of peace and territories....
In fact, these associations barely made a sound when the rule of law abused rightist protestors during the period of the Gush Katif uprooting operation. Shamefully enough, these groups endorsed the uprooting operation, thereby making their current struggle in Sheikh Jarrah seem ridiculous.
It is up to thinking people to speak out and remind so-called rights activities that not just those people with politically correct views or ethnic/gender backgrounds are entitled to enjoy support. A right for one is a right for all and until the left realizes this, they must be called out on it. They are just as discriminatory and biased as their opponents they accuse of similar crimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)