Election 2011

[d_rawk]

Hard-core, do or die, no reason but Reason, Liberals, will try to re-group, but in my opinion, there is no place for "Liberalism" in politics any more... it's washed up. Democracy means voice, Liberal means I get to decide what I mean by liberal and who gets free.

Bold! Hella bold. I like your moxy, even as it makes me squirm

I recall reading a collection of essays once titled "Searching for the New Liberalism" and it was .. well, you know when you are trying to pee in the dark without hitting either the floor or the seat?

Green may fuÇk sh!t up if there is any opportunity for voice now. They could easily sneak through the back next time and grab a ton of seats by coalescing the mid-right and centre with the radical left, and eco-centric. Which could be a juggernaut for ever. Or not. who knows.

It's going to be interesting for sure to see what kind of traction the Greens can get going forward. If the voting system ever does get an overhaul, we could be looking at the Big Green Machine somewhere in the future. Fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and eco-minded - not a bad formula for winning Canadians' sympathies in general, and the hearts of disaffected Liberals looking for a new home in particular.

Actually, the prospect of a Liberal-Green merger makes vastly more sense than does the prospect of a Liberal-NDP merger or a Green-NDP merger.

The Greens are small-l liberalism defined. But again, what makes them unique from the big-L Liberal party would likely just get swallowed up and eventually eroded under any such marriage.

[Thorgnor]

The Libs need a leader, the Greens have one.

The Greens need an organization, the Libs have one.

could work.

I can't see the union happy NDP ever making the kinds of concessions the Greens would require. The NDP still in many oblique ways represents the interests of 'business,' just not the top heavy way the Libs and Cons have in the past. m2c

[d_rawk]

The Libs need a leader, the Greens have one.

The Greens need an organization, the Libs have one.

Fucking fantastic point. Hmmm.

I can't see the union happy NDP ever making the kinds of concessions the Greens would require.

It's no fun to always agree, but certainly agreed.

The NDP still in many oblique ways represents the interests of 'business,' just not the top heavy way the Libs and Cons have in the past.

Did you mean to type NDP here or Greens? For their part, the NDP has been proposing a substantial tax rollback - hike - for 'big business', and as you pointed out earlier, their sympathies tend to lie more with with worker .. that's the mud from which they emerged.

I don't understand them as representing the interests of business, at least not over and above the interests of the welfare of those beholden to it. I'm talking about the federal party here, of course .. the provincial incarnations are a subject in their own, and I don't feel qualified enough to give any meaningful comment on them other than as a historical afterthought (I could talk endlessly about the Ontario NDP's electoral success under Rae, if anybody would listen to me .. but nobody wants to)

I have to assume you meant the Greens - who genuinely do have the interests of 'business' at heart and make no qualms about it. They are gentler under May than they were under Harris, but it is still fundamental party strategy.

[Thorgnor]

By 'business' I meant economics, which the Greens surely have a more radical, and arguably less divisive plan for, but which is second in their plans to something else. The NDP can never leave behind the idea that whether they were for the boss or for the laborer, they were always mostly about the economy (which for some may seem a ridiculous assertion, but consider their efforts to institute compensation for 'affective' labor; household work, care, etc.). The Greens may have more palatable platform statements about business reformation, but their focus is, and this is truly radical in Canadian politics, not entirely anthro-centric, or worse, economic in it's treatment of politics.

Most of the time, most people would agree if they spent the time to figure out what the other person meant by the words they chose.

[d_rawk]

Most of the time, most people would agree if they spent the time to figure out what the other person meant by the words they chose.

Probably true - and doubly important when engaging with Yours Truly in conversation (I tease, Beats)

I'm glad that I asked for clarification. It's an interesting point about anthro-centricity and it truly would be a radical departure from the political status-quo if we could legitimately give the Greens a gold star on that. I'm unsure - to use May's own (borrowed) line “the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment" .. credit for recognizing that relationship and the severity of it, but it is still economic and human-oriented in its thrust (I'm not willing to go so far out on a limb as to suggest that there is anything wrong with that whatsoever) But even Marx made similar observations and proclamations (capital abuses the soil as much as it exploits the worker) and we wouldn't say that Marx exists outside of economics.

I'm dubious of the notion that ecology and economy are divisible, and aren't just different lenses by which to look at the same thing. They might be just as wrong as me - and I am more likely to be wrong than not - but the Greens seem to agree.

The first plank of their platform is economic, and the first words of their motto are "smart economy". Harris, who arguably shaped the modern Green party of Canada self-identied as an eco-capitalist and that tradition remains strong throughout the ranks.

All of that said, while it all may still boil down to human-centric and economic interest, they sure do bring something refreshing to the table. The NDP has the rut of the socialist vs social democratic vs democratic socialist arguments and language that, frankly, feel a bit antiquated. Luckily they don't have that debate publicly, but it is always there. And that's acceptable to me - they are an old party with a rich heritage that came out of those movements. But young blood and fresh ideas are awesome, and 'social democracy vs. eco-capitalism' makes for a more interesting debate than 'social democratic vs. democratic socialist' or 'social democracy vs. liberalism'

[Thorgnor]

A heritage begun by Levelers?

I'd quote Metallica on this one.

"You level me, I'll level you."

It's exactly this that confuses the shit out of me when the political argument arises in Canada. Which side will chose to be Levelers, which side chooses to hold fort, and which way is the public sympathy swinging at the time. The old Cons were all for co-ops, it was smart business to make unions and rackets. The Libs of the time thought that would infringe on business freedoms. Now we have the Cons attempting to free business from the shackles of social responsibility, as any good Libertarian would believe to be the truth anyways, while the New Democrats, all about the freedom to speak, seem blind to the fact that they have become Levelers, and that is what most terrifies the rich business minded Conservatives to mobilize against them. The sides have switched on the parties, and the people have forgotten what they mean when they speak. Now politicians speak past us, and we hope not to be snared in the process of being freed from our property or of being leveled.

sad.

sorry for the ramble.

[d_rawk]

Solution?

(I'm not sure I understand the disdain for the levellers, but then I'm also not sure I understand why people like apple pie. What the CCF brought to the table are the very things Canadians tend to hold most dear and take pride in .. and the levellers, I mean .. elected representatives, universal suffrage, codified rights guaranteed by law, a separation of Church and state .. all stuff we take for granted now)

[SaggyBalls]

Codified rights guaranteed by law aren't 'Canadian'...the Magna Carta provided that under Common Law.

[d_rawk]

Yeah, but the levellers weren't Canadian either. I'd understood Thorgnor to be using them as something of an analogy.

On reflection, I realize my error. Where I said codified rights guaranteed by law, this did already exist. Inalienable natural rights by which the law was just a tacit recognition (admission?) is more to the point that I meant to make but worded incorrectly. In the first instance 'rights' are something granted to you from on high, in the second instance 'rights' are something inherent that you defend.

[Thorgnor]

I'm not saying they were all bad at all, but I am saying that a certain group, who often leveled in practice, fear the threat of levelers. level.

No disdain on my part, I would say I'm one, but it does seem to be one of the most contentious points of my own beliefs when I talk to people who are afraid of taxes. They don't want to be involved in paying taxes, but are often most charitable in practice. again, I find this slippage back and forth confusing.

Which Canadians hold these things dear? all of'em? It'd be sweet, but that's the whole argument against socialist thought, it levels, as if we all think, feel, and deserve the same things, which isn't true in all cases as far as Canadian law and society is concerned (remember those who break the social contract step outside of its protections).

No solutions here. I like agonism. More conversation, more debate, more talk, whatever, but fewer 'solutions,' fewer 'resolutions,' and fewer 'dis-solved' people. It might be the way to go if we want the state to be worth keeping around at all. To be dissolved is to be made indistinguishable, or invisible. To be resolved is to stop considering. To solve is to permanently 'fix,' like rigor mortis. It's a bad set of words.

I do think that more talk would mean more education, not just movement of information as if it was transferable with capital but actual dialogue, story-telling, and learning from listening, not just moving to the beats cause thinking about the words is too hard (and I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's so very limited still).

[d_rawk]

Yours Truly, you've got me thinking now about Ignatieff's "Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry". It was my first exposure to Michael Ignatieff, back in the early 2000s. What was crushingly disappointing about it was that he laboured so hard to reconcile the schism between sanctioned and natural rights, but in the end, was unsuccessful. It may have been one of my earliest moments of questioning reform-liberalism. I was young and radical then. Now I'm just old and out of patience.

Somewhere, I have a long review of that work and counter-points to every chapter. I'd love to find it. I wonder if I would even still agree with myself.

but it does seem to be one of the most contentious points of my own beliefs when I talk to people who are afraid of taxes. They don't want to be involved in paying taxes, but are often most charitable in practice. again, I find this slippage back and forth confusing.

This is hard. I hit up against this all of the time. I suppose a lot of it is the sense that taxation is something that happens to you, and charity is something that you actively do. So it is a loss of control. Feeling more politically empowered, so that you recognize that you were a legitimate part of the decision making that lead to that money being collected would help. Like putting money into the church collection tray. Facilitating that feeling of actual political empowerment will require a system that delivers it. ie, we have to stop lying.

Which Canadians hold these things dear? all of'em?

No, not all, most. I've even met people who claim to not enjoy sex -- there is no 'all' in anything. I don't think that legitimate democracies even pretend as such.

Public healthcare is still trumpeted as the big trophy - the pride of prides - of Canadians, generally (whether it is broken or not). That is one example of what came out of the CCF left movement. Wasn't Tommy Douglas voted as the most important Canadian in some CBC special or other? I'm suggesting that Canadians by and large consider these things dear, and by and large identify with those underlying values (where is my heady DEM to interject about the dangers of identity politics?) Some of this has to do less with any objective measure of success as it has to do with shared cultural emblems and a sense of distinction from our neighbours, but it is there just the same.

remember those who break the social contract step outside of its protections

Ouch, yes. A sensitive topic for me. Thank fucking God (and in the interest of not being mis-understood, because it can be hard to tell what should have been in purple or not - there is no sarcasm, irony, or insincerity in this statement) that prisoners are allowed to vote.

Why do I have a feeling that someone is going to bring up Rousseau?

I like conversation too. Agonism and all In fact, I've been subterfugely trying to re-enlist Birdy onto the board as she used to be the token voice of dissent.

[Thorgnor]

Why do I have a feeling that someone is going to bring up Rousseau?

Oh, he's already been broughten!

[d_rawk]

You seem like you'd be a really good guy to hang out with and banter with. We agree and disagree in just enough ways to make it interesting.

We did meet, once or twice, at Come Togethers. You were the male lead of he giver gang, I think. Maxwebster informed me that you were quite competent at free-style rap, because he thought that I would think that to be pretty cool. I think he even suggested that we ought to battle. (This was before my Tourette's exploded -- I can't do rhythm or rhyme anymore)

On Rousseau - was always a fan. I even forgave his Catholicism (That's kinda a joke)

[Thorgnor]

Indeed. I've become less competent at rapping, but I've compensated by actually having something to say.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Guest
By 'lead' do you mean most obnoxious?

[Birdy]

Awww!

Hello.

I've decided to give up nationally... off to a council meeting. Municipal politics are where it's at! Canada's too effing big for me. I can drink with my local politicians and send them 50 emails and it doesn't even annoy them. They actually respond! We're fb friends!

I said somewhere else that politics is a sham, it's not, it's just all in who holds you accountable. The Feds are held accountable by corporations with way more money than i can even imagine, my local councillors, by ME!