Sorry, I Don't Get It

Scott Tribe points us to Reid Scott's defection from the NDP to the Liberals, today. Quite frankly I just don't get it. I can understand someone coming to the conclusion that they can't support the NDP because they are disappointed that the party seems to be moving away from social democratic principles in a bid to supplant the Liberals. That is an honorable and if I may say, reasonable observation. What I can't understand is the leap from "I can't support the NDP because it is abandoning its principles." to "I am therefore going to join the Liberal Party." Is the thinking here that since the NDP is selling out its principles, one might as well beat them at their own game and join the congress of whores known as the Liberal Party of Canada? That takes selling out to a whole new level. One I never wish to visit.

Recommend this Post

In For A Dollar

Chris Selley takes great umbrage at Rick Salutin's comparison of George Bush to Robert Mugabe:

In the Globe, Rick Salutin complains that Stephen Harper at the G8 summit “joined in piling onto Zimbabwe … for its ‘fraudulent election’ and ‘illegitimacy’” but “showed no sense of perspective: that the U.S. held a fraudulent election in 2000.” This is precisely why we don’t generally inflict him on Megapundit readers. For God’s sake, Mr. Salutin, you’re a grown man!

I don't know why, but Selley's remarks remind me of an old (and politically incorrect) joke, about a guy who is chatting up a woman he meets in a bar. He asks: "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Sure.", says the woman. "How about for twenty bucks?" "No, way. What kind of woman do you think I am?" "We have established that, my dear. Now we are just negotiating the price." I also know what kind of men Mr. Bush and Mr. Mugabe are and I find it touching that Selley would fight for George Bush's non-existent virtue.

Recommend this Post

Individuatarianism

Mike has called me to task for classifying Harper as a libertarian. I think that is fair game. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a classification out there for Harper and the new "conservatism". Neo-con is not descriptive enough for me, so I have come up with a new word, Individuatarianism. Individuatarianism is the marriage of a libertarian world view and an authoritarian style of governing. Individuatarians reject collectivism in any form. Collectivism is bad and is to be avoided at all costs. When in power, Individuatarians do not use state mechanisms to achieve collective goals. Instead Individuatarians see the state and its mechanisms as expressions and tools of an individual will -- the will of the leader, be it George Bush or Stephen Harper. The state gains its validity only in so far as it is seen as an instrument of the Individuatarian leader's vision. Any action taken by state apparatus perceived contrary to the leader's will is seen as collectivist retrenchment and therefore illegitimate in the eyes of Individuatarians.

Recommend this Post

Harper To Khadr: Drop Dead

Really, is anyone surprised by the news that Harper thinks that the military tribunal system is just okidokie? Rule of law really doesn't mean that much to the modern conservative radical libertarian (Ayn Rand Division) movment, because we all know that laws are for losers and suckers. The base will be thrilled (which is all that matters). Everyone else will be horrified. Another day in the life of the Harper "government" permanent revolutionary council.

Update:This quote from John Hutson (taken from the Washington Post link), the former Judge Advocate General of the United States sums up the Bush Administration's (and thus the Harper government's) attitude toward the idea of fair trials.

"We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."

Recommend this Post

Hang On, Just One Second

I read Lynn McDonald's condemnation of Jack Layton's stand on carbon taxes and I agree with her critique. Can you sense a but? But, I think she totally cops out with this sentence:

The particulars of Stéphane Dion's carbon tax plan are beyond the scope of this short comment.

I agree with your reasons behind the slap at Jack Layton. He is doing Canadians a disservice by condemning carbon taxes out of hand, but I really, really want a knowledgeable left-wing analysis of the Liberal proposal. It is what is on the table and while I am sure the Star has no problem printing a condemnation of Layton's attack on it, I would be more interested in getting your take on it. As it is, the article makes it look like you are tossing in your chips with the NDP and encouraging others to abandon them for the toxic embrace of the Liberal Party. If by any, tiny, chance You see this, send me an email. I would be glad to put up any essay you care to write about Stephane Dion's plan. Don't leave us all thinking that the Liberals have suddenly found virtue. That is just too laughable a conclusion to believe.

Recommend this Post

Two Frat Boys See The World

"I love it when we play 'Pull my finger'."

Recommend this Post

What Frank Rich Said

I am becoming more and more convinced that the political cultures of both the U.S. and Canada are riding on a parallel track to a dead end. Frank Rich expresses what is going on in the U.S., in today's column:

Let oil soar above $140 a barrel. Let layoffs and foreclosures proliferate like California’s fires. Let someone else worry about the stock market’s steepest June drop since the Great Depression. In our political culture, only one question mattered: What was Wesley Clark saying about John McCain and how loudly would every politician and bloviator in the land react?

Just substitute "Alberta" for "California" and "Garth Turner" and "Albertans" for "Wesley Clark" and "John McCain", then Rich's statement would fit perfectly, the political dynamic here in Canada. Both politics have been reduced to the level of schoolyard psychodramas, where gossip is currency and "Who's in and who's out?" is the only question anyone cares about.

Update: Nik Nanos points a finger at the Internet. He has a point, but I think it is a chicken and egg situation. Is the blogosphere a reflection of the greater political culture or the other way round? Myself, I think we have been heading in this direction for a long time. Paddy Chayefsky predicted it in the 1970's. Neil Postman wrote about it in the 1980's. We are a culture of of amusement and our media, including our news media, caters to this culture. Gotcha politics does not exist because of the existence of the blogosphere, it exists because it is entertaining and easy to understand and convey. It exists because it sells and it sells because we buy it.

Update 2: If you watch nothing else, watch the 14 minutes or so of Paddy Chayefsky (the two Chayefsky related links above) on the Dinah Shore Show (the Dinah Shore Show!). It is an interesting artifact. I doubt, very much, that a discussion on the state of the culture would dominate 14 minutes of a talk show in 2008.

Recommend this Post