Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (315)	11/16/2000 6:20:31 PM
From: SofaSpud	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 37263

I don't have an answer for you; our priorities are different, so I've never spent time looking for a resolution. In the absence of an answer, I will make a couple of points: First, regarding priorities. Perhaps because I've encountered no more repression than the tyranny of political correctness and the attendant threat to a career, I'm not worried about your perceived risk of authoritarianism. To my mind, the more real danger is the ongoing undermining of our culture of democracy, civil society, and citizen engagement. I would argue that these have been gravely wounded over the last (generation?); if we're already not past the point of no return, how much longer can we last? I agree that in a perfect world Day would have a couple of years of seasoning on the national stage before becoming PM -- of course, that's why we're having an election now. The Liberal plan is to stay in power; JC wins this one, hands it over to (Tobin? Copps (yech)? Rock?) in two years, and you have a highly experienced fresh face, skilled in the dark arts of winning elections, against the no-longer fresh-as-a-rose Day. You have to hand it to the Liberals -- they're pros. IMHO, it's playing with fire to underestimate the damage to our society if the Liberals win another majority. I know we won't agree on this; I'm just getting it off my chest. Second, regarding the lack of specifics. I suspect there is a bit of a Reform-hangover happening. Reformers were great, thorough policy wonks. The naive buggers thought that all you needed to do was spell everything out in excruciating detail (the "Blue Book" was the abridged version; there were policy papers a mile high), and people would have the debate on the merits of policy proposals. I think we all know how well that worked. Selecting Day as a leader was in part a pendulum reaction to the Reform experience. Let's just go to the absolute opposite of a squeaky-voiced mousy policy wonk. I would agree that there is probably an appropriate middle ground. The newspaper columnists (e.g. Coyne, Watson) are saying, "the voters aren't stupid" so give us policy detail. Whether it's stupidity, indifference, or what, putting out lots of policy detail has not been a winning strategy in any Canadian election I can recall. I don't like it, I don't think it's right, but the received wisdom seems to be that you try to look good and hook into peoples' emotions if you want to win. Reminds me of Kim Campbell's infamous comment in '93, "An election campaign is not the time to discuss the issues." I owe you an apology, Kim -- it looks like you were right.

To: marcos who wrote (315)	11/16/2000 8:19:34 PM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37263

I am really saddened to see that so many people are susceptible to being sidetracked from the points the parties are trying to make. >If submitting to and paying for continued Liberal corruption is the only way to evade a religiously repressive regime then I would choose it as the least evil Of course, so would I. Thankfully, that is not the choice facing us. The Alliance is even broader-based than the Reform party was. Its core unifying themes are responsibility and respect. Most policies are derived from the fiscal responsibility theme. Day's social conservatism is not part of the platform. It is simply something the media sees as a personal weakness to be exploited. Or rather, an issue by which voters' gullibility can be exploited. I value my personal freedom above anything else. That is why I've decided to put my vote behind the Alliance. Being an empiricist, I will vote for the man that walks the talk for personal freedom. The Liberals have passed legislation that demonstrates their choice of political expediency over personal freedom - not to mention being counter-productive, expensive and invasive. It's not Liberal corruption that scares me, it's Liberal disdain for individual rights. Reform and the Alliance broke new ground in democracy in Canada. Their policies are derived from the most egalitarian analysis of fiscal issues ever done in Canada and reflect a consensus of opinion for the thousands of people that participated. Don't forget that the Alliance has more members than all the other political parties combined, and all were eligible to vote for the party leader. There were thousands of people from Ontario and around the country that participated. No other party has direct election of their leader; they all use 'delegates' that are courted and bought through back-room deals at their leadership conventions. Do you think Chretien could survive a direct vote of Liberal Party members? The Alliance and Day do not have a social policy because there is no consensus for one among the members. Day was elected party leader through direct election by the members. He got the leadership despite his beliefs, not because of them. He got the leadership because the membership liked his track record and thought he had a chance to win an election. He got the leadership because he understands what his mandate is, and he understands where his support comes from. The fact that the poor bastard was brought up in a deeply religious family has set back his learning curve a bit, but he'll cope. His lack of understanding of biology and geology will not handicap him a great deal as PM, at least not in the first term. JMHO, -g