So the ex-Honourable Brian Mulroney is under investigation once again. Aside from the obvious question, who doesn't believe that this man is dirty? This self proclaimed greatest Prime Minister, is in hot water again, I intensely disliked him when he was in power, and felt that he was toadying up to Ronnie Reagan and the Americans far too cozily. But at this point, I must admit that I feel some sympathy for him, not only did he follow perhaps the most charismatic
and most recognizable Prime Minister this country ever had, but he also was nearly invisible for the past twenty years. His party seemed to want to distance themselves from him and it wan't until the inaugural leadership race of the Conservative party, after the joining of the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties, that his legacy was even mentioned.
The enormity of ego required to even consider rising to the leadership of this country can not be overstated, I can only imagine the personal hurt and indignation of being relegated to some shadowland that dare not be mentioned.
After clawing his way back to some repectabilty, now this, and his party again turns their collective backs on him. This must hurt as much as facing the inquiry.
I always felt that he didn't truly understand this country, his allegiance with the U.S., the gutting of the CBC, his dismantling of the national energy policy (popular in Alberta, but no
where else), the GST, NAFTA, the throwing of the dice over Constitutional reform. I can explain why in each of these policy decisions he exhibited either no understanding of or respect for the sensiblities of Canadians. I will no doubt speak to these issues in the coming days. But this is about a man, not about his place in history. Do I too readily accept corruption? Is my willingness to put that aside for the moment a show of weak-kneed sentiment? Perhaps.
But I am of the mind that no one enters the political sphere pre-corrupted. I truly believe that everyone who enters this field believes that they can and will make a difference, and that act is an honourable pursuit. The dishonour follows, when what becomes most important is the power, the next election, and the inevitable (or so it seems) clinging to the status quo, so long as you are part of that staus quo.
In a field where the hale glad hander is the norm, I sympathize with the poor fool who has no hands to shake, who's friends abandon him so readily. It's sad. Even if understandable, it's sad.
Speaking of shamed ex P.M.s Jean Chretien is on the book tour......Okay so here's my bias, I was never much of a fan, but I remain convinced that one day he will be considered the greatest P.M. in our history. A wild claim, he was only a Trudeau foot soldier! But listen...before his election, If we can all try to remember, there were a number of things going on in the country.
We were being told that the deficit was crippling, and was forever going to be an impediment to true economic growth. The seperatist movement in Quebec was at an all time placement in the polls. We were hearing that Medicare in this country might not be sustainable, and that some assumptions we made about the kind of society we could afford to be were being questioned.
Canadian culture, Canadian identity were at an all time low, we seemed to be on the verge of becoming the 51st state. NAFTA was grinding our souls into dust.
Now please listen, with an open mind, In the hands of Jean Chretien, the deficit crisis was averted, when's the last time anyone even mentioned national debt as a problem?
When he left office, there was a Liberal government sitting in the National Assembly in Quebec Cite, when is the last time anyone heard the sovereignty word?
He ran a campaign based on having a values based society, that included inclusiveness for it's citizens, a commitment to universal health care, and a commitment to allowing our charter to protect the rights of minorities.
Culture? He made us feel good about ourselves, who doesn't read Canadian? From Yann Martel to Margaret Atwood? Who doesn't own a large selection of Canadian Music, From Celine to Broken Social Scene,? Who among us doesn't know when someone on an American television program is Canadian? Who is not aware that the Grey Cup is this Sunday? How did he do this.
A very short sweet statement. We will not be sending troops to Iraq? How sweet!!!
He defined us at that moment as a multi-cultural , multi-nationed country that believes at it's core in the concept of Multi-lateral thinking.
My view of two very different, disgraced ex-leaders of this country. One sadly, relegated to live in shame, the other, the little guy from Shawinigan rising to posture again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hello Rob,
Thanks for reading my post. I appreciate the feedback. Don't worry about offending me...I'm not too easily offended and don't normally feel attacked easily.
First of all, it's possible that America would have gone to war with Iraq even if there had been a Democrat in the White House. However, since the decision was based on faulty intelligence and the Bush administration is somewhat notorious for not looking into things closely enough, going to war with Iraq was in large part due to misinformation. The Senate definitely should have been more wary of endorsing the the war, but I also think that had a Democrat been in the White House, it would have taken a lot more time to initiate military action, and perhaps by then the faulty intelligence would have been revealed for what it was. Since the initial vote to go to war with Iraq, and really for the last three years, nearly all the Democratic senators have been trying to get us out of Iraq, and in their campaigns, nearly all of them have "apologized" for their poor decision making in the initial strike against Iraq. I personally was against going to war with Iraq from the beginning and, while of course the American News Media jumped right on the band wagon, there were also a lot of Americans who weren't on board. During the last election, those of us who wanted to get out of Iraq and get things back on track voted for Kerry. Unfortunately a lot of the country was still under the delusion that Bush knew what he was doing.
As far as this election goes, it seems crucial that we move away from the conservativism that has plagued the American government...however short that step may be. Having a two party government is, of course, extremely problematic and I hope that one day that will change, but as of right now, we have to work with what we've been given and as the more left-leaning party right now is Democrat, that's what I think we should be going with. Things won't change overnight - no worries, I'm not that delusional. But progress is progress. I'm not for overthrowing the government at this point in my life, and that would really be the only way to completely eradicate the two party system.
However, I would like to point out that, at this point, there are some drastic differences in party lines. A majority of the Democratic candidates, for example, are serious about pulling our troops out of Iraq and revamping American foreign policy, as well as balancing our budget (we're in an enormous deficit right now), solving the health care crisis, repealing the Patriot Act, education reform (like getting rid of the No Child Left Behind act that is actually crippling many students and teachers across America), giving power back to the congress, and appointing judges to the Supreme Court who will uphold civil liberties. The Republican candidates, on the other hand, support "getting the job done" in Iraq, privatizing social security and health care, have very little to say about education or welfare reform, and have little to no regard for civil liberties, claiming "national security" as a reason to take away the privacy of our citizens, and many of them would be unwilling to give up the executive powers Bush has usurped from the congress. A lot of them also oppose same-sex marriage and abortion, and would like intelligent design taught in science classrooms. Now, whether or not it will truly make a difference in the long run which party we go with is up in the air. As much as a candidate wants to get done, a lot of it depends on the cooperation of the congress...however, a democratic candidate seems like the best choice at this point in time. I personally support Clinton, but I also like nearly all of the other Democratic candidates and will gladly back whoever gets the nomination in the general election.
Anyway, I do actually really like the Canadian government (as much as any government can really be "liked" - they all have so many issues!), as well as the governments of Germany and several other European nations...I am definitely extremely socialist in my political views and admire left-leaning governments who have managed to successfully help their citizens and citizens of the world while also leaving them liberty to live their lives as they see fit. Of course, I don't expect any government to ever become "ideal" or stop making mistakes and no government 100% lines up with what I think a "government" should be - but to see them come closer to ideal is always a good thing. That's what I'd like to see America become. We have a lot of potential to do good in this world, if only we could tap into it.
So vive le Chretien.
And Boo on Bush. and harper. harper doesnt even qualify for a capital letter right now...
that is my final opinion.
:D
Post a Comment