What's wrong with everything, and how it should be fixed.... right now, by my political party.
Norman Spector:
Though politicians are in disrepute, half of Canadians don't have confidence in journalists either. It's therefore unclear who has more to lose in the confrontation between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and Stephen Harper, a freshly elected prime minister who appears to be connecting with Main Street. One need only peruse a few blogs on the left and the right to see what a pounding journalism is taking these days.
L.T.
I don't know whether this blog is on the left or right, I'll leave that for first-year poli sci students to determine since I don't care too much for false dichotomies. I'm only tempted to join no-pants parties, and I wouldn't join a party that would have me as a member. I do know that my most constipated posts have been regarding media commentary. Much of the commentary concerning the flag debate for example has been, according to Lysiane Gagnon, immature. I would go further and say that much of what passes for commentary in the national media is asinine juvenility. Hence, the rise of the oracle-blog and the contempt for traditional media.
What is discredited most in all this? It is the party structure that frames complex issues in black and what and tugs at our heart-strings to gain traction.
More Juvenility
Does anyone think it odd that the major debating point of the opposition parties with respect to Foreign Policy was that there should be a debate? First, that parliamentarians should need the permission of the government to debate something in THEIR OWN PARLIAMENT, something is seriously amiss (and this is a procedural problem in Parliament for the past 40 years). Second, the parties are so bereft ACTUAL foreign policy expertise, that their major debating point becomes procedural, arguing for more debates and votes. Yet perusing through their actual contribution to the debates, we realize that their contribution is minimal and displays an absolute disconnect between expert knowledge on the issue (ie. academic work and historical context) and the political class. Aside from a few senators, the foreign policy expertise in Parliament is stagnant. Shouldn't we demand a certain level of foreign policy learning at the political level? Shouldn't Canadians have a strategic culture like other grown-up countries, where certain politicians are actually able to make rational connections between what we say we like and what the Canadian government is actually able to do?
End of rant.
Though politicians are in disrepute, half of Canadians don't have confidence in journalists either. It's therefore unclear who has more to lose in the confrontation between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and Stephen Harper, a freshly elected prime minister who appears to be connecting with Main Street. One need only peruse a few blogs on the left and the right to see what a pounding journalism is taking these days.
L.T.
I don't know whether this blog is on the left or right, I'll leave that for first-year poli sci students to determine since I don't care too much for false dichotomies. I'm only tempted to join no-pants parties, and I wouldn't join a party that would have me as a member. I do know that my most constipated posts have been regarding media commentary. Much of the commentary concerning the flag debate for example has been, according to Lysiane Gagnon, immature. I would go further and say that much of what passes for commentary in the national media is asinine juvenility. Hence, the rise of the oracle-blog and the contempt for traditional media.
What is discredited most in all this? It is the party structure that frames complex issues in black and what and tugs at our heart-strings to gain traction.
More Juvenility
Does anyone think it odd that the major debating point of the opposition parties with respect to Foreign Policy was that there should be a debate? First, that parliamentarians should need the permission of the government to debate something in THEIR OWN PARLIAMENT, something is seriously amiss (and this is a procedural problem in Parliament for the past 40 years). Second, the parties are so bereft ACTUAL foreign policy expertise, that their major debating point becomes procedural, arguing for more debates and votes. Yet perusing through their actual contribution to the debates, we realize that their contribution is minimal and displays an absolute disconnect between expert knowledge on the issue (ie. academic work and historical context) and the political class. Aside from a few senators, the foreign policy expertise in Parliament is stagnant. Shouldn't we demand a certain level of foreign policy learning at the political level? Shouldn't Canadians have a strategic culture like other grown-up countries, where certain politicians are actually able to make rational connections between what we say we like and what the Canadian government is actually able to do?
End of rant.
posted by Lt Smash at 12:08 PM
1 Comments:
I find the partisan flavour of your comments amusing and not entirely unfair.
My concern is not with one individual. A new minister needs time to learn his portfolio, and the Harper government is still in its infancy.
The primary point is that we don't have many bright foreign policy lights in the entire Parliament, let alone the cabinet. There is a fundamental disconnect: Canadian politicians are largely able to articulate moral judgements on things happening in other countries. However, they appear to be incapable of rationally connecting these evaluations to a logical, feasible response by Canada. The ends and the means are not part of the debate. If they can't integrate and link ends and means, they may as well just start a blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home